The Futala Lake is a man-made waterbody, not classified as a wetland under the 2017 rules, thus constructions around it are not in violation of those regulations.

JUDGMENT :

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

Leave granted.

1.1 Heard learned Senor Advocate Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan for the appellant, learned Solicitor General Mr. Tushar Mehta for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 8, learned Additional Solicitor General Ms. Aishwarya Bhati for respondent Nos.8 and 9, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shekhar Naphade for respondent No.3, learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.K. Mishra for respondent No.4, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu for respondent No.5, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Rohit Anil Rathi for respondent No.6, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul for the intervenor, along with the respective assisting learned advocates, at length.

2. The appellant-original petitioner addresses challenge to the judgment and order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay¹[Hereinafter, “High Court”], whereby the High Court disposed of the Public Interest Litigation No.4 of 2023 with certain observations and directions, declining to grant prayers made in the petition.

2.1 The petition before the High Court was filed by the appellant-Swacch Association-an organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as also under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, claiming to be a body engaged in the green practices and for promoting a healthy environment, in which a grievance was raised in respect of certain constructions and recreational activities set up in and around the Futala Lake²[Hereinafter, “Futala Tank”] in Nagpur City, Maharashtra. The case put forward by the appellant was that the said Futala Lake was a ‘wetland’ and it ought to be protected for its environmental value and that the constructions which were made thereat were of permanent nature.

2.2 What was prayed was to declare that the installation of Musical Fountain and machinery thereof inside the body of the Futala Lake was illegal and against the public trust principle. It was further prayed to declare that the construction of the Viewer’s Gallery on the bank of the Futala Tank was also illegal. The third prayer was for issuance of direction against respondent No.5-Nagpur Metropolitan Regional Development Authority to remove the Musical Fountain and the related set-up installed inside the body of the Futala Tank and to restore the Tank to its original state.

2.3 The fourth prayer was advanced for directing respondent No.3-Municipal Corporation Nagpur and respondent No.4- Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation to demolish the viewer’s gallery. Yet another prayer was made to declare that the construction of the Parking Plaza on the land bearing Khasra No.13/3 at Mauje Futala was contrary to the zone shown in the sanctioned development plan for Nagpur. Also, a direction was sought against respondent Nos.3 and 4 to demolish the building which was under construction on the said land.

2.4 Interim prayers were made seeking a restraint order against respondent No.4 from carrying out further construction of the Parking Plaza as also against respondent No.5 from holding of Musical Fountain Show, Laser Show and Multimedia Show at the Futala Tank.

3. The case of the appellant before the High Court and further emphasised before this Court was inter alia that in the guise of beautification and in the name of recreational activities for the people, the respondent authorities had proceeded to construct and erect the Viewer’s Gallery on the bank of the Futala Tank and had installed Musical Fountain in the body of the Tank. It was the grievance of the appellant that the construction of nine storeyed building near the Futala Tank