Bombay High Court
Mira Bhayandar Municipal ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 1 October, 2021
Bench: A.A. Sayed, S. G. Dige
spb/ 9-WP-5903-2021.1.10.21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5903 OF 2021
Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation ... Petitioner.
through the Commissioner.
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents.
---
Mr. N. R. Bubna, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Smt. R. A. Salunkhe, AGP for the State-Respondents.
Mrs. Sharmila Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.
4 (MCZMA).
---
CORAM : A.A.SAYED & S.G.DIGE, JJ.
DATE : OCTOBER 01, 2021.
P.C. : (Per S. G. DIGE, J.)
1 Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive
service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.
2 By this Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the Petitioner-Mira Bhayandar
Municipal Corporation (for short "Corporation") seeks
following relief in the interest of public project to be
undertaken by it :-
Digitally signed
by SHALIKRAM
SHALIKRAM PRALHADRAO
PRALHADRAO BOREY
BOREY Date:
2021.10.14
19:52:04 +0530
Borey 1/6
spb/ 9-WP-5903-2021.1.10.21.doc
"(a) That permission may kindly be
granted to execute the project of proposed
development of four storm water drains four
drains viz. drain no. 12A (drain from Saint
Thomas School to Wards Khadi at Kanakia
Road), drain no. 3 (from Om Sai Complex to
Ambe Nagar No.1, Bhayandar), drain no. 3b
(from Krantinagar Toilet to Bajrangnagar,
Bhayandar) and drain no. 28 (from Saint
Joseph School to Srusthi Bridge, Mira Road)
within limits of petitioner Corporation as
detailed in recommendation of respondent
no.3 annexed to present petition at Exh. A
and recommendation of respondent no. 4
annexed to present petition at Exh.B."
3 A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram :
A.S.Oka & Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ.) in its decision in the case
of Bombay Environmental Action Group vs. State
of Maharashtra, Public Interest Litigation No. 87 of
2006 decided on 17.09.2018 [2018 MhLJ Online 123]
has issued several directions in regard to the
preservation of mangroves in the entire State of
Maharashtra and it has been directed that there shall
be a total freeze on the destruction and cutting of
mangroves unless it is necessary for the public good or
public interest. It is in the light of directions by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the said case, the
Petitioner Corporation has filed the present Petition for
permission to execute a public utility project being
Borey 2/6
spb/ 9-WP-5903-2021.1.10.21.doc
construction of storm water drains under AMRUT Mission
of Government of India.
4 According to the Petitioner, it being a local and
planning authority established under the provisions of
Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 undertakes
the construction work of public utility projects in public
interest within the limits of the Corporation. The
Petitioner had proposed the construction work of five
storm water drains to avoid water-logging in the
surrounding area. The proposal of the Petitioner was
scrutinized and considered by Respondent No. 3 - State
Environment Impact Assessment Authority (for short
"SEIAA") in its meeting held on 27th & 28th October, 2020
and out of 5 storm water drains, it recommended 4
storm water drains viz. drain no. 12A (drain from Saint
Thomas School to Wards Khadi at Kanakia Road), drain
no. 3 (from Om Sai Complex to Ambe Nagar No.1,
Bhayandar), drain no. 3b (from Krantinagar Toilet to
Bajrangnagar, Bhayandar) and drain no. 28 (from Saint
Joseph School to Srusthi Bridge, Mira Road) within the
limits of the petitioner Corporation as detailed in
recommendation of Respondent No.3 which is annexed
to present petition at Exh. A. It was observed that out
of 5 storm water drains, 4 were in 50 meter mangrove
buffer zone whereas 150 mangroves were required to be
Borey 3/6
spb/ 9-WP-5903-2021.1.10.21.doc
cut from one storm water drain. Respondent No. 3 after
deliberation, recommended 4 storm water drains viz.
Drain no. 12A, 3, 3b and 28 and deferred decision of
one storm water drain which required cutting of 150
mangroves. The proposal was discussed in the meeting
of Respondent No.4 - Maharashtra Coastal Zone
Management Authority (for short, "MCZMA") held on
18.03.2021 and, after deliberation, granted clearance
for 4 storm water drains viz. drain no. 12A, 3, 3b and 28
subject to compliance with conditions and Petitioner
obtaining leave of this Court The relevant extract of the
minutes of meeting of Respondent No. 4 is annexed at
Exh. "B" to the Petition.
5 According to the Petitioner, it has already ensured
compliance with the conditions stipulated by
Respondent No. 3-SEIAA and Respondent No. 4-MCZMA.
The Petitioner has stated that the said work is necessary
to be carried out so to avoid water logging in the area
and the said work will not require cutting of any
mangrove and the debris out of project will be disposed
of scientifically and would not be dumped in CRZ area.
The Petitioner has further stated that the project is
scrutinized by the expert authorities in detail and they
confirmed that no mangroves are required to be cut nor
tidal flow of water to mangroves is obstructed. The
Borey 4/6
spb/ 9-WP-5903-2021.1.10.21.doc
Petitioner has stated that if it is permitted to undertake
the project, it will prevent water-logging in the area and
will sub-serve larger public interest and that it will be in
the interest of environment and, hence, the necessary
permission for construction of the said storm water
drains is essential in public interest.
6 Learned AGP appearing for the Respondent-State
and learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 4-MCZMA
submit that the Respondent- State and the Respondent
No.4-MCZMA have no objection to the project being
undertaken in the public interest by the Petitioner-
Corporation, particularly as the project is without cutting
or removing the mangroves, subject to the Petitioner
complying the conditions imposed by the Respondent
Authorities for carrying out the proposed work strictly in
the light of the directions issued by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 17.09.2018 in
PIL No. 87/ 2006.
7 Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties
and having perused the record, we are of the opinion
that the Petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly
allowed in the public interest for public good, as laid
down in paragraph 83(iii) of the order of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Bombay Environmental
Borey 5/6
spb/ 9-WP-5903-2021.1.10.21.doc
Action Group vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) and
subject to the Petitioner strictly complying with the
conditions imposed in the permissions granted by the
Respondent No.3-SEIAA and Respondent No. 4-MCZMA
and permission of the other Authorities, if any, for
carrying out the proposed project. Such Undertaking be
filed within one week from the date this order is
uploaded.
8 The Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in
the above terms.
(S.G.DIGE, J.) (A.A. SAYED, J.)
.....
Borey 6/6
