Bombay High Court
City Industrial Development ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr The ... on 17 October, 2022
Bench: G.S. Patel, Gauri Godse
26-27ASWP-12220-2022.DOC
Ashwini
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12220 OF 2022
City Industrial Development Corporation ...Petitioner
CIDCO Bhavan
Versus
State of Maharashtra through the Environment ...Respondents
Department & Ors
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12225 OF 2022
Navi Mumbai Sez Pvt Ltd ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents
Mr GS Hegde, with PM Bhansali, for the Petitioner(CIDCO) in
WP/12220/2022 and for the Respondent in WP/12225/2022.
ASHWINI Dr Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate, with Saket Mone, Rubin Vakil,
HULGOJI
GAJAKOSH Rishit Badiani, Ketan Dave & Gaurav H Gangal, i/b AS Dayal
Digitally signed by
ASHWINI HULGOJI & Associates, for the Petitioner in WP/12225/2022.
GAJAKOSH
Date: 2022.10.18
09:57:33 +0530
Mr PG Sawant, AGP, for Respondent No.1-State in both Writ
Petitions.
Ms Meenaz Kakalia, for the Respondents Nos. 5&6 in both Writ
Petitions.
Ms Jaya Bagwe, for Respondent No. 2-MCZMA in both Writ Petitions.
CORAM G.S. Patel &
Gauri Godse, JJ.
DATED: 17th October 2022
17th October 2022
26-27ASWP-12220-2022.DOC
PC:-
1. In both Petitions, Rule. Respondents waive service.
2. We take the facts to the extent necessary for Civil Writ
Petition No. 12225 of 2022 (Navi Mumbai SEZ Pvt Ltd). The
challenge in Writ Petition is to an order passed on 15th April 2021
(page 140) of the National Green Tribunal ("NGT"), to another
order of 1st July 2021 (page 161) also of the NGT and a third order
of 23rd February 2022 (page 261) also of the NGT. All three orders
were passed by the NGT at its principal Bench in New Delhi
although they relate to matters within the jurisdiction of the
Western Bench of the NGT.
3. In a recent Full Bench judgment in The Goa Foundation v The
National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench & Ors,1 of which bench one
of us (GS Patel J) was a member, this Court has held that the NGT
did not have the power to selectively hear matters at its Delhi seat
and which were filed before the Western Bench, nor to constitute
such special Benches without an express notification of the Central
Government. The NGT has filed a Special Leave Petition against
that decision.
4. We are disturbed to find that the original Applicant before the
NGT, Respondent No 6, one Nandkumar Waman Pawar, is a
member and an activist with Vanashakti, an NGO that works in the
field of environmental and forest protection. It is disturbing because
1 PIL Writ Petition No. 4 of 2022, decided on 21st September 2022.
17th October 2022
26-27ASWP-12220-2022.DOC
Vanashakti itself has filed before us several Public Interest
Litigations ("PILs"), one of which, PIL No. 106 of 2021, is pending
before us and relates to at least part of the same wetlands that are
also the subject matter of the NGT orders. Pages 272 and 274 of the
Writ Petition filed by the Navi Mumbai SEZ Pvt Ltd show that
before the NGT submissions were made in regard to some wetlands
at Panje in the command area of CIDCO and Navi Mumbai
Municipal Corporation. Reliance was placed before the NGT on
reports of the Bombay Natural History Society. The plea urged was
that these lands were indeed wetlands protected inter alia by the
Coastal Regulations Zone Notification and that CIDCO's holding
ponds with their Dutch or flap gates should be removed to allow the
free air flow of water to these lands. The PIL Writ Petition before us
seeks a writ of this Court to direct the State Government to declare
these lands as a protected area under a Wildlife Protection Act. It is
sought to be argued before us that the two reliefs are distinct and
that the PILs seeks a declaration under the Wildlife Protection Act
whereas the NGT application is only to implement a State
Government notification or resolution. This is a distinction without
a difference. The PIL proceeds on the very same factual basis and
makes out the very same case on the very same material that the
Panje area is in fact wetlands rich in bird life and other flora and
fauna.
5. We entirely disapprove of this attempt to canvass the same
points in different forums. We are making it clear that we will have
not the slightest hesitation in dismissing the PIL and even making an
order of exemplary costs if required unless we have an adequate
explanation. We understand two different Petitioners making similar
17th October 2022
26-27ASWP-12220-2022.DOC
pleas in two different forums. It is incomprehensible that the same
organisation and members of the same organisation should
simultaneously canvas the same points before two different
adjudicatory forums.
6. As if this is not enough, this very Applicant Pawar has also
filed Writ Petition No. 13476 of 2018 precisely on the question of
some holding ponds at the Dronagiri Node. That includes the Panje
area.
7. The decision of the Full Bench addresses the question of the
authority to constitute a Special Bench. That Special Bench was
understood to be a Bench of the NGT other than the Western
Bench sitting at Pune. All three orders are by some Special Bench or
the other. Consequently, in the Navi Mumbai SEZ Pvt Ltd matter,
the operation of all three impugned orders are stayed.
8. We tag these Writ Petitions along with Writ Petition No.
13476 of 2018 and PIL Nos. 106 of 2021.
9. In the Writ Petition filed by CIDCO Writ Petition No. 12220
of 2022, the challenge is to the orders of 15th April 2021 and 23rd
February 2021. There is a separate challenge to directions dated
11th November 2020 passed by the Government of Maharashtra.
For the reasons set out above, the stay granted in the Navi Mumbai
SEZ Pvt Ltd Petition will also operate in respect of the two NGT
challenged in the CIDCO Petition. We are not, however, staying the
directions of the State Government issued on 11th November 2020.
17th October 2022
26-27ASWP-12220-2022.DOC
10. List all these Petitions for directions on 15th November 2022.
(Gauri Godse, J) (G. S. Patel, J)
17th October 2022
