Bombay High Court
Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation vs Union Of India Thr. Ministry Of ... on 17 April, 2025
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik
2025:BHC-AS:17467-DB
16-WP-14380-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 14380 OF 2022
Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation
Established Under the provision of
Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act
1949 Having its office at Plot No. 1
Near Kille Gaothan, Palm Beach Junction
Sector 15-A, Belapur, Navi Mumbai
4000614 ... Petitioner
MANGALTAI Versus
JAYWANT
JADHAV
1. The Union of India
Digitally signed by
MANGALTAI Through the Ministry of Environment
JAYWANT JADHAV
Date: 2025.04.17 Forest & Climate Change,
19:40:12 +0530
Paryavaran Bhavan,
New Delhi 110002.
And also at: Aayakar Bhavan, 2nd floor,
Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Lines,
Mumbai - 400 020.
2. Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management
Authority
Through the Additional Chief Secretary,
Environment Department, 2nd Floor,
Room No. 217, Annex Building,
Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400 032.
3. State of Maharashtra
Environment Department, through the
Office of Government Pleader, Bombay
PWD Building, Fort, Mumbai 400 001.
4. Chief Conservator of Forest (Mangrove
Cell),
through the Office of Government Pleader,
Bombay High Court, PWD Building, Fort,
Mumbai 400 001.
MJJ 1
::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2025 22:22:11 :::
16-WP-14380-2022.doc
5. State Environment Impact Assessment
Authority, Maharashtra
through the Office of Government
Pleader, Bombay High Court, PWD
Building, Fort,
Mumbai 400 001.
6. Bombay Environment Action Group
203 Rajendra Chambders
19, Nanabhai lane,
Fort Mumbai- 400 001. .... Respondents
****
Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Tejesh Dande
a/w Mr. Bharat Gadhavi for the Petitioner in
WP/14380/2022.
Mr. Narayan R. Bubna for Respondent No.1-UOI in
WP/14380/2022.
Ms. Jaya Bagwe for Respondent No.2- MCZMA in
WP/14380/2022.
Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, Govt. Pleader with Mr. O.A.
Chandurkar, Addl. Govt. Pleader and Mr. G. R.
Raghuwanshi, AGP for Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 in
WP/14380/2022.
Mr. Aditya Mehta a/w Ms. Sheetal Shah a/w Ms. Megha
Chobadia i/b M/s. Mehta & Girdharlafor Respondent No.6
in WP/14380/2022.
****
CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ &
M. S. KARNIK, J.
RESERVED ON : 7th APRIL, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 17th APRIL, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER M. S. KARNIK, J.) :
-
1. The petitioner- Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation
16-WP-14380-2022.doc
prays for direction to the respondent authorities to permit
the Corporation to execute the proposed project of
service road, drains and footpath from T.S. Chanakya
Signal to Plot No.7, Sector 58, Nerul, Navi Mumbai, in view
of the public importance of the project. Reliance is placed
on the order of this Court recorded at paragraph 83(viii) of
the Judgment and Order dated 17th September, 2018
passed in PIL No.87 of 2006 for seeking necessary
permission.
2. The land where the proposed project is to be carried
out falls in CRZ-II and situated within 50 mtrs. of
mangroves buffer zone. The execution of the proposed
project does not involve cutting of any mangrove trees
and also does not require utilization of any mangroves
forest area. The same is certified by the Range Forest
Officer in his report.
3. The petitioner submitted proposal on 24th February,
2022 before MCZMA for CRZ clearance in prescribed
format. By communication dated 11/12 th April, 2022
MCZMA decided to recommend the proposal from CRZ
16-WP-14380-2022.doc
point of view to SEIAA subject to the 4 conditions stated
therein. In 244th meeting of SEIAA, the proposal of the
petitioner was deliberated and SEIAA decided to grant
CRZ clearance in respect of project subject to the 4
conditions.
4. Mr. Milind Sathe, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners submits that the Corporation has obtained
approvals of Respondent No.2- MCZMA and Respondent
No.5- SEIAA for execution of the proposed project and is
approaching this Court for obtaining its permission before
execution of the project at the site. It is submitted that
the proposed project does not involve destruction of even
a single mangrove tree or utilization of any forest land.
The present petition is filed as the site is within 50 meters
of mangroves buffer zone. It is further submitted that the
proposed service road is in fact a missing link between
the two ends of already existing service roads. The
proposed project is on the seaward side and adjoining the
existing Palm Beach Road. A copy of road alignment on
Google image, photograph of the site is annexed to the
16-WP-14380-2022.doc
petition. A copy of CZMP Map in respect of the said
project is annexed to the petiton. Site inspection report
dated 18th August, 2021 of the Range Forest Officer,
Mumbai Mangroves Conservation Unit, Navi Mumbai is
enclosed. The said site visit and the report is in respect of
four proposed projects and the project involved in the
present petition is at Sr. No. 1 of the said report.
5. Mr. Sathe submitted that on 6th January, 2011,
Ministry of Environment and Forest ("MOEF") published in
the Gazette, Coastal Regulation Zone Notification ("CRZ
Notification") to ensure livelihood and security to fisher
communities and other local communities living in the
coastal areas. This was to conserve and protect coastal
stretches, its unique environment and its marine area and
to promote development through sustainable manner
based on scientific principles taking into account the
dangers of natural hazards in the coastal areas, sea level
rise due to global warming, thereby declared the coastal
stretches of the country and the water area upto its
territorial water limit, excluding the islands of Andaman
16-WP-14380-2022.doc
and Nicobar and Lakshadweep and marine area
surrounding these islands upto its territorial limit, as
Coastal Regulation Zone and restricted the setting up and
expansion of any industry, operations or processes and
manufacture or handling or storage or disposal of
hazardous substances in the aforesaid Coastal Regulation
Zone.
6. The petitioner submits that as per the para 3(iv) of
the CRZ Notification, 2011 construction of road is a
permissible activity. It is submitted that as per Clause 3 of
the Notification, the activities which are prohibited in CRZ
areas are set out, with sub clause (v) setting out the
exception to such prohibitions, which exception includes
construction of road.
7. While recommending the proposal from CRZ point of
view to SEIAA, MCZMA made it subject to the four
conditions:
"(i) The proposed construction should be carried
out strictly as per the provisions of CRZ Notification,
2011 (as amended from time to time) and
guidelines / clarifications given by MoEF from time
to time.
16-WP-14380-2022.doc
(ii) PP to ensure that mangrove should not be
cleared / cut or anyway harmed during the
construction phase of the project. PP to obtain the
prior High Court permission, as per Hon'ble High
Court order dated 17th September 2018 in PIL 87 /
2006, since proposed pipeline is passing through 50
m mangrove buffer zone at certain stitches.
(iii) Debris generated during the construction
activity should not be dumped in CRZ area. It
should be ensured that debris is processed in a
scientific manner at a designated site.
(iv) All other required permission from different
statutory authorities should be obtained."
8. The SEIAA while granting permission incorporated
the four conditions extracted hereinbefore.
9. By an order dated 6th October, 2005 in PIL No.87 of
2006 a complete freeze was imposed on development
activities in areas affected by mangroves. The said order
came to be modified by a further order dated 27 th January
2010 in PIL No.87 of 2006, wherein this Court directed
that nothing would prevent statutory bodies to approach
competent authorities to seek permission for their
respective projects as required in accordance with law for
the projects in mangrove areas and that such application
would be considered strictly in accordance with law
16-WP-14380-2022.doc
keeping in mind the principle of sustainable development
and that grant of such permission would be subject to the
approval of this Court.
10. The PIL came be to disposed of by the judgment and
order dated 17th September, 2018. Paragraph 83(viii) of
the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow for ease of
reference:-
"In view of applicability of public trust doctrine, the
State is duty bound to protect and preserve
mangroves. The mangroves cannot be permitted to
be destructed by the State for private, commercial or
any other use unless the Court finds it necessary for
the public good or public interest;"
11. In the affidavit-in-reply it is a stand of the
Respondent No.6-Bombay Environment Action Group that
the proposed service road is 610 meters with width of 8.5
meters including a drain and footpath. It is submitted that
the authorities have erred in considering that the
construction of a road in CRZ-I is by itself a permissible
activity since both Regulations 3(iv) and 3(v) of the CRZ
Notification, 2011 relied on by the Petitioner do not
include within their ambit the construction of a
16-WP-14380-2022.doc
bituminous road as a permissible activity in CRZ-I. It is
further stated that the interpretation of the clauses in the
Notification and consequently the question of whether
any construction activity is permitted in these areas i.e.
CRZ-IA is currently pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court
where order dated 29th October, 2021 is under challenge.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its earlier order dated 9 th
September, 2022 was pleased to tag and place all the
matters arising out of the Mangrove judgment dated 17 th
September, 2018 in the month of February, 2023. It is
further submitted that there are terrestrial trees to be cut
for the proposed project comprising of service road, drain
and foothpath. However, the petitioner has failed to
annex the permission from the Tree Authority under
Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra (Urban areas) Protection
and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975, Protection of Tree
Rules 2009 and Maharashtra Urban Areas Protection and
Preservation of Trees Amendment Bill 2021. It is further
submitted that test of "public importance" has to be met
by the petitioner and the order passed prohibits the State
to give a go-by to the provisions of the CRZ Notification
16-WP-14380-2022.doc
2011 and other laws enacted to protect the environment.
Learned counsel placed reliance on para 58, 83(iii)-(v) and
85(A)(IV) of this Court's order dated 17th September,
2018. Learned counsel urged that there is no propriety of
constructing the road which comprises of a length of 465
mtrs. with width of 50 mtrs. and in respect of the other
portion which has length of 151 mtrs. with width of 10
mtrs. The dimensions of the road are clarified by the
petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit.
12. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner submitted
that the 50 metres buffer zone which is different from the
mangrove zone is still falling under the modified proposed
Cycle Track route, which will require requisite orders from
this Court as well as respondent authorities.
13. We have also perused the affidavit-in-reply filed by
Mr. Adarsh Reddy, IFS, Divisional Authorized Officer,
Mumbai Mangroves Conservation Unit, of the Mangroves
Cell, which also considers the report of the Range Forest
Officer. The silent features of the report reads thus:
16-WP-14380-2022.doc
"(a) The proposed project of the Navi Mumbai
Municipal Corporation is located at S. Nos. 261A,
262 and 263A alongside the Palm Beach Road from
NRI Complex to T S Chanakya.
(b) Geo-tagged photographs were also taken and
furnished with the Report.
(c) The site is not located in any notified reserved
forest area.
(d) The site is not located in the Eco Sensitive Zone
of Thane Creek Flamingo Sanctuary.
(e) The site did not have mangrove cover in 2005
as seen in the relevant MRSAC map.
(f) The site is within 25 m of notified mangroves
area."
14. This Court in Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation
Vs. Union of India and Ors. in Writ Petition No. 8857 of
2021 by its order dated 21st February, 2025 while granting
permission to execute the proposed project of
construction of Cycle Track and Area development along
Palm Beach Road, Nerul, Navi Mumbai, as a project is in
larger public interest by observing thus:
"8. With the aforesaid permissions in favour of the
petitioner, permission is sought through the said
Writ Petition by declaring that the said project is a
public importance and though we have noticed
vehement opposition from respondent no.6 through
learned counsel Mr. Aditya Pimple, as according to
him, the project is not a permissible activity, we are
not persuaded to accept the said contention.
16-WP-14380-2022.doc
A copy of the project report which is placed on
record at Exhibit-A and B clearly reveal to us that
Navi Mumbai which is one of the best planned new
towns in the country and awarded with third
cleanest city in India under Swachh Bharat Abhiyan
2020, has large number of designated gardens and
green spaces across its nods along with the Palm
beach road. The construction of palm beach road
was completed in the year 2000-2001 with a total
chainage of approx 7.99 kms and as the project
report reflect the road runs parallel to north south
thane creek boundary of Navi Mumbai and serves to
connect distinct nods through eight junction points.
The Palm Beach road serve as an intra city
connectivity for high speed traffic which comprises
four wheeler and two wheeler.
In order to de-congest the roads in a systematic
manner, the petitioner has proposed to develop a
3.5 meter wide (2 way) cycle track with total of 7-50
km and with 4 pause points for users for cycle
parking, rest area and toilet facility. The cycle track
is to be developed on landward side of the palm
beach road and from the project report, its location
can be identified as situated between the palm
beach road and the service road. Considering that
the cycle track is to be constructed using bitumen
and since it do not involve cutting of mangroves, the
MCZMA as well as SEIAA has accorded its approval.
Since the construction of road is an activity
permissible in CRZ-II and cycle track, according to
us, is only another facet of a road to be used for
commutation, we do not find the objection raised
on behalf of respondent no.6, at all sustainable as it
is nothing but a road to commute on bicycle. In any
case, the project proponent intends to have an
inward bound cycle track and the MCZMA as well as
SEIAA and the Forest Department has imposed
adequate safeguards while granting necessary
permission and therefore, we must reject the
objection raised on behalf of respondent no.6, and
permit the petitioner to proceed ahead with the
project proposed by it, in the wake of the necessary
permissions accorded in its favour. Since we are of
the view that the proposed project is for the larger
16-WP-14380-2022.doc
benefit of the public at large and is a project of
'public utility' which in fact, do not cause any harm
to the mangroves, we grant the requisite
permission."
15. We, therefore, are of the view that as the project is
in larger public interest and in the light of the stand taken
by the Corporation that no mangrove trees will be cut, we
are inclined to allow the present Petition. The MCZMA and
SEIAA, who are statutory authorities have recommended
the proposal and granted necessary approval. Even the
site inspection report of Range Forest Officer records that
the site is not located in the eco-sensitive zone. It records
that the site is not located in any notified reserved forest
area. It is further the stand of the Mangroves
Conservation Unit of the Mangrove Cell that the proposed
project site is not in any notified or non-notified
mangroves area but is within 25 m buffer zone from
mangroves area of S. No. 261 A.
16. It is not possible for us to substitute our opinion for
that of the statutory bodies comprising of experts in the
field. There is no contra material on record to doubt these
16-WP-14380-2022.doc
recommendations. The proposed project will obviously
proceed only after all the relevant permissions and
approvals are in place. It goes without saying that the
requisite permission from the Tree authority will be
obtained by the Corporation before felling any tree.
Furthermore, the construction of proposed road will be
carried out subject to all the conditions stipulated by the
authorities while granting the approvals.
17. Subject to the aforesaid, the Petition is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (a).
(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
