The court affirmed the necessity of balancing coastal development with environmental protection, allowing construction of an Anti-Sea Erosion bund while emphasizing compliance with environmental regulations.

JUDGMENT :

(BHARATI DANGRE, J) :

1. The Petitioner, Maharashtra Maritime Board, established under the provisions of Maritime Board Act, 1996, entrusted with the function of developing, conserving, regulating, facilitating and administering the non-major port limits on the coast of Maharashtra and which is also responsible for ensuring sustainable planned development of minor ports, port infrastructure and maritime facilities, has filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to the Respondents/Authorities to permit it to execute the proposed Anti-Sea Erosion bund at Colaba, Mumbai, in the background that it is a project of public importance as recorded in Paragraph 83(viii) of the Judgment and Order dated 17/09/2018 passed by this Court in Public Interest Litigation No.87/2006.

2. In the Petition instituted, the Ministry of Environmental and Forest and Climate Change is impleaded as Respondent No.1, whereas, Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA), State of Maharashtra, Chief Conservator of Forest (Mangrove Cell), State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority are impleaded as Respondent Nos.2 to 5 respectively. The Bombay Environment Action Group (BEAG) is impleaded as Respondent no.6.

3. We have heard Mr.Saket Mone a/w Ms.Anchita Nair i/b Vidhii Partners for the Petitioner, Ms.Jaya Bagwe for Respondent No.2, Mr.Mohit Jadhav, Addl. GP a/w Mr.Manish Upadhye, AGP for State, Mr.Rui Rodrigues a/w Mr.N.R. Prajapati for Respondent No.1-UOI and Mr.Nirman Sharma for Respondent No.6.

By consent of parties, the Petition is agreed to be heard finally at the stage of admission and hence we issue ‘Rule’ which is made returnable forthwith.

4. The relief sought in the Petition has its genesis in Public Interest Litigation No.87/2006, which came to be entertained by this Court, as it involved an important issue of destruction of mangroves in the entire State of Maharashtra. The Petition filed by Respondent No.6 highlighted the necessity of protection and conservation of the environment and focused upon the large scale destruction and denudation of mangroves and, it sought primary relief of declaration that the areas covered by mangroves in the State of Maharashtra, in addition to those covered by mangroves forest should be declared as Mangroves Protection Area. The Petition highlighted the functions and importance of mangroves including its role in protecting sea shores from erosion, high wind and cyclone and in addition of they acting as buffer between the land and sea with a very important role in fighting the tidal erosion. In addition, it was also projected that the mangroves facilitated reclamation of land from the sea and at times act as flood control by absorbing excess water of the sea.

The primary relief in the PIL sought a declaration about the areas covered by the mangroves forest in the area of Greater Mumbai as per the 1997 satellite plan to be designated as “Mangrove Protection Area” with such modification as this Court deem fit.

5. Taking into consideration the pleadings in the PIL and the Affidavits filed in pursuance of the interim direction dated 06/10/2005, when several steps were taken on the basis of the mapping of mangrove areas in Mumbai and Navi Mumbai by the Maharashtra Remote Sensing and Satellite Applications Centre (MRSSAC) and when 2823.8493 Hector of mangroves on the government land in Mumbai were notified as forest and these forests were handed over to the Forest Department, the compliance report was accepted by issuance of a clear declaration that the mangroves, irrespective of their ownership, shall receive the protection under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the Forest (Conservation) Act,1980.

6. On 17/09/2018, further directions came to be issued in the wake of the subsequent developments in the light of the directions issued by the Apex Court in Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia & Ors. vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group, [2011(3) SCC 363] pa