Bombay High Court
Mumbai Metropolitan Region ... vs Union Of India Thr The Ministry Of ... on 9 September, 2025
Author: Revati Mohite Dere
Bench: Revati Mohite Dere
Digitally signed
by SHAGUFTA
2025:BHC-AS:38035-DB
SHAGUFTA QUTBUDDIN
PATHAN
QUTBUDDIN
Date:
PATHAN 2025.09.12 WP-3727-2025-J.doc
15:33:41
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3727 OF 2025
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development
Authority,
A statutory body constituted under,
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development
Authority Act, 1974,
MMRDA Building, Bandra-Kurla Complex,
Bandra (E),
Mumbai 400 051. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India, through the Ministry
of Environment Forest & Climate Change,
Paryavaran Bhavan, New Delhi 110002
And also, at: Branch Secretariat, 2nd floor,
Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road,
New Marine Lines, Mumbai - 400 020.
2. Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management
Authority, Through its Chairman,
the Principal Secretary, Environment
Department, 2nd Floor, Room No. 217,
Annexe Building, Mantralaya,
Mumbai- 400 032.
3. State of Maharashtra,
Environment Department, through the
Office of Government Pleader,
Bombay High Court, PWD Building, Fort,
Mumbai 400 001.
SQ Pathan 1/39
::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2025 23:21:01 :::
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
4. Additional Principal Chief Conservator of
Forest (Mangrove Cell), Mumbai
Mangrove Conservation Unit, through the
Office of Government Pleader,
Bombay High Court, PWD Building, Fort,
Mumbai 400 001.
5. Additional Principal Chief Conservator of
Forest And Nodal Officer, Nagpur
through the Office of Government Pleader,
Bombay High Court, PWD Building, Fort,
Mumbai 400 001.
6. Bombay Environment Action Group
203, Rajendra Chambers,
19, Nanabhai Lane, Fort,
Mumbai-400001 ... Respondents
Mr. G. S. Hegde, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. Saket Mone, Ms. Srushti
Thorat and Ms. Fatema Kothari i/b Vidhii Partners for the
Petitioner
Mr. Vishal Kanade as amicus curiae
Mr. Pavan S. Patil a/w Mr. Tanmay Deshmukh and Mr. Soham
Badole for the Respondent No.1-UOI
Ms. Jaya Bagwe for the Respondent No.2-MCZMA
Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. G.P a/w Ms. Pooja Joshi
Deshpande, A.G.P for the Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5
Mr. Aditya Mehta a/w Ms. Deepali Bagla i/b Bagla and Associates
for the Respondent No.6
SQ Pathan 2/39
::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2025 23:21:01 :::
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
Mr. S. V. Ramarao, IFS, Addl. Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests, Mangrove Cell is present
Mr. Deepak Popatrao Khade, IFS, DFO, North Konkan Division,
is present
Mr. Milind Mhaiskar, Addl. Chief Secretary, Forest Department,
is present
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
TUESDAY, 9th SEPTEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT (Per Revati Mohite Dere, J.) :
1 In view of the not before order passed by the Hon'ble
the Chief Justice's Bench, the aforesaid petition has been placed
before us.
2 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3 Rule. Mr. Pavan Patil waives service on behalf of the
Respondent No.1-UOI. Ms. Jaya Bagwe waives service on behalf
of the Respondent No.2-MCZMA. Mr. Chandurkar, learned
Addl. G.P waives service on behalf of the Respondent Nos.3, 4
and 5. Mr. Aditya Mehta waives service on behalf of the
Respondent No.6.
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
4 Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of
the parties and is taken up for final disposal.
5 The present petition raises important questions
concerning the balance between ecological preservation and
infrastructure development, specifically involving the cutting of
mangroves for a public utility project.
6 Before delving into the merits of the present petition, it
would be apposite to briefly note the importance of mangroves and
the legal framework governing their preservation. Mangroves are
ecologically fragile coastal ecosystems that serve as natural barriers
against erosion and flooding, protect marine biodiversity, and
contribute significantly to climate resilience. Recognizing their
ecological importance, mangroves have been accorded legal
protection under various statutes and judicial pronouncements. The
Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, issued under the
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, classifies mangrove areas
exceeding 1,000 square meters as CRZ-I(A), thereby prohibiting
any developmental activity within such zones except with prior
approval and under stringent conditions. Similarly, under the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980, read with the Van (Sanrakshan Evam
Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980, the felling of mangroves is
regulated and may only be permitted upon satisfaction of
compelling public interest, accompanied by appropriate
compensatory afforestation measures. Judicial recognition of their
importance has also been affirmed in Bombay Environmental
Action Group v. State of Maharashtra (PIL No. 87 of 2006),
wherein this Court held that mangroves cannot be destroyed except
where it is found necessary in public interest. This Court in the said
judgment invoked the public trust doctrine to hold that mangroves
cannot be destroyed for private, commercial or any other use,
unless the Court finds such action to be necessary in public interest.
Against this backdrop, the Petitioner's request for permission to
undertake development involving the cutting of mangroves must be
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
considered with due regard to both, environmental safeguards and
public necessity.
7 By this petition, the Petitioners seeks a direction to
the respondent Authorities to permit the Petitioners to execute
the proposed construction of Kasheli Depot with EHV towers
including transmission lines for power supply to RSS at Kasheli
and Dive Anjur villages for Mumbai Metro Line 5 (Thane-
Bhiwandi-Kalyan) in Thane, in view of the public importance of
the project and as such, grant leave as contemplated in the
Specific Condition No. 2 imposed by respondent No. 2-
MCZMA at Item No.6, in its 174 th Minutes of Meeting held on
3rd and 4th June 2024; Specific Condition No. 4 in the CRZ
Clearance dated 23rd December 2024 issued by respondent No. 1
and Specific Condition No. 1.10 imposed by respondent No. 1 in
its letter dated 27th February 2025 granting Stage-I Forest
Clearance under Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam,
1980, in view of the public importance of the project.
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
8 The Petitioner is a statutory body established in
accordance with the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development
Authority Act, 1974 (`MMRDA Act'), on 26th January 1975.
The object of establishing the Petitioner Authority was to make
the city of Mumbai a destination for economic activity by
promoting infrastructure development and improving the quality
of life of people of the said city. The Petitioner Authority
promotes and monitors the key projects for developing new
growth centers and brings about improvement in sectors like
transport, housing, water supply and environment in the Region.
The Government of Maharashtra has appointed the Petitioner as
project implementing agency for construction of the Mumbai
Metro Rail Project.
9 The respondent No.1 is the Union of India through
its Ministry of Environment and Forest, being the nodal agency in
the administrative structure of the Government for the planning,
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
promotion, coordination and overseeing the implementation of
India's environmental and forestry policies, including but not
limited to grant of environment clearance. The respondent No. 2
is the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority
constituted under the CRZ Notification 1991 under the
provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 ("EPA"),
and is responsible for regulating activities in the Coastal
Regulation Zones ("CRZ"). The respondent No.2 is also
responsible for grant of CRZ clearances.
10 Respondent No.3 is the State of Maharashtra through
its Environment Department. The respondent No.4 is the
Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Mangroves
Cell), and the respondent No. 5 is the Additional Principal Chief
Conservator of Forest and Nodal Officer, Nagpur. The
respondent No. 6-Bombay Environment Action Group (`BEAG')
is the original Petitioner in PIL No. 87 of 2006.
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
11 The Petitioner has approached this Court in view of
one of the conditions imposed by the Authorities, namely, that
prior permission of the High Court be obtained by the Project
Proponent, as per the order dated 17 th September 2018 passed in
PIL No. 87/2006, since the proposed construction of the towers
falls within the 50-meter mangrove buffer zone and involves the
cutting of mangroves. In Bombay Environmental Action Group &
Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (PIL No. 87/2006), this
Court, inter alia, issued the following direction:
"87 (viii) 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."
12 Having regard to the aforesaid condition imposed by
this Court and the condition imposed by several authorities whilst
granting environmental clearance/permission to construct Kasheli
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
Depot alongwith Extra High Voltage (EHV) towers and
transmission lines for power supply to Receiving Sub-Station
("RSS") at Kasheli Depot for Mumbai Metro Line-5 (Thane-
Bhiwandi-Kalyan), that the Petitioner has approached this Court
by way of the aforesaid petition.
13 It is the Petitioner's case that the project in question is
one of the many Metro corridors undertaken for implementation
by the Petitioner so as to meet the growing transportation need of
the city of Mumbai, to reduce the travel time and reduce
vehicular traffic in the city of Mumbai and its suburbs. The said
corridor is 24.90 km long, which includes 16 stations (one station
included in Metro-4) and a depot at Kasheli. For the said project,
electricity/power is required for operating the said Metro system
and its various activities. According to the Petitioner, the total
traction power requirement for smooth operation of Metro Line-
05 is estimated to be 13.8 MW in 2031, and that, in order to
ensure a reliable power supply to Metro line 5 and its depot, a
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
separate dedicated Receiving Sub-Station ("RSS") is proposed at
Kasheli in Thane district. According to the Petitioner, the power
will be drawn from MSETCL 220 kV double circuit Temghar
Colorchem transmission line from Tower No. 6 of LILO
arrangement located at Kasheli. The proposed project involves
construction of 4 numbers of transmission towers and laying of
transmission lines from substation to Tower No. 6 of LILO
arrangement located at Kasheli. It is the Petitioner's case that the
said project will aid in completion of Metro Line-05, which will
help to provide inter-connectivity among the ongoing Metro
Line-04 (Wadala to Kasarvadavli) and the proposed Metro Line
12 (Kalyan to Taloja), and with the existing Central Railway.
According to the Petitioner, the said project will also provide rail-
based access to the commercial, Government bodies and
geographical landmarks in Thane, Bhiwandi and Kalyan and as
such, will reduce the current travel time between 50% and 75%.
It is the Petitioner's case that the Petitioner has applied to various
authorities and has sought requisite permission for the said
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
proposed construction as stated aforesaid. The respondent No.2-
MCZMA at Item No.6, in its 174 th Minutes of Meeting held on
3rd and 4th June 2024, amongst other conditions, imposed a
Specific Condition No.2, which reads thus :
"Item No.6: Proposed construction of EHV towers including
transmission lines for power supply to RSS at Kasheli Depot
for Mumbai Metro Line 5 (Thane-Bhiwandi-Kalyan) in Thane
by MMRDA.
...........
Decision : ..........
2. Prior High Court permission should be obtained by the
PP as per order dated 17th Sep, 2018 in PIL 87/2006, since the
proposed construction of Towers falls within 50 m mangrove
buffer zone area and cutting of mangroves."
14 The respondent No.1, whilst granting the Petitioner
Authority CRZ Clearance dated 23 rd December 2024, amongst
other conditions, imposed a Specific Condition No. 4, which
reads thus:
"4. The Committee has deliberated the proposal based on
the information provided/presented by the proponent. After
deliberation, the Committee has noted that the project activity
is permissible as per CRZ Notification, 2019 and Maharashtra
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
CZMA has also recommended the proposal. Further, the
Committee has suggested that as the project activity falls in
CRZ-IA (mangroves) and CRZ-IA (Mangrove Buffer), the
proponent should obtain the necessary prior approval from
Hon'ble High Court of Bombay for cutting of mangroves.
Further, as committed, mangrove afforestation should be
carried out in consultation with Forest Department and
success of mangrove afforestation efforts needs to be verified
annually by reputed institution in the field of mangrove
restoration and report should be submitted to concern IRO.
In response, proponent agreed the same."
15 The respondent No.1 also in its letter dated 27 th
February 2025, whilst granting the Petitioner Stage - I Forest
Clearance under Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam,
1980, imposed amongst other conditions, a Specific Condition
No. 1.10, which reads thus:
"1.10 The UA shall obtain prior permission from the
Hon'ble High Court for felling mangroves before
commencing the project. All site-specific mitigation measures
shall be planned in consultation with the Mangrove Cell,
Mumbai, and implemented at the project's cost as per the
Court's direction."
16 It is pertinent to note that this Court vide judgment
and order dated 17th September 2018 had recorded a finding that
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
in view of the applicability of public trust doctrine, the
respondent No. 3-State of Maharashtra, Environment
Department, is duty bound to protect and preserve mangroves
and destruction of the same cannot be permitted for private,
commercial or any other use unless this Hon'ble Court finds it
necessary for public interest.
17 We heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties on several dates and as such, passed several
orders in the said petition.
18 It was brought to our notice by Mr. Hegde, the
learned senior counsel for the Petitioner that although the
concerned authorities had granted permission to cut 70
mangroves, the Petitioner authority has proposed to cut only 26
mangroves. In respect of the 70 mangroves permitted to be cut,
the respondent authorities were obligated to plant 370 mangrove
saplings (i.e., 5.29 times the permitted number).
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
19 During the course of the hearing of the petition, we
observed that although permissions were granted by the
respondent authorities and requisite payments were made as
directed by the said authorities towards compensatory
afforestation or planting of mangroves, no parallel steps were
taken by the authorities to implement the afforestation measures.
20 In view of this, we directed the learned Addl. G.P. to
file an affidavit-cum-undertaking setting out the details of the
proposed plantation to be done by the respondent authorities. We
also directed the learned Addl. G.P., by our order dated 11 th July
2025, to obtain instructions on whether all relevant project
details, particularly those involving the cutting of mangroves or
trees, could be uploaded on the Forest Department's website, and
whether a dedicated website could be created exclusively for
mangrove and tree felling activities in cases where permissions
were granted to project proponents/Development Authorities for
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
developmental projects, as well as for documenting the
compensatory afforestation and mangrove plantation done in lieu
of trees felled and mangroves cut. We further directed the
learned Addl. G.P to obtain instructions on whether a dedicated
online platform could be established to transparently track
mangrove and tree cutting associated with development works,
along with real-time updates on afforestation efforts and
compliance.
21 Pursuant to these directions, the learned Addl. G.P, on
16th July 2025, tendered an affidavit of Mr. Dipak Khade,
Divisional Forest Officer mangroves Division North Konkan,
dated 5th July 2025. In paragraphs 3 to 5 of the said affidavit, it is
stated as under :
"3. I am filing this affidavit to place on record the facts
and methodology of compensatory afforestation as per the
Consolidated Guidelines and Clarifications issued by the
Government of India under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam
Samvardhan) Adhiniyam 1980. The relevant extracts from
those Guidelines are annexed hereto and marked as
EXHIBIT R-3.
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
3.1] The Rules and Guidelines provide that in cases
where the proposed diversion of land exceeds One
Hectare, the User Agency (also referred to as Project
Proponent) has to identify equivalent non-forest land
to be used for Compensatory Afforestation. That land
so identified by the Project Proponent should not be
under management or administrative control of the
Forest Department and should not have been notified
as forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or any
other law. Thereafter the Deputy Conservator of
Forests (Territorial) having jurisdiction over that area
will examine the said land and certify whether the
said non-forest land is suitable for afforestation. In
the instant case, the Deputy Conservator of Forests
(Territorial), Dhule has certified the land as suitable
for afforestation: the certificate so issued by that
Office is annexed hereto and marked as EXHIBIT R-
4. Thereafter a Compensatory Afforestation scheme
is forwarded to the Government of India for
approval. Following such certification, the User
Agency has to (a) acquire that land from its owner,
free from all encumbrances and occupation, (b) has
to fence that land, (c) obtain mutation of the land
records in the name of the Forest Department and
then hand over the possession to the Forest
Department. This follows from Rule 13 of the Rules
under the Adhiniyam and Chapter 2 Guidelines.
3.2] In cases where the proposed diversion is only
upto One Hectare, the cost of plantation of 10 times
the number of trees proposed to be felled has to be
paid by the User Agency. In such case, compensatory
afforestation can be done on degraded forest land.
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
This is provided in Rule 13(5) of the Rules under the
Adhiniyam.
4. In the case of the instant Petition, 1111 trees per
hectare will be planted in a suitable area of 8.22 Hectares out
of 9.30 Hectares Gut No. 57/1, Nimdhale Village, Tal.-
Dhule, at Dhule, totalling 9132 trees for the 74 mangroves
trees (now, as per Exhibit-1, only 26) to be felled.
5. As stated in the Guidelines (Chapter 2, guideline
2.1), the purpose of compensatory afforestation is to
compensate the loss of land "land by land" and loss of "trees
by trees".
22 During the hearing of this petition, we observed a
glaring lack of coordination between the grant of permission and
the actual execution of afforestation activities and also gross delay
in plantations. Despite deposits being made as directed by the
authorities, no serious efforts were undertaken to carry out
afforestation or to plant mangroves in place of the cut
mangroves/trees. We further found that the monies deposited for
afforestation were not being utilized for the intended purpose,
and that several other significant lacunae existed in the process.
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
23 In this connection, respondent No. 6 tendered certain
suggestions regarding the protection and preservation of
mangroves. The Petitioner also submitted suggestions for issuance
of guidelines concerning the protection and conservation of
mangroves/trees.
24 Infact, during the course of the hearing, we found
that for cutting the 70 mangroves, afforestation was to be done at
Nimdhale Village, at Nimdhale Village at Dhule as per Condition
No.1.10 imposed by the respondent No.1, however, there was no
condition with respect to re-plantation of mangroves, as
mandated under the applicable Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ)
Notification and Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam,
1980. For mangroves which were going to be cut in Thane,
compensatory afforestation was being done in Dhule, by planting
trees. Dhule is at a distance of 345 kms from Mumbai. No
plantation of mangroves was being done in Thane where the
mangroves were sought to be cut. It is only during the course of
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
the hearing, when the same was brought to the notice of the
learned counsel for the respondent No.6 that the respondent No.
4 agreed and informed us that 370 mangrove saplings would be
planted in Survey No. 62 at Village Surai.
25 Considering that this decision was taken when the
same was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities
during the hearing of the petition, and the dismal state of affairs,
as noted herein-above, we thought it appropriate to appoint a
Court Commissioner to visit the proposed site and verify whether
there was sufficient area to plant 370 saplings in Survey No. 62,
at Village Surai. Accordingly, we appointed Advocate Mr. Vishal
Kanade as the Court Commissioner, who graciously accepted the
said assignment. Mr. Kanade submitted his report on 22 nd July
2025, which was taken on record. Paras 4 to 7 of the said report
read thus :
"4. At the site, the representatives of the Forest
Department and MMRDA indicated that Sno 62 belonged
to the Forest Department and that they had identified an
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
area of 0.1 Hectare for afforestation of 370 saplings. A
rectangular area was demarcated with Red Flags planted
at the site. The plot is perpendicular to a channel of
water, essentially being an estuary.
5. It was observed that this rectangular plot had tall
grass, which was being cleared by a few labourers. I was
informed by the Forest Department official that tall grass /
unwanted vegetation had to be cleared for the purpose of
planting of mangrove saplings.
6. The representatives of the Forest Department and
MMRDA indicated that they propose to plant more than
370 saplings, i.e about 400 as a matter of abundant
precaution. The saplings will be planted at a distance of
1.5 meters such that one row will have 40 saplings on
either side of edge of the row. In the row, which will have
40 saplings on either side, channelizing work will be taken
up in the middle of the row so that water from the estuary
can be channelised for the growth of the mangrove
saplings. I was informed that the Forest Department
proposes to have 5 such rows and distance between such
row / channel will be that of 6 meters.
Observation/Conclusion
7. In my view, from an ocular standpoint, the
plot of land earmarked for this purpose seems large
enough to accommodate 5 rows divided by a distance of 6
meters (each row with 40 saplings on either side of a
channel). The entire plot being perpendicular to the
channel of water emanating from the estuary."
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
26 It thus appears that there is sufficient land for the
purpose of planting 370-400 mangroves. We are informed by the
learned Addl. G.P on instructions of the concerned officer, that
the channeling work has commenced, and the plantation of 370-
400 mangrove saplings is expected to be completed by the end of
September 2025.
27 During the course of the hearing, keeping in mind our
concern regarding the implementation and transparency of
afforestation efforts, we directed the authorities to create a
dedicated website, accessible to one and all. A website containing
details of the project, amounts deposited, mangroves/trees
affected, including details of species of trees to be felled and
compensatory afforestation efforts undertaken i.e.
trees/mangroves where planted, including the numbers/species,
their survival details, etc. Details of Court order alongwith
conditions to be complied with; status of compliance done,
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
alongwith updated photographs, periodically, etc. also to be
uploaded on this website. We had also expressed our serious
concern that the procedure for inviting objections with regard to
the destruction/affecting of mangroves was opaque and hence
required greater transparency. The learned Addl. G.P, on
instructions, assured us that such a dedicated website would be
created within four weeks from the date of the order,
incorporating all requisite details.
28 Since the project in question is a significant public
utility project and the Petitioner has obtained all necessary
permissions from the concerned authorities as required by law, we
granted permission to the Petitioner to commence the project,
vide our order dated 22nd July 2025. The matter was thereafter
listed on 23rd July 2025 to enable the learned Addl. G.P to take
instructions and inform the Court as to when the afforestation
plantation at District Dhule would commence.
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
29 We had also directed the learned Addl. G.P to provide
details of projects undertaken over the past three years, i.e. the
extent of mangrove destruction involved therein, and the
corresponding afforestation measures undertaken/mangroves
plantation done. However, despite the said directions, no such
information was made available to this Court or was forthcoming.
30 In light of the above, we considered it appropriate to
issue effective directions, since the issue in question has a direct
bearing on the environment. The concept of 'sustainable
development' has been a matter of great concern for all, whether
environmentalists or the Courts. The Apex Court has consistently
observed that development and environment must go hand in
hand. In other words, there should not be development at the
cost of environment and vice versa and that development can take
place only after ensuring that as far as possible, environment is
safeguarded. It is also observed by Courts that destruction of
mangroves violates the fundamental rights of citizens under
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
Article 21 of the Constitution, and that the State, its agencies,
and instrumentalities are under a mandatory duty to protect and
preserve mangroves under Articles 21, 47, 48A and 51A(g) of the
Constitution. It is thus imperative that in every project where
permission is granted resulting in cutting of mangroves or trees,
compensatory afforestation must be carried out simultaneously, or
even prior to such destruction. Furthermore, all related
information must be published on the website to ensure
transparency and public awareness. Only through such measures
can the true spirit and objective of the decision in Public Interest
Litigation No. 87/2006, be achieved.
31 We are of the considered view that where any
development project involves the felling of mangroves or
diversion of ecologically sensitive land, compensatory
afforestation must not remain a formality or a mere post-facto
measure. Instead, it must be enforced in a transparent manner,
with a parallel condition for project execution. Infact, requisite
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
permissions must be obtained well in advance of the
commencement of the project, since the proposed project route
i.e. start to end, is already within the knowledge of the
authorities, and should not be sought belatedly at the last
moment, as is presently being done.
32 We have also observed that Development/Planning
Authorities approach this Court at the eleventh hour, seeking
urgent permissions for cutting of trees and mangroves, while
pressing that any delay would escalate project costs. This practice
needs to be condemned. The route and design of a project--from
point A to point Z--are known to the authorities well in advance.
Consequently, the trees and mangroves likely to be impacted are
also ascertainable at the outset. Permissions for felling must
therefore be sought sufficiently in advance, and not at the last
minute, so that afforestation steps/mangrove plantations can start
well in advance.
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
33 The importance of mangroves can hardly be
overstated. Not only do mangroves help in mitigating the
progression of climate change, but they also play a critical role in
limiting its impact. As global temperatures rise, extreme weather
events such as storms and tidal surges are becoming more
frequent and severe. The trunks and root systems of mangroves
absorb the force of waves, serving as a natural frontline defence
that shields inland areas and higher ground. Indeed, mangroves
are rightly regarded as "climate heroes," since they sequester up
to five times more carbon than terrestrial forests, incorporating it
into their leaves, branches, roots, and the sediments beneath.
Under suitable environmental conditions, mangroves can retain
and store this carbon for decades, if not centuries. Mangroves
which are planted as small saplings take 15-20 years to grow into
trees. Trees which are felled also take years to grow. Thus, it is
important to place the route well in advance, so that
destruction/felling of mangroves/trees can be minimized.
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
34 We also find that despite obtaining necessary
approvals, there exists a clear disconnect between permission for
cutting mangroves and the actual implementation of
compensatory afforestation. Even where amounts were
deposited and conditions were stipulated, the corresponding on-
ground measures were either delayed or neglected or not fulfilled.
Take for example the following projects:
S. Name of Name Proposed Type Approval Compen- District Present Statuts
No. the of the area of of satory of
Project Agency Diversion Project Afforestat Compensatory
Mangrove ion on Afforestation
Forest ha.
In ha.
Stage I Stage II
1. Constructi MCGM 35 Non- 22.08.19 03.02.23 6, 17, Thane Part plantation
on of Linear 9, 9 completed in
Malad March 2025
Sewage
Treatment Part plantation
Plant will be
(STP) completed by
along September
with 2025
influent
pumping
station &
effluent
pumping
station
2. Constructi MMRDA 0.985 Linear 11.03.20 09.02.23 1 Mumbai Proposed in
on of the Suburban APO
Metro 2025-2026
Pier &
Bhakti
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
Park
Station
for the
Mumbai
Metro
Line 4
3. Constructi GOVT 0.034 Linear 05.12.22 02.11.23 1 Palghar Proposed in
on of jetty AGENCY APO
and allied 2025-2026
facilities
at Borivali
District
Mumbai
Suburban
4. Widening MCGM 0.0254 Linear 30.10.20 04.01.24 1 Thane Proposed in
and APO
reconstruc 2025-2026
tion of
bridge
across
Mithi
River at
Mahim
causeway
5. Proposed URB- 0.045 Linear 14.06.19 17.05.24 1 Mumbai Proposed in
water INFRA Suburban APO
pipeline 2025-2026
carrying
secondary
treated
sewage
from
Ghatkopa
r Pumping
Station to
Waste to
Energy
plant at
village -
Deonar
and
Vikroli,
District-
Mumbai
Surburban
, by
MCGM
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
35 This delay cannot be countenanced, as this
undermines not only the purpose of afforestation but also the
trust reposed by this Court through its judgment in PIL No.
87/2006, which is founded on the public trust doctrine.
36 There is also a pressing need to maintain transparency
in such matters, which affect both the ecology and public interest.
Therefore, project-related information must be publicly
accessible, including permissions, conditions, maps, afforestation
status, and monitoring mechanisms. Digitally verifiable and
publicly accessible data, such as Geo-tagged photographs and
plantation updates, etc. are necessary to ensure accountability,
failing which, the spirit of the judgment in PIL and orders passed
by this Court will remain only on paper. Progress of
trees/mangroves needs to be monitored i.e. the mortality rate of
the saplings. If trees are translocated, there survival also needs to
be monitored.
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
37 As emerged during the hearing, apart from what has
been stated hereinabove, funds deposited by Development
Authorities into the Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAMPA)
for specific projects were often being diverted for purposes
unconnected with those projects. This is impermissible. Monies
deposited by Development or Planning Authorities must be
utilised strictly for afforestation and conservation measures
connected to the project for which such deposits are made, and
not for any other project.
38 We have also taken note that compensatory
afforestation is being carried out at locations far remote from the
sites where trees are felled, rather than in close proximity to the
affected areas, which are environmentally impacted by such
felling. The same requires serious consideration. The Apex
Court, in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India1, has observed in
paragraph 3 as under:
1 WP (Civil) No.4677/1985 (Order dated 15/04/2024)
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
"3. We are informed across the Bar by Mr. S.W.A. Qadri,
the learned senior counsel for the applicant that the site for
compensatory afforestation is approximately at a distance
of 10 kilometers from the site of the project. The question
is whether there can be, in true sense, compensatory
afforestation by providing a site approximately at a
distance of 10 kilometers away from the site of the
project."
39 This observation underscores the necessity of ensuring
that afforestation is not only undertaken but is done in a manner
that meaningfully restores ecological balance in the very regions
that suffer degradation, rather than in distant areas where the
environmental impact is negligible. We also are of the opinion
that it is imperative to create land banks i.e. areas readily
available where afforestation can undertaken in future. Further,
the progress of afforestation must be closely monitored, including
the mortality rate of planted saplings. Where trees or mangroves
are translocated, their survival and growth shall also be
systematically monitored and reported, so that the compensatory
measures are not illusory but effective in practice.
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
40 In view of the above discussion and findings, the
Petition is disposed of with the following directions:
I. The Petitioner is permitted to commence and
execute the proposed construction of the Kasheli Depot with
EHV towers and transmission lines for Mumbai Metro Line-
5, including the cutting of 26 mangroves, subject to strict
compliance with all conditions imposed by the concerned
statutory authorities.
II. The plantation of 370-400 mangrove saplings, as
undertaken by the authorities, shall be completed by 30 th
September 2025 in Survey No. 62 at Village Surai. Trees also
to be planted at Dhule.
III. The cost of fencing of the plantation area referred
to in Clause II shall be borne by the concerned Planning
Authority.
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
IV. In addition to the aforesaid project-specific
directions, the following shall operate as general conditions
applicable to this and all future permissions concerning
cutting or diversion of mangroves/trees:
(a) Monies deposited by the project proponent shall
be utilised exclusively for afforestation purposes, the purpose
for which it is deposited i.e. for plantation of trees/mangroves
or both.
(b) The authorities shall, within six weeks, launch a
dedicated public website/portal to host project-specific
information, past and present, pertaining to projects of the
last ten years, wherein permissions were granted for cutting of
trees or mangroves, together with the approvals and
conditions imposed on the project proponents. The web
portal to also contain details such as (i) the name, location,
and purpose of the project; (ii) all approvals granted; (iii) the
number and location of mangroves/trees affected; (iv) details
of compensatory plantation, i.e. species, number, and
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
location; (v) the status of afforestation, supported by geo-
tagged and time-stamped photographs duly certified by the
Nodal Officer; (vi) details of compliance, together with
annual verification reports; and (vii) survival of
trees/mangroves so planted i.e. mortality, and, if the same do
not survive, the re-plantation done.
(c) The said portal shall be updated once every four
months giving the aforesaid particulars.
(d) Details of the land bank created for afforestation
shall also be uploaded on the portal within eight weeks. Such
land shall be duly fenced, kept free from encroachment,
mutated in favour of the Forest Department, and handed over
to it. Land identified as suitable for mangrove plantations
shall likewise be earmarked as land banks and reflected on the
website. Regular monitoring shall be undertaken to ensure
that no encroachment takes place on the land banks created
for afforestation.
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
(e) Where diversion exceeds one hectare, the User
Agency must identify equivalent non-forest land for
compensatory afforestation. Such land must neither be under
the control of the Forest Department nor notified as forest
under any law. It shall be verified and certified by the Deputy
Conservator of Forests (Territorial) as suitable for
afforestation. Upon such identification, the User Agency must
acquire the land, fence it, ensure mutation of land records in
favour of the Forest Department, and hand over possession to
the Forest Department, in accordance with Rule 13 of the Van
(Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 and
Chapter II of the Compensatory Afforestation Guidelines.
(f) Where diversion is less than one hectare, the User
Agency shall bear the cost of plantation of ten times the
number of trees proposed to be cut. In such cases,
compensatory mangrove afforestation shall be undertaken on
degraded mangrove land, within the same district, following
the principle of "land-for-land" and "tree-for-tree", as
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
provided in Chapter 2, Guideline 2.1. In cases of large-scale
mangrove loss, afforestation shall be planned in alternate
degraded mangrove areas within the same district or region.
(g) Environmental approvals to be obtained and
granted for the project as a whole, and not in a piecemeal
manner, so that the total number of trees/mangroves likely to
be affected is placed before the authorities and the Court. All
such approvals shall be uploaded on the website as and when
obtained/granted.
(h) In case of any subsequent modifications, the
project proponent must provide due justification and
undertake a fresh Environmental Impact Assessment, together
with a revised mangrove conservation plan covering the
project in its entirety.
(i) The Forest Department/Mangrove Cell shall
identify sites for compensatory afforestation in close
proximity to the affected area, in line with the observation of
the Apex Court in MC Mehta v. Union of India (supra).
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
(j) No felling shall commence until afforestation
measures are initiated, bearing in mind the considerable time
required for trees and mangroves to attain maturity.
(k) The Forest Department/Mangrove Cell shall give
seven days' advance intimation to the Respondent No. 6
(Bombay Environmental Action Group) before carrying out
afforestation, to enable deputation of a representative to
observe the plantation process.
(l) The following documents shall be made freely
accessible to the public on the Mangrove Cell website without
login or registration: project proposals, clearances, EIA/EMP
reports, minutes of meetings, inspection reports, CZMP
maps, NoCs, approvals, conservation and afforestation plans,
geo-tagged plantation details, photographs, and
compliance/status reports, etc.
(m) All mangrove patches within and around the
project site shall be geo-tagged and GIS-mapped.
WP-3727-2025-J.doc
(n) Re-plantation shall strictly be in compliance with
the provisions of the 1980 Act and the Rules of 2023 framed
thereunder.
41 Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
42 The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order
as to costs.
43 The petition be listed initially every four months for
compliance review/for further directions.
44 We would like to record a word of appreciation for the
able assistance provided and the efforts taken by Mr. Kanade, as an
amicus curiae.
45 All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this
judgment.
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
