Bombay High Court
Mumbai Metropolitan Region ... vs Rohit Manohar Joshi And Ors on 20 December, 2019
Author: R.I. Chagla
Bench: S.C. Dharmadhikari, R.I. Chagla
suresh 904-IAG-1.2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.95 OF 2019
Rohit Manohar Joshi .... Petitioner
Vs.
Tree Authority, Thane & Others .... Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2019
IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.95 OF 2019
M/s. Peer Realty Pvt. Ltd. .... Applicant
In the matter between
Rohit Manohar Joshi .... Petitioner
Vs.
Tree Authority, Thane & Others .... Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2 OF 2019
IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.95 OF 2019
Piramal Estate Private Limited .... Applicant
In the matter between
Rohit Manohar Joshi .... Petitioner
Vs.
Tree Authority, Thane & Others .... Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3 OF 2019
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4 OF 2019
IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.95 OF 2019
Mumbai Metropolitan Region
Development Authority .... Applicant
In the matter between
Page 1 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2019 00:17:07 :::
suresh 904-IAG-1.2019.doc
Rohit Manohar Joshi .... Petitioner
Vs.
Tree Authority, Thane & Others .... Respondents
Ms Gayatri Singh, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Ankit
Kulkarni for the Petitioner.
Mr. Tejas Dande with Mr. Bharat Gadhavi, Mr.
Vaibhav Kulkarni, Mr. Vishal Navale & Mr. Pradip
Shingate i/by Tejas Dande & Associates for the
Applicant in IA-1/2019.
Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhushan
Deshmukh, Ms Tanvi Shah & Mr. Yash Dhakad i/by
Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the Applicant in IA-2/2019.
Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saket Mone,
Mr. Vishesh Kalra, Mr. Subit Chakrabarty, Mr. Abhishek
Salian & Mr. Vishal Dushing i/by Vidhii Partners for the
Applicant in IA-Nos.3 & 4 of 2019.
Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar, Senior Advocate & Mr. Ram S.
Apte, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.G. Aradwad (Reddy)
& Mr. Arvind Aswani i/by Mr. J.G. Aradwad (Reddy)
for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. P.P. Kakade, GP, with Mr. B.V. Samant, AGP,
for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &
R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : DECEMBER 20, 2019 P.C:
1. Insofar as the present PIL is concerned, at the outset, we must note that both Dr. Sathe, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant/MMRDA and the contractor, and Mr. Gorwadkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, have raised objection to the maintainability of this PIL. They would submit that the Page 2 of 9 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2019 00:17:07 ::: suresh 904-IAG-1.2019.doc petitioner, Rohit Manohar Joshi, is petitioner No.2 in the companion Public Interest Litigation No.78 of 2019. He could not have filed a second PIL on the same cause of action.
2. This contention is sought to be countered by Ms Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and she would submit that in this PIL the petitioner is calling for the records and proceedings of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Authority dated 22-5-2019 and challenging the decision recorded in these Minutes. The earlier PIL No.78 of 2019 concerns the legality and validity of the project as a whole and this PIL is specific insofar as its challenge. That is only to the actions of the Tree Authority which is impleaded as respondent No.1. Since the Tree Authority is working under the auspices of the Thane Municipal Corporation and equally the 3 rd respondent-Tree Officer, they have been impleaded as party respondents.
3. Just as PIL No.78 of 2019 is not disposed of and is pending, we clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the maintainability of this PIL. That issue is kept open.
4. Equally, we have not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions insofar as the decision of the Tree Authority recorded in the Minutes dated 22-5-2019 and the consequent permission in favour of the MMRDA dated 23-8-2019.Page 3 of 9 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2019 00:17:07 :::
suresh 904-IAG-1.2019.doc Pertinently, this PIL also concerns the project of the MMRDA and which project, in this case, is styled as proposal No.11, the Ward is Wagle Estate, the applicant is M/s. CHEC-TPL Line-4 Joint Venture. This is also a MMRDA work. The application in this case was made on 15-11-2018. This is also a Mumbai Metro Package Line-4 but the location is Mulund Check Naka to Majiwada Junction. The compliance letter is dated 10-10-2018.
The affected trees are 563. The Geo-Tagging Report is dated 16-9-2018 and the Tree Officer has visited the site on two occasions, namely, 10-1-2019 and 28-1-2019. The draft of the advertisement to be published has been approved on 14-1-2019 and 1-2-2019 and the advertisement was published in a newspaper on 7-2-2019. Here as well the Tree Authority is concerned and after the paper advertisement gave the last date as 13-2-2019, in all 317 objections were received. The trees to be transplanted are 478 and to be cut are 13. The new plantation in this case is 2585 and about 72 trees are going to be trimmed. Even in relation to this project, there is a final permission granted.
5. Here as well, the petitioner before us has consented to the modification of the blanket ad-interim/interim order of 30-9-2019 and submits that he would not insist on continuation of the arrangement in the Supreme Court's order as well.
Page 4 of 9 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2019 00:17:07 :::suresh 904-IAG-1.2019.doc
6. On identical terms and conditions, as set out in our order passed today in PIL No.78 of 2019, the order of 30-9-2019 stands modified, subject to the same.
7. In this case, Mr. Gorwadkar, learned Senior Counsel as also Mr. Apte, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respective respondents, would submit that the petitioner has filed this petition raising same issues but he has categorically said in the memo of this petition and particularly in para 3, that this petition assails the decision taken by the Tree Authority, Thane, in its meeting dated 22-5-2019 for felling/transplanting/trimming of approximately 3880 trees. This application of the concerned agency has been granted by the Tree Authority allegedly without application of mind and without following the due process of law, as stipulated under the provisions of The Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975. Though 18 proposals for felling/transplantation/trimming of approximately 3880 trees were cleared in this meeting, the subsequent permissions for felling/transplantation/trimming of the said trees have not been uploaded on the website or published. In this case the petitioner says that he is unable to exactly ascertain that in respect of which of these 18 proposals, the final permissions have been granted so as to calculate the 15 days' intermittent period between the permissions being granted and the actual felling of Page 5 of 9 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2019 00:17:07 ::: suresh 904-IAG-1.2019.doc trees. However, the petitioner became aware that in respect of some of the proposals, permissions have been granted and the trees are being felled/transplanted.
8. It is stated before us by Ms Singh that this petition concerns all the 18 proposals, including the two covered by PIL No.78 of 2019.
9. In this case, both Mr. Gorwadkar and Mr. Apte would submit that the public projects are involved in this case as well. These are diverse public projects, including widening of the development plan road and construction of the extension building/s of the Thane District Court, Thane.
10. Mr. Gorwadkar and Mr. Apte would submit that in this case, serial Nos.1, 2 and 3, namely, proposal Nos.7, 8 and 9 concern the development plan road widening and concretizing of the existing road at the location, namely, Shivainagar, Rambaug and Siddhanchal. The other two projects, which are also public projects, concern the building construction of Thane District Court and road widening at Kharegaon Naka to Amaram Chowk. These are at serial Nos.17 and 18 (proposal Nos.23 and 24). Both Senior Counsel would submit that these projects are being implemented in larger public interest and the order passed on 30-9-2019 is blanket in nature. That order would cover all the projects. This blanket Page 6 of 9 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2019 00:17:07 ::: suresh 904-IAG-1.2019.doc order says that no further trees shall be cut or transplanted pursuant to the orders which have been impugned in the PIL. Thus, till the order of 30-9-2019 is vacated or modified, no further trees shall be cut or transplanted, is the order.
11. The Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that this vitally affects the public projects. The first public project is concerning the widening of the development plan road and that is to ease the traffic congestion and bottle necks at vital junctions in the City. Some of these roads need to be widened urgently and the work should be allowed to continue as it is only in this season, namely, from the month of October/November to May that construction or public projects can be implemented. If these projects are not implemented or the works carried out during this period, these vital public projects would be delayed. The other public project is the construction in the District Court at Thane. The request of the Senior Counsel of the respondents is, given the pressure of work in the Thane District Court, considering the enormity of the population, particularly the need to establish more Courts for trial of offences concerning women and children, atrocities on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, enactments in the field such as The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the existing infrastructure in the Thane District Court Page 7 of 9 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2019 00:17:07 ::: suresh 904-IAG-1.2019.doc compound or premises is hopelessly inadequate and needs to be augmented. This augmentation and improvement is an urgent work.
12. At our request, Ms Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has taken instructions and she would submit that but for the five (5) public projects which are covered by the present order as also the two metro rail projects, the order should continue for the time being regarding rest of the projects. The petitioner has instructed her to make a statement that he would have no objection if the proposal at serial Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 17 and 18 are allowed to be implemented and should go through, subject of course to the same terms and conditions as are imposed by the order in the companion PIL, namely, PIL No.78 of 2019.
13. In the light of the above and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides, including on the maintainability of this PIL, the order passed on 30-9-2019 is modified and stands vacated to the extent of the projects of the Thane Municipal Corporation, in addition to the two MMRDA works.
14. We place this PIL on 21-1-2020 under the caption "For Admission".
Page 8 of 9 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2019 00:17:07 :::suresh 904-IAG-1.2019.doc
15. We grant liberty to both sides to apply.
16. The contentions of the parties on merits of the controversy are kept open.
(R.I. CHAGLA, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) Page 9 of 9 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2019 00:17:07 :::