Bombay High Court
Shweta D/O Dipendra Burbure And ... vs Nagpur Municipal Corporation, ... on 2 September, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
1 PIL 9.2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 9 OF 2021
Shweta D/o Dipendra Burbure and Anr.,
..VS..
Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur and Ors.,
WITH
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 15 OF 2021
Swacch Association, Through ITS Secretary, Sharad Bhiharilal Paliwal,
..VS..
Ministry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi, through its Secretary and Ors.,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M. Anilkumar, Advocate for petitioner in PIL 9 of 2021.
Shri J. B. Kasat, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 11 in PIL 9 of
2021.
Smt. K. S. Joshi, G.P. for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 10 in PIL 9 of
2021.
Shri S. S. Sanyal, Advocate for respondent No.5 in PIL 9 of 2021.
Ms. Mugdha Chandurkar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 6 and 8 in
PIL 9 of 2021.
Shri N. P. Lambat, Advocate for respondent No.7 in PIL 9 of 2021.
Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for respondent No.9 in PIL 9 of
2021.
Shri R. M. Tahaliyani, Advocate, Shri A. B. Moon and Shri M. C.
Jeswani, Advocate for petitioner in PIL 15 of 2021.
Ms Mugdha Chandurkar, Advocate for respondent No.1 in PIL 15 of
2021.
Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for respondent No.2 in in PIL 15 of
2021.
Shri S. S. Sanyal, Advocate for respondent No.6 in PIL 15 of 2021.
Shri J. B. Kasat, Advocate for respondent No.7 and 8.
Smt. K. S. Joshi, G.P. for respondent Nos.4 & 5 in PIL 15 of 2021.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATED : 02.09.2021
2 PIL 9.2021
1. Leave to amend the cause title is granted by
correcting the designation and address in respect of
respondent No.2 and 9 and also to amend the petition by
raising additional grounds of challenge. Amendment be
carried out forthwith.
2. Copy of the amended petition be furnished to the
respondents.
3. The Memo of petition as present on record be
substituted by the amended Memo of Petition in two
sets.
4. Issue notice for final disposal at admission stage to
the respondents, returnable to 13.10.2021.
5. Shri J. B. Kasat, learned counsel waives service of
notice for respondent No.1 and 11. Smt. K. S. Joshi,
learned G.P. waives service of notice for respondent
Nos.2, 3, 4 and 10. Shri S. S. Sanyal, learned counsel
waives service of notice for respondent No.5. Ms Mugdha
Chandurkar, learned counsel waives service of notice for
respondent Nos.6 and 8. Shri Anand Parchure, learned
counsel waives service of notice for respondent No.9.
Shri N. P. Lambat, learned counsel waives service of
notice for respondent No.7.
6. Heard.
3 PIL 9.2021
7. Mr. Anilkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
has proposed several alternatives to the Authority which
is carrying out the developmental work relating to the
construction of building of Inter Modal Transport Station
on the land belonging to Indian Railways, so that, a
balance could be struck between development and
environment. These suggestions are contained in the
amendment application and we would request the
Authorities, including the Special Purpose Vehicle
constituted for the purpose of construction of the
aforestated building, to look into them and consider their
implementation, if possible, within the parameters of
law. It also appears to us that there are certain
permissions and clearances which are required and
although it is the submission of Shri Anand Parchure,
learned counsel for respondent No.9 that except for the
permission of the Tree Authority, all the clearances,
including environmental clearances have been obtained
by respondent No.9, there appears to be disagreement
on this submission between the parties.
8. Shri Anilkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Shri Sanyal, learned counsel for Maharashtra
Pollution Control Board, would submit that the judgment
rendered in the case of Adarsh Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors., in Writ Petition
No. 369 of 2011, decided on 29.04.2016, makes it clear
that even in case of development proposed to be made
on the land belonging to Central Government or the
4 PIL 9.2021
Armed Forces or any other Authority, environmental
clearance from the Appointed Authority is required for
the reason that the provisions of the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 override all other provisions made
in all other Acts. Of course, in that case, provisions made
in Section 11 (d) of the Railways Act, 1989 were not
under consideration but it appears that afore-stated
observations have been made in the context of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and, therefore, this
issue would be required to be considered by this Court
after hearing the parties. That may, however, take some
time and therefore, we may suggest to respondent No.9
to revisit it's approach and stand that it has taken in the
present case, explore the options available to it under the
law, and see that if any environmental clearance is really
required here, it is obtained as expeditiously as possible.
If any directions are required to be issued by this Court,
a prayer in that regard may be placed before this Court
for its appropriate consideration.
9. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court
that the application filed by respondent No.9, before
respondent No.1, seeking permission to cut some trees is
still pending with respondent No.1. It is also submitted
that since the number of trees exceeds 200, the Authority
to decide such an application would be the State Tree
Authority. It is further submitted that the application
along with all the objections taken thereon are being
forwarded by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation to the
5 PIL 9.2021
State Government for appropriate consideration and
decision in the matter.
10. In view of the above submission, we direct
respondent No.1 to forward the application along with
all the objections and copy of this order to the State
Government i.e. respondent No.2 within one week from
the date of the order and we further direct respondent
No.2 to decide the application seeking permission to cut
the trees in the light of the objections taken thereon,
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
the application along with the objections from
respondent No.1.
11. Stand over to 13.10.2021.
12. Authenticated copy of the order be furnished to
the respondents.
JUDGE JUDGE
Kirtak
