National Green Tribunal
Balaji Tirupati Cinemas vs 1. The Maharashtra Coastal Zone ... on 28 September, 2022
Item No. 3 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
(By Video Conferencing)
Appeal No. 43/2022 (WZ)
I.A. No. 145/2022, I.A. No. 150/2022 &
I.A. No. 152/2022
Balaji Tirupati Cinemas
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
MCZMA & Anr.
....Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 28.09.2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Appellant(s) : Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate
ORDER
I.A. No. 152/2022(WZ)
1. This Interlocutory application has been moved by the Learned Counsel for the Applicant praying amendment to be allowed in the prayer clause of Appeal No. 43/2022 (WZ) to the effect that direction be issued to the Respondent No. 2 for not initiating any coercive action against the Appellant including that of the demolition of temporary structures of the land bearing CTS No. 1496, 1497 and 1498 at Village Erangal, Madh Marve Road, Mumbai.
2. This application has been moved in order to clarify as to what does coercive action mean and it is stated in this application that it amounts to demolition of the temporary structures raised by the Appellant under proper permission which was earlier granted.
Page 1 of 5
3. We deem it proper to allow the amendment application and accordingly direct the Appellant to incorporate the amendment by today itself in course of the day.
I.A. No. 152/2022 (WZ) disposed of accordingly.
Appeal No. 43/2022 (WZ)
4. The present appeal has been preferred against order dated 12.09.2022 passed by Respondent No. 1/MCZMA which is annexed as Annexure A-1 in the form of Minutes of the 160th (3rd continued) Meeting of Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) held on 12.09.2022 where-in in Item No. 3, the deliberation was made on three applications of temporary structures of films sets for shooting purpose. It contained the fact that after deliberation the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) vide letter dated 24.02.2021, granted CRZ recommendations to 3 applications, 1). M/s Balaji Tirupati Cinemas (appears before us); 2). M/s. Bhatia Bollywood Studio LLP and 3). M/s Expression Studios of temporary structures of the films sets for shooting purpose at Village Erangal, Madh, Malad (W), Mumbai, subject to certain conditions which was valid for 06 months. In the said Minutes, it is pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that authority has noted that it has received complaints along-with photographs in the matter alleging the violations of the conditions of the above CRZ recommendations granted for temporary structures of films sets for shooting purpose and accordingly, it is resolved/decided that above 3 applications for further extension /CRZ recommendation is rejected and it is directed that Reminder letter be sent to MCGM and DCZMA for suitable action in the matter.
Page 2 of 5
5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant is interpreting that the suitable action will amount to nothing but order of demolition of the said temporary structure which has been raised by the Appellant. The photograph of the said temporary structure, has been annexed with I.A. No. 150/2022 (WZ) at page no. 260 as Annexure - A-1 of the paper book in which ad interim relief was prayed.
6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has drawn attention to page 60 of the paper book which contains a letter addressed by the Architect of the Appellant addressed to the Asstt. Municipal Commissioner, M.C.G.M., P/North-Ward, Liberty Garden, Malad (W), Mumbai (Respondent No. 2), seeking permission for erecting temporary structures for shooting in open plot bearing C.T.S. No. 1496, 1497, 1498 of Village Erangal, Madh Marve Road, Malad (W), Mumbai, for the period from 05.01.2022 to 04.07.2022.
7. Thereafter, attention is drawn to page no. 62 of the paper book in which Respondent No. 2 had written to the Respondent No. 1/Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA), recommending that the permission for erection of shooting tents/set for a period of 03 years can be granted from 13.10.2021 to 12.04.2024.
8. Thereafter, attention is drawn to page no. 88 onwards of the paper book which is an Annexure A-22 in the form of an agenda of the meeting of Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) of 06th & 07th June, 2022 dated 29.08.2022 where-in at serial no. 35, the proposal for temporary structures for shooting purpose at plot in question was to be considered.
9. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has drawn attention to the Minutes of the Meeting dated 15th June, 2022 of Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) in which the proposal relating to Page 3 of 5 the Appellant does not find mention and thereafter, he has drawn attention to page 196 of the paper book which is an Order of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay dated 30th August, 2022 where-in attention is drawn to para 2 & 4 which is to the following effect:-
"2. By this petition, the petitioner has impugned notice dated 26.08.2022 issued by the Municipal Corporation calling upon the petitioner to stop the film shooting for not obtaining MCZMA clearance, which is pending, even according to the Corporation, for quite some time.
4. A perusal of the notice dated 26.08.2022 clearly indicates that the action is initiated at the instance of the former member of parliament"
10. Having drawn attention to this, it is argued by him that the rejection of the application has been done at the instance of the Member of Parliament without giving opportunity to the Appellant before rejecting the said application dated 12th October, 2021 which is mentioned at page 60 of the paper book.
11. We have considered the matter and find that vide Minutes dated 22nd February, 2021 of Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA), the permission to raise temporary structures for suiting purpose is granted on the above mentioned piece of land for a period of 06 (six) months from the date 22nd February, 2021 and the said six months would lapse on 22nd August, 2021. According to that order, after 22nd August, 2021, the said structure was due to be demolished because the same being temporary. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant says that fresh permission was sought on 11th October, 2021, that application has been rejected without any hearing. When enquired as to why the said permission was not moved before lapse of the earlier permission when it was granted up to 22nd August, 2021 then he states that it was Covid period because of which he could not move the application but he is Page 4 of 5 ready to show documentary evidence on record that even after 22nd August, 2021, certain permissions were granted.
12. He pointed out that at page no. 59 of the paper book which is a letter issued by the Respondent No. 2/MCGM dated 06.09.2021 where-by permission to erect the temporary structure was extended till 12.10.2021 and prior to that, he had already moved an application for consideration which has now been rejected on account of some complaints which were never shared with the Appellant nor any show cause notice was given regarding that nor opportunity of hearing was given to them, hence, it is prayed that status quo order at least may be passed and then finally the matter be disposed of. We are concurring with the argument raised by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and in view of above, let the status quo be maintained with respect to the property in question till next date i.e. on 09.11.2022.
Put up this matter on 09.11.2022.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM September 28, 2022 Appeal No. 43/2022 (WZ) I.A. No. 145/2022, I.A. No. 150/2022 & I.A. No. 152/2022 P.Kr Page 5 of 5