##PAGE1##

2026:BHC-O S:20464-DB CNR No : HCBM020177952026 PANCHA L IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION BGPAAONLVACINJHIDARLAO DsBGPD22+ i 00 AAO i a g 0 g 2: Nt Ln 51 V i e6 t 3 eA 9 CI: a . dN 0 J 0: H l 3 I l 9 Dby 9 A. yR 1L7 AO WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 17795 OF 2026 Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents ...

Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Joel Carlos and Ms.

Oorja Dhond, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Manish Kelkar a/w Ms. Gauri Phadake, for Respondent No.2/MCZMA.

Smt. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. GP a/w Smt. Nazia Sheikh, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 & 4/State.

Mr. Aditya Mehta i/by Bagla & Associates, for Respondent No.5.

...

CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &

ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.

RESERVED ON : 9^th SEPTEMBER, 2026. PRONOUNCED ON : 17^th SEPTEMBER, 2026 JUDGMENT (Per, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, CJ.) :-

1. The Instant Writ Petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following substantive relief: -

“(a) This Hon'ble court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thereby granting permission to the Petitioner to cut 1237 mangroves on an area of 2.7515 Ha for the purposes of constructing the Proposed bridge of 2064 Meter on Malad creek at Versova connecting Madh Island and Versova over the Malad Creek subject to compliance with the terms and conditions set out in paras 9(A) to (E) Above.”

2. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of parties.

3. The Petitioner – Corporation is the planning authority for the city of Mumbai. The Petitioner has approached this Court primarily to seek permission to cut 1237 mangroves on an area of 2.7515 Ha for the purposes of constructing the proposed bridge of 2064 meters on Malad creek at Versova, connecting Madh Island and Versova over the Malad creek. Accordingly, permission of this Court is sought inter alia, in terms of the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated dated 17^th September 2018 in Bombay Environmental Action Group Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors^1.

4. The Respondent No.1 through its Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (“MoEFCC”), is a nodal agency in the administrative structure of the Government for the planning, promotion, coordination and overseeing the implementation of India’s environmental and forestry policies, including but not limited to grant of Coastal Regulation Zones (“CRZ”) and Environment Clearance. The Respondent No.2 is the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (“MCZMA”) constituted under the CRZ Notification, 1991 under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (“EPA”) responsible for regulation of

1 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2680.

activities in Coastal Regulation Zones and grant of CRZ clearances. The Respondent No.3 is the State of Maharashtra through its Environment Department. The Respondent No.4 is the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Mangrove Cell (“Mangrove Cell”). The Respondent No.5 is an NGO and Original Petitioner in PIL No.87 of 2006 i.e. Bombay Environment Action Group (Supra).

5. The Facts relevant for adjudication of this petition are summarized below: -

A. Factual Matrix: -

6. Historically, the city of Bombay now Mumbai was a cluster of islands. The significance of the city grew by leaps and bounds commencing from the British times, when it was used as a port city and became a center of economic growth and progress in India. The city was capital of Bombay State before the formation of State of Maharashtra. It became financial center of India and attracted people from across India in anticipation of employment.

6.1. Mumbai, is the center of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region, a population of over 2.3 crores and there is huge population density and the city is also surrounded by sea. The constraints of geography and inability of