IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of obtaining statutory permissions and approvals, complying with the terms and conditions imposed in the statutory approvals, and considering public interest in granting leave for construction projects.

JUDGMENT :

(A.S. Chandurkar, J.)

1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner, a Statutory Body, established under the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974, has preferred this writ petition seeking permission to undertake construction of Metro Line – 5 at Kasheli Bridge and Durgadi Fort, Village Kasheli, Taluka Bhiwandi, District Thane. In view of the directions issued in Public Interest Litigation No.87 of 2006 (Bombay Environmental Action Group and Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.) along with connected matters, decided on 17th September 2018, leave of the Court has been sought by urging that the project is of public importance.

3. According to the petitioner, under the Mumbai Metro Master Plan, about 118 kms. of elevated Metro Corridors are to be erected. In that regard, the petitioner has obtained various statutory permissions and approvals. On 9th May 2017, a proposal to that effect came to be submitted to the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA). In its 119th meeting held on 28th to 30th June 2017, the MCZMA vide Item No.88 considered the proposal that was presented by the petitioner and after due deliberations, it decided to recommend the project from CRZ point of view to the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). Thereafter, on 6th April 2021, the SEIAA considered the said proposal in its 217th meeting and proceeded to accord CRZ Clearance under the provisions of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 as well as the CRZ Notification - 2011, subject to prescribed terms and conditions. One of the conditions was to re-plant five times the number of mangroves that would be destroyed or cut during the process of construction.

4. On 15th December 2022, the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Mangrove Cell, Mumbai issued a communication to the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Nodal Officer, Maharashtra State, Nagpur and stated therein that about thirty-one mangrove trees and thirty-one non-mangrove trees were proposed to be felled in the area proposed for diversion. An undertaking was referred to for transplanting nineteen trees from the project location to a suitable place at the cost of the petitioner. It was further noted that the proposed project was 7.8 kms. from the boundary of Thane Creek Flamingo Sanctuary and it was outside the Eco Sensitive Zone. Thereafter, on 26th May 2023, the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change informed the Principal Secretary (Forests), Revenue and Forest Department, that it was according “in principle” approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of 0.6983 hectors of forest land in favour of the petitioner for construction of Metro Line–5. Various conditions including compensatory afforestation were imposed. Based on the aforesaid, the Divisional Forest Officer, Mumbai Mangrove Conservation Unit called upon the petitioner to deposit the requisite amounts in accordance with the conditions imposed in the communication dated 26th May 2023. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid compliance has been thereafter undertaken. It is on the aforesaid basis that the petitioner has sought leave of the Court in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 83(viii) of the Judgment in Bombay Environmental Action Group (supra).

5. On 7th September 2023, when this writ petition was heard, the Court observed that it was necessary on the part of the concerned Authorities – respondents to ascertain whether it was necessary to cut the mangroves or there could be a possibility of saving the same by suggesting certain alternate modalities. It was further observed that there was no clarity as to whether the mangroves that were proposed to be cut had been duly marked for such purpose. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, our attention is invited to the exercise undertaken for identifying any alternat