The Court balanced the need for public good against environmental protection and found that the proposed water supply project falls under permitted exceptions in the CRZ notification and protection of mangroves.

JUDGMENT

M. M. Sathaye, J. - By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner (Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai) is seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to permit the Petitioner to execute a project of proposed suction tank for providing adequate water supply to citizens around Gorai Village. The Petition is filed in view of the finding of this Court recorded at paragraph 83(viii) of the Judgment and Order dated 17th September 2018 passed in PIL No. 87 of 2006 (Respondent No. 6 - Bombay Environment Action Group Vs. State of Maharashtra(hereinafter 'the BEAG's case' for short).

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that it is a statutory body established under Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 tasked with various duties including providing potable water to citizens residing within its jurisdiction. As a part of the endevour to provide potable water, the Petitioner has envisaged developing a project site for suction tank of about 40 sq mtrs near the Fish market, Gorai Village at CTS No. 1145(Survey No. 265/A) which is a land owned by the Government of Maharashtra, and the said project site is partly affected by 50 meter mangrove buffer zone area.

3. It is contended that Village Gorai is a tourist destination and recently population has increased multi fold times. However, there is no adequate water supply in the region. It is further case of the Petitioner that due to high elevation along Uttan Road, the area is facing acute shortage of water supply and this difficulty in providing water is due to the fact that the water is to be transported against gravity. Therefore, the Petitioner is proposing to carry out the said project to augment water supply in the area around Gorai Village for improving the living condition and hygiene of the residents there. It is therefore contended that the proposed project is of great public importance.

4. It is further case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner is seeking directions to the Authorities of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in accordance with the BEAG's case r/w the Order dated 02nd November, 2018 passed in Notice of Motion No. 278 of 2018 in said PIL, as well as condition imposed in the NOC granted by the Tahsildar, Mumbai Suburban Division dated 2nd August 2019 and in accordance with condition No. 3 imposed by the Respondent No.5 State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority ('SEIAA') made in the 140th Meeting dated 26th November, 2019 and in accordance with Special condition No. 3 imposed by the Respondent No. 5 in the CRZ clearance granted to the Petitioner for carrying out construction in the buffer zone of mangrove area. It is urged that no mangrove destruction is contemplated in the execution of the said project. However, in view of the specific condition imposed in the aforesaid clearance dated 29th March 2022 issued by Respondent No. 5/ (SEIAA), and finding recorded in paragraph 83(viii) of the BAEG's case, the Petitioner is applying for directions in this Petition.

5. In these set of circumstances, considering the importance and necessity of the said project, the Tahsildar, Mumbai Suburban District, has granted portion of land owned by the State Government for the carrying out the said project, on 2nd August 2019 and NOC has been issued with condition that Petitioner shall obtain appropriate direction from this Court before carrying out construction in mangrove buffer zone. It is further submitted that in its 140th Meeting dated 26th November 2019, the Respondent No.2/Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (hereinafter 'MCZMA' for short) has noted that the said project is permissible under the CRZ notification subject to clearance by the Respondent No.5 / State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, Maharashtra (hereinafter 'SEIAA' for short) based on the recommendation of Respondent No. 2. It is contended that after due deliberation and detailed study, Respondent No. 2 (MCZMA) was pleased t