Bombay High Court
Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation vs Union Of India And Ors on 26 April, 2022
Bench: Dipankar Datta, V. G. Bisht
5-WP-5663-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5663 OF 2021
NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL )
CORPORATION )...PETITIONER
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS )...RESPONDENTS
Mr. Sandeep Marne, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Sharmila Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent
No.2 - MCZMA.
Mr. P.P.Kaka, Government Pleader a/w. Mrs.
R.A.Salunkhe, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 4-
State.
Mr. Rohan Kelkar a/w. Ms. Sheetal Shah a/w. Ms.
Dimple D. Bitra i/by. M/s.Mehta & Girdharlal,
Advocate for Respondent No.6.
CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
V. G. BISHT, J.
DATE : APRIL 26, 2022 P.C.: 1. By consent, heard fnally.
2. By this writ petition fled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made following prayers :
"a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thereby directing Page 1 of 4 AVK 5-WP-5663-2021.doc the Respondent Authorities to permit the Petitioner to execute the proposed project of refurbishing and upgradation of existing Sewage Treatment Plant at Sector 18, Airoli, Navi Mumbai, in view of the public importance of the project fnding of this Hon'ble Court recorded at paragraph 83(viii) of the Judgment and Order dated 17th September 2018 passed by this Hon'ble Court in PIL No.87 of 2006;
b) For such further and other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may consider ft and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case."
3. Mr. Sandeep Marne, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the necessary permissions / clearances for the proposed project has already been given by respondent nos.2 and 5. Similarly, the Debris Management Plan is also submitted before the concerned authority. There is no hurdle if the present writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause, urged learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Mr. Rohan Kelkar, learned counsel for the respondent no.6, submits that proposed refurbishing and upgradation of existing Sewage Treatment Plant should not, in any manner, interfere with the nearby mangroves and as also violate the Rules regarding Coastal Regulation Zone. Necessary undertaking to that efect should also be given by the petitioner.
5. We have already noted and pointed out the submissions advanced by Mr. Marne, learned counsel for the petitioner, that all necessary clearances have been obtained. Similarly, Debris Management Plan is also submitted to the concerned authority. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record the compilation and more particularly the letter addressed by the Executive Engineer Page 2 of 4 AVK 5-WP-5663-2021.doc (Amrut Scheme), Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation to Advocate Sandeep Marne, Fort, Mumbai with reference to subject of compliance of the comment raised by the BEAG (Bombay Environment Action Group) i.e. respondent no.6 herein. The learned counsel also invited our attention to Environmental Management Plan and particularly Table 5.2 dealing with Construction Stage. Serial No.11 of the said table is in respect of environmental issue of Earthwork Debris Disposal and the mitigation measures adopted by the petitioner. Similarly, Serial No.21 deals with environmental issue - Construction and Demolition Waste Disposal and the mitigation measures to be taken in that regard. From the above it is more than clear that not only all the clearances have been secured by the petitioner but Environmental Management Plan has also been submitted before the concerned authority.
6. In PIL No.87 of 2006, this Court at paragraph 83(viii) provided that no destruction of mangroves to take place unless this court deemed it necessary for the public good or public interest. Paragraph 83(viii) is reproduced hereunder :
"(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 fnds it necessary for the public good or public interest."
7. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no mangrove destruction is contemplated in the execution of the proposed project of the petitioner and despite having obtained all necessary clearance and permissions in accordance with law, the petitioner cannot Page 3 of 4 AVK 5-WP-5663-2021.doc execute the proposed project without this Court fnding it necessary and expedient for public interest as the project site is partly afected by 50 meter mangroves bufer zone.
8. We have also noted the requisite conditions for the completion of the proposed project as raised by the learned counsel for the respondent no.6. Since the proposed project of the petitioner is based on the principles of public utility, sustainable development and ecofriendly recycling of sewage water, aimed at beneftting the citizens and not premised on private or commercial gain, we are of the considered view that leave of this Court for the purpose needs to be granted, provided the petitioner gives an undertaking to comply all the necessary conditions requisite for the purpose of completion of the proposed project.
9. At the same time, we also make it clear that if the undertaking is violated in any manner, the respondents shall be at liberty to bring the said breach or violation of the condition to the notice of the concerned competent authority.
10. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed in terms of Prayer Clause (a) and stands disposed of.
(V. G. BISHT, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) ARTI VILAS KHATATE Digitally signed by ARTI VILAS KHATATE Date: 2022.04.28 12:26:42 +0530 Page 4 of 4 AVK