Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ALOK ARADHE, CJ., BHARATI DANGRE, J.
Maharashtra Maritime Board – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
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 Bo
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 regu....
The construction of public utility jetties in CRZ-I areas is permissible without mangrove destruction, aligning with sustainable development principles.
The court emphasized the necessity of balancing economic development with environmental protection, approving a project for cement transportation via waterways while ensuring compliance with statutor....
The court ruled that challenges to environmental clearances necessitate factual inquiry beyond Article 226, allowing petitioners to seek remedies under the National Green Tribunal Act.
Construction in ecologically sensitive CRZ I areas is prohibited, reaffirming the precedence of environmental protection laws over local development interests.
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 o....
Point of Law; General rule, the Courts consider it expedient in the interest of justice to start prosecution as contemplated by Section-476 of the old Code i.e., Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, whi....
Coastal constructions require prior CRZ clearance despite urgency for erosion control; temple funds permissible for pilgrim safety.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
