IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
DIPANKAR DATTA, G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.
Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai - Appellant
Versus
The Bombay Environmental Action Group (BEAG) & Others - Respondent
Writ Petition (ST.) No. 8571 of 2020
Decided On : 05-01-2021
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai - Environmental Protection - Coastal Zone Regulations - [Coastal Zone Regulations] - The court allowed the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to undertake the project subject to compliance with necessary norms and conditions imposed by the statutory authorities.
Fact of the Case:
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai sought permission to execute a project for the upgradation of a storm water pumping station, stating it to be of public importance for environmental protection. The project required approvals from various authorities due to its location near the mangroves buffer zone.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the project did not involve destruction of mangroves and was of public importance. It allowed the Municipal Corporation to proceed with the project subject to compliance with necessary norms and conditions imposed by the statutory authorities.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Municipal Corporation should be granted permission to undertake the project near the mangroves buffer zone.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that the project, being of public importance and not involving destruction of mangroves, should be allowed to proceed with necessary approvals and compliance with conditions imposed by the statutory authorities.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Municipal Corporation to undertake the project subject to compliance with necessary norms and conditions imposed by the statutory authorities.
JUDGMENT :
G.S. KULKARNI, J.
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.
2. The petitioner is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short ‘MCGM’) which intends to execute the “upgradation work of design, fabrication, installation and commissioning of heavy duty back rake type mechanical screening for Irla Nalla at Irla storm water pumping station in K/West Ward.” Such work is stated to be of public importance, being undertaken to remove huge quantity of floating material discharged into sea, which would otherwise adversely affect environment and more particularly the aquatic condition of the sea. It is stated that floating materials in the Irla Nalla adversely affect the smooth operation of the flood gates and of the pumping station. The MCGM has contended that if the installation of the back rakes are undertaken, the trash would be arrested and removed from the drain structure and the drainage(nalla).
3. The MCGM accordingly, moved a proposal with the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (for short ‘MCZMA’) seeking its approval as the proposed work fell under the Coastal Zone Regulations. The MCZMA in its 144th meeting held on 11 June 2020 considered the MCGM’s proposal and recommended the same from the CRZ point of view to the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (for short ‘SEIAA’), subject to compliance of certain conditions. One of the conditions being of a prior permission of this Court to be obtained for the reason of the project being within 50 meters of the mangroves buffer zone. The proposal was also sent to Mangroves Cell for its approval on 20 July 2020. The MCGMs proposal was submitted to SEIAA on 14 September 2020.
4. The MCGM has contended that the MCGM shall abide by all conditions as may be imposed in the approvals that may be granted by the different authorities before commencing the work. It is the case of the MCGM that the proposed work does not require cutting of mangroves, however, as the works fall under buffer zone of mangroves, permissions were required to be obtained from the MCZMA and the other authorities. To support this contention MCGM has annexed a Google Earth Location showing the Existing Gate, Existing Screen and Proposed Mechanical Screen at ‘Exhibit D’ to the petition.
5. In paragraph 9(g) of the petition, the MCGM has stated that the proposed work would commence only after appropriate NOCs/ approvals are issued by the respective authorities namely the SEIAA, the Mangroves Cell and on the orders passed by this Court as per the directions as containing in the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Public Interest Litigation no.87 of 2006 in the BEAG’s case (“The Bombay Environmental Action Group (BEAG) & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, dated 17 September 2018).
6. Ms.Mastakar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the averments as made in the petition and the documents as placed on record. Ms.Mastakar has also drawn our attention to the order dated 17 September 2018 in BEAG’s case wherein although orders are issued prohibiting cutting of mangroves, however a window has been kept open for removal of mangroves, as per directions contained in paragraph 83 (viii) of the judgment, if the Court finds it necessary for public good or in public interest. In any event the mangroves are not being removed for the project in question in the present case.
7. On the above conspectus, the MCGM has prayed for the following substantive relief:-
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.