1999 Supreme(Bom) 744

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(O.O.C.J.)
Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J. S.H. Kapadia, J.
Sneha Mandal Co-operative Housing
Society Limited others ..... Petitioners
.
Versus
The Union of India through The Secretary
to the Ministry of Environment Forests others..... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 2475 of 1998, decided on 1-10-1999.

Headnote:2 -Section 2(2)-Construction of Helipad.- The construction 01 the helipad was required for Air transport service to be used for the flights for the transport of the officers of the company on regular basis but twice in a week for a series of Landings and departures. Hence, the prior permission and licence is necessary to be obtained from the Central Govt. under the Rules 11 of the Air Craft Rules.

       Environment Protection Act, 1986

       Change of user.- The plot being used as garden was situated within the 500 metres of High Tide live abutting sea coast on two sides on in which Road was proposed on the portion of the plot when the notification was issued. Now the change of using the garden into the play ground to Govt. Housing Scheme by the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning body was proposed which is not permissible without approval from the Coastal Zone Management Authority.

       Permission of Environment Ministry.-A Helipad was to be constructed for transporting officers of the Tata Electric Company in any emergency known as an operation construction. The plot on which the construction was to be made was surrounded by hotments and multi storied buildings with a part abutting to the sea. Since the plot in question was not marked as helipad in Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Plan, the prior permission for using the plot as helipad is required from the Environment Ministry as well as the Management Authority.

       Section 3(1)-CRZ notification dated 19.2.1991, Clause 3(2) (ii)Maharashtra Costal Zone Management Plan-Lei pad construction Surrounding of plot by human habitant-Plot attached to sea-Requirement of Helipad for transportation Construction as Operation Construction -Requirement of permission from environment ministry-No embarking of plot as helipad in management plan-Permission of Coastal Zone Management Authorities necessary to construct Helipad.- That operational constructions such as jetties, wharves, slipways require prior permission of MOEF. In fact, in the present matter, the correspondence indicates that pern1ission has been sought from MOEF for construction of helipad. A bare reading of the above Clause indicates that all operational constructions requires environn1ental clearance from MOEF. The said Clause is not exhaustive. For example, jetties, wharves and slipways form part of operational constructions. These constructions are required for Ports, herbalist, lighthouses and other activities for vessels to come towards to shoreline, particularly in cases of water transport which is the need of the hour for Mumbai. Jetties are required to be constructed. Similarly, wharves are required to be erected. All these form part of operational construction. To our mind, construction of helipad is also a part of an operational construction. In the circumstances, on a bare reading of the above clause, we are satisfied that part of the plot cannot be used as a helipad without clearance from MOEF.

       Sections 3(1) and 3(2)(v) CRZ Notification dated, 19.2.1991, Clauses 2 and 3, Annexure 1-Govl. of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) Notification dated 9.7.1997-MOEF Guidelines dated 27.3.1998-Bulk receiving station Construction of-Challenged by filing PIL-Construction, a breach of Environment Act-Investment of huge amount-Public Interest can prevail in competition-CRZ Notification does not affect construction.- The Central Government has constituted an authority to be known as Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority vide Notification dated 26th November, 1998. The said Authority is empowered to take certain steps to protect and improve the quality of coastal environment and to prevent abating and controlling environmental pollution in coastal areas of the State. The said steps include examination of proposals for changes/modifications in classification of CRZ areas; enquiry into cases of alleged violations of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act. 1986, review of cases involving violation of the provisions of the Act etc. The said Notification also empowers Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority to file complaints under Section 19 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Authority is required to ensure compliance of all conditions laid down in the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan for the State of Maharashtra.

       Rule 5(3) read with Sections 3(1) and 3(2)(v).-Construction of the Bulk Receiving station on the Plot No. 148 was to made by Tata Electric Company falling in CRZ II which is developed area is adjoining to the authorised structure leaving no space behind it. An imaginary live should have been drawn from seaward side which was not practically possible. The construction was being done from last 7 years on which a huge amounts have already been spent and the station was to function as integrated plan including existing sub-stations. With the result a large public interest was involved. In view of the above situations there was no violation of CRZ notification.