National Green Tribunal
Pratap Lal Teli vs Secretary Environment Department ... on 26 September, 2025
Item No. 1 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
Through Physical Hearing
(with Hybrid Option)
Original Application No. 49/2024/WZ
Pratap Lal Teli Applicant
Versus
The Secretary, Environment Department,
Govt. of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of reserve of order: 16.09.2025
Date of pronouncement of order: 26.09.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SUJIT KUMAR BAJPAYEE, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant: Mr. Aditya Pratap for the applicant.
Respondents: Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-1/Envt. Deptt., R-3/MCZMA
and R-4/SEIAA.
Mr. Karan Bharihoke, Advocate along-with Mr. Saket Mone, Mr. Amey
Nabar, Ms. Swati Jain and Ms. Anchita Nair, Advocates for R-5/PP.
Mr. D.M. Gupte, Advocate for R-6/Addl. PCCF.
ORDER
1. In this original application, the applicant has raised an objection in respect of the construction being raised on land bearing Survey No. 341 (Part), CTS No. 629 (Part) of Bandra & Survey No. 4 (Part), CTS No. 8 (Part) of Parighkhar, Mumbai (popularly known as Bandra Kurla Complex). The applicant alleges that the construction is going-on in about 20 acres of land without obtaining the Environment Clearance (EC) in terms of the EIA Notification of 2006 though the construction is much in excess of threshold limit. The applicant further alleges that the construction is going on in the highly restrictive Mangrove Buffer Zone in violation of the CRZ Notification of 1991, 2011 and 2019. The applicant also alleges that the project is in two phases and Phase-I of the project was in non-CRZ area, hence, developer could not have sought any exemption from EIA Notification of 1994. He further Page | 1 alleges that the Phase-II of the project commenced in 2007, therefore, in terms of the EIA Notification of 2006, the EC was required. On the basis of the above allegations, the applicant has prayed for a direction to demolish the structure and also to impose the environmental cost invoking the "polluter pays" principle and the precautionary principle.
2. This case has a checkered history therefore, the brief facts which have been pointed out by the counsel for the respondent no. 5 and which have not been disputed during the course of hearing are noted hereinafter. The respondent no. 5 was granted a leasehold right for the land in question for 99 years on 28.04.1971. On 23.12.1977, the MCGM had approved the plans for a drive-in-theatre. The construction was completed and the OC was granted to the respondent no. 5, in terms of the law prevailing at that time. On 14.06.1999, the respondent no. 5 had made an application to the state government for CRZ clearance to redevelop the plot proposing an integrated composite project comprising of a reduced capacity drive-in-theatre, office building and hospitality component. On 06.08.1999, CRZ clearance was granted by the State of Maharashtra in accordance with the CRZ notification 1999.
3. On 05.12.2001, the layout plan was approved by MCGM and the commencement certificate was issued by MMRDA. The amendment to the approved layout plan was approved by MMRDA by issuance of CC on 25.11.2002.
4. On 27.06.2003, redevelopment/construction commenced and a work start notice was issued by the respondent no. 5 to MMRDA and MCGM. Government of Maharashtra in terms of directions of MoEF dated 16.04.2002 was to prepare a revised CZMP on the scale of 1:4000 as per approved development plan, therefore, respondent no. 5 on 04.07.2003 had requested clarification if the said plot would be affected by it. The UDD, Government of Maharashtra vide communication dated 17.10.2003 had clarified that there Page | 2 was no impediment to the redevelopment of the project which was in accordance with the CRZ clearance dt. 06.08.1999 as the entire proposed development on the plot was on the landward side of the existing authorised structure/imaginary line. The respondent no. 5 had applied to the MMRDA for amendment to the approved layout plan on 06.02.2004 which was refused by the MMRDA on 14/16.12.2004 noting certain deficiencies. The respondent no. 5 had filed an appeal under section 47 of the MR&TP Act, 1966 before the appellate authority, the Chief Minister (Government of Maharashtra) and by order dated 15.01.2007, the appellate authority had set aside the order of the MMRDA dated 14/16.12.2004 and granting permission to the respondent no. 5 to carryout the project as per the amendment plans with certain modifications. According to the respondent no. 5, this order constitutes planning permission. The MPCB granted consent to Establish incorporating the condition to obtain EC as per EIA Notification and CRZ clearance from MCZMA. In response, the respondent no. 5 by a representation had informed the MPCB of the order dated 15.01.2007 passed by the appellate authority clarifying that no such clearances were required. The MPCB on 23.02.2016 had requested the Environment Department, Government of Maharashtra to clarify if respondent no. 5 was required to obtain prior EC and CRZ clearance. The present applicant had filed the complaint dated 27.07.2016 to MMRDA and MCZMA alleging illegal construction in the project of the respondent no. 5 raising the same grievance which is raised in this OA. The MCZMA in its meeting dated 28/30.06.2017 considered the complaint of one Mr. Santosh Daundhkar regarding illegal construction in the project on 11.08.2017 had directed to stop the work of the project. Thereafter the MCZMA considering the details and with due deliberations decided to withdraw the stop work order in its meeting dated 15/16.09.2017. Vide communication dated 11.01.2018, a copy of this decision was sent to the MMRDA and also to the applicant in the present OA. This decision of MCZMA was not objected to by any of them and had attained finality. The MMRDA had also sent a communication dated 16.02.2018 to the Page | 3 MCZMA intimating that all the conditions were complied with by the project and no action was warranted against the project.
5. The Environment Department, Government of Maharashtra had sent response to the MPCB letter dated 23.02.2016 clarifying that the project was a composite one and had received sanction from the MMRDA as a composite project on 05.12.2001 after the issuance of CRZ Clearance by UDD. It was also clarified that the project was granted commencement certificate on 05.12.2001 from MMRDA and CRZ clearances on 06.08.1999 from the State Government and that the EIA Notification 1994 with the amendment thereto dated 07.07.2004 was not applicable.
6. The Consent to Operate for the project was granted by MPCB on 27.03.2018. The Forest Conservation Mangroves Unit in its communication dated 30.06.2018 the DFO, Mumbai Mangrove Conservation Cell had conveyed that in the inspection at the site no mangroves were found nearby and on the wall at the plot had existed since a long time and the notified mangrove area was up to 400m from the wall and the construction was not done by destroying mangrove and the site was outside the notified mangrove area.
7. The present applicant on 10.08.2017, had filed criminal complaint no. 182/2017 before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), Bandra against the respondent no. 5 and its Directors seeking registration of FIR against the parties for illegal construction of the project on the same grounds which are raised in this OA. Ld. MM had passed an ex-parte order dated 06.06.2019 issuing process against the respondent no. 5 and its directors in criminal complaint no. 182/2017. The Writ Petition No. 1386/2020 under Section 482 of the Cr.PC has been filed by the respondent no. 5 and its directors for quashing the order dated 06.06.2019 and the order has been stayed. The writ petition is pending for hearing.
Page | 4
8. Based on another complaint the MCZMA on 04.02.2022 took a view that the area of the project was within 50m of Mangrove Buffer Zone, therefore, prior permission of the High Court was required. This was informed to the respondent no. 5 by letter dated 04.03.2022. On 25.04.2022, the respondent no. 5 had made a representation to the MCZM to remove the condition of seeking permission from the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court in writ petition no. 15318/2023 in the matter of Shivtej Builders & Developers v. Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. by order dated 11.12.2023 had militated against the proposition that any permission from the High Court was required. The respondent no. 5 had sent the representations dated 26.06.2024 and 28.04.2025 to the MCZMA referring to its undecided representation dated 25.04.2022 and pointed out the order of the High Court in the matter of Shivtej Builders & Developers v. Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors.
9. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in WP(L) No. 2010/2025 had disposed of the petition filed by the respondent no. 5 directing the MCZMA to decide the representation dated 28.04.2025. In compliance with the order of the High Court dated 10.07.2025, the MCZMA considered the representation of the respondent no. 5 in its 186th meeting held on 01.08.2025 and has sought certain documents from the respondent no. 5 and also directed the Mangrove cell to submit its report. The matter is pending before the MCZMA in this regard at this stage.
10. Pressing the OA, learned counsel for the applicant submits that project is covered by the EIA notification 2006. The project built-up area is more than the threshold limit provided under the EIA Notification 2006, therefore, EC for the project was necessary. He has further submitted that the construction proposed for the Phase-II of the project in 2007 was an expansion of the earlier project, therefore, the Phase-II could not have been proceeded with without obtaining an EC under the notification of 2006. He submits that the order Page | 5 dated 15.01.2007, issued by the Chief Minister stating that there was no need to obtain EC under the EIA notification 2006 is not legally tenable. He has also submitted that since the first phase of construction project had not reached the plinth level on cut-off date of 07.07.2004, EC was mandatory even for Phase-I construction. The counsel for the applicant further submits that the construction has been done in Mangrove Buffer Zone, where no construction is permitted. He submits that in the CZMP prepared on 27.09.1996, it was clearly stipulated that all mangroves within an area of 1000 sqm or more would be classified as CRZ-I with a buffer zone of atleast 50m and the same was also provided in CRZ Notification 2011 and 2019, therefore, the construction could not have been permitted in Mangrove Buffer Zone. In this regard, he has also placed reliance upon the order of the Bombay High Court dated 17.09.2018 in PIL No. 87/2006 (Bombay Environmental Action Group & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.). His further submission is that even the permission of the UDD dated 06.08.1999 reckoned as CRZ Clearance, is not tenable in view of the order of the Bombay High Court dated 29.04.2016 in the case of Adarsh Co-operative Housing Unit Ltd. in Original Side Writ Petition No. 369/2011. He has also submitted that neither the UDD nor the Environment Department, Government of Maharashtra was authorized to grant clearance during the period 09.07.1997 to 21.04.2003, as during this period the Environment Department was the competent authority. He has further submitted that since the above violations have been done by the respondent no. 5, therefore, the construction raised by the respondent no. 5 is liable to be demolished.
11. Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 5 has opposed submission of applicant. He has submitted that the project does not attract the provisions of EIA Notification 1994, the amendment dated 07.07.2004 or the EIA Notification 2006. He submits that the requisite CRZ clearance applicable to the project was duly obtained. He has further submitted that the project does not fall within 50m of Mangrove Buffer Zone and that as per approved CZMP of 2000, the Page | 6 project falls in CRZ-II area and that in CRZ notification 1991 there was no provision for a Buffer Zone in respect of Mangrove for CRZ-II. He has further submitted that in CRZ Notification 2011 also the project falls in CRZ-II, as the project is covered by the definition of "developed area". He has submitted that the issue is covered by the orders of the Bombay High Court and also the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He has further submitted that the UDD, Government of Maharashtra was authorized to grant clearance during the relevant period and the same has been duly granted in accordance with law. Further submission of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 is that the OA suffers from the serious defect of suppression of material facts and is also barred by limitation.
12. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1, 3 and 4 has also submitted that the respondent no. 5 has the due permissions and the project does not violate any environmental norm. Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 6 has referred to the report filed as Exhibit B along with its reply and has submitted that no Mangroves have been found at the site during the site visit and no part of it is a Reserved Forest.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
14. The following issues are involved in this OA: -
I. Whether the project suffers from illegality for not obtaining the EC under the EIA Notification of 1994 as amended in 2004 and EIA Notification of 2006 though the built-up area of the project exceeds the threshold limit provided in the Notification?
II. Whether the project of the respondent no. 5 was in two phases and the second phase of the project was started in 2007, therefore, EC was required to be taken in terms of EIA Notification 2006?
III. Whether the construction of the project falls within 50m of the Mangrove Buffer Zone which is impermissible under the order of the High Court of 2005 and 2018 and also as per CRZ Notification 1991, 2011 and 2019?
IV. Whether OA filed by the applicant is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts?
Page | 7 V. Whether OA is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation?
Issue No. I and II
15. Issue No. I and II are interconnected, therefore, they are being decided together. Before examining the applicability of EIA Notification, it would be relevant to take note of the clearances obtained by respondent no. 5 under CRZ Notifications.
The CRZ Notification dated 19.02.1991 declaring coastal stretches as Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and regulating the activity in the CRZ was issued by the MoEF under section 3(1) and section 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and rule 5(3)(d) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. By the Notification dated 09.07.1997, the Notification dated 19.02.1991 was amended and in para 3 sub-para (2) of clauses II and IV, following clauses were substituted:-
"(3) "(iv) All other activities with investment exceeding rupees five crores except those activities which are to be regulated by the concerned authorities at the State/Union Territory level in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 6, subparagraph (2) of Annexure I of the notification.""
16. By the above amendment of 1997, the power was delegated to the State Government for granting CRZ clearance for projects with investment of INR 5 crores. The respondent no. 5 submitted an application to the State Government for CRZ clearance. By order dated 06.08.1999, the UDD, Government of Maharashtra had granted CRZ clearance in accordance with the CRZ Notification 1991 and CZMP by observing as under: -
"3. As per Ministry of Environment and Forests Department, Government of India Notification dt. 19th February, 1991, the State Government prepared the Coastal Zone Management Plan for the coastal area of Maharashtra State and submitted to MOEF for approval which is approved by MOEF vide letter dt. 27/9/1996 with some conditions and modifications. As per these conditions CZ MP of the State Coastal area is revised in which plot under reference is included in CRZ-II. In CRZ-II area development is permitted as per Development Control Rules prevailing as on 19/2/1991.
Page | 8
4. It is observed that the plot under reference is partly affected by Coastal Regulation Zone. In the circumstances, there is no objection to develop the unaffected portion of the plot as per prevailing regulations. However in respect of portion of plot coming within C.R.Z. the same may be allowed to be developed subject to conditions that proposed construction shall be on the landward side of existing authorised structure and imaginary line drawn from the creek ward side of existing authorised structures and as per relevant rules and regulations."
17. The MMRDA had approved the layout plan and had issued the commencement certificate on 05.12.2001. The amendment of the approved layout plan was also approved by the MMRDA by issuing the CC dated 25.11.2002.
18. The CRZ Notification of 1991 was again amended by the Notification dated 22.04.2003. By the amendment dated 22.04.2003 clause v of para 3, sub-para 2 of the Notification dated 19.02.1991 was substituted by the clauses iv and v: -
"(iv) Demolition or reconstruction of-
(i) buildings of archaeological or historical importance;
(ii) heritage buildings; and
(iii) buildings under public use.
Explanation :- For the purpose of this clause iv, 'public use' shall include use for purposes of worship, education, medical care and cultural activities.
(v) All other activities with investment of five crore rupees or more:
Provided that activities involving investment of less than five crore rupees shall be regulated by the concerned authorities at the State or Union territory level in accordance with the provisions of sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 6 of Annexure-I of this notification."
19. The above sequence of events and amendments in CRZ Notification reveal that the respondent no. 5 had obtained the requisite CRZ clearance from the concerned authority between the period from 2001 to 2003 in terms of the prevailing provisions of CRZ Notification 1991 when the power was vested with the State for such projects.
20. The applicant has raised a grievance that the EC was not obtained under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification.
Page | 9
21. The EIA Notification dated 27.01.1994 was issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. Under this notification, the projects covered by clause 2 and schedule I to the notification were required to have EC. It has been pointed out by the counsel of the respondent no. 5 that the construction projects were not covered under clause 2 or Schedule I to the Notification dated 27.01.1994. The EIA Notification dated 27.01.1994 was amended by the Notification dated 07.07.2004, inserting following sub para (g) and (h) after sub para (f) in clause 2(II):-
"(ii) after sub-para (f), the following shall be inserted, namely: -
"(g) any construction project falling under entry 31 of Schedule-I including new townships, industrial townships, settlement colonies, commercial complexes, hotel complexes, hospitals and office complexes for 1,000 (one thousand) persons or below or discharging sewage of 50,000 (fifty thousand) litres per day or below or with an investment of Rs.50,00,00,000/- (Rupees fifty crores) or below.
(h) any industrial estate falling under entry 32 of Schedule-I including industrial estates accommodating industrial units in an area of 50 hectares or below but excluding the industrial estates irrespective of area if their pollution potential is high.
Explanation.-
(i) New construction projects which were undertaken without obtaining the clearance required under this notification and where construction work has not come up to the plinth level, shall require clearance under this notification with effect from the 7th day of July, 2004.
(ii) In the case of new Industrial Estates which were undertaken without obtaining the clearance required under this notification and where the construction work has not commenced or the expenditure does not exceed 25% of the total sanctioned cost, shall require clearance under this notification with effect from the 7th day of July, 2004.
(iii) Any project proponent intending to implement the proposed project under sub-paras (g) and (h) in a phased manner or in modules, shall be required to submit the details of the entire project covering all phases or modules for appraisal under this notification";"
22. It has been pointed out by the counsel for the respondent no. 5 that the construction of the project had started on 27.06.2003 in pursuance of the work Page | 10 commencement notice dated 04.07.2003 and the plinths of building (b) and (c) were constructed prior to 15.05.2004.
23. The explanation (i) added through the amendment notification dated 07.07.2004 required EC to be obtained by the projects where the construction work had not come up to the plinth level till the cut-off date of 07.07.2004, i.e., till the date of issuance of the amendment notification. The applicant has failed to point out any material in contradiction to the plea of the respondent no. 5 that the construction up to the plinth level of buildings b and c had taken place prior to 15.05.2004, i.e., prior to the cut-off date of 07.07.2004. Therefore, it could not be demonstrated by the counsel for the applicant in terms of the amendment notification dated 07.07.2004 that EC was required to be obtained by the respondent no. 5.
24. Similar issue had come-up before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in WP No. 363/2020 in the matter of Haroon Ebrahim Patel v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., wherein the Division Bench of the High Court by order dated 06.08.2024 after considering the Notification dated 27.01.1994 as amended by the Notifications dated 07.07.2004 and 14.09.2006 had found as under: -
"9. Upon a perusal of the Notification dated 27th January 1994, as amended by the Notifications dated 7th July 2004 and 14th September 2006, It Is evident that clause (2) of the Notification dated 27 th January 1994 requires Environmental Clearance to be obtained by any person who desires to undertake any new project in any part of India or the expansion or modernization of any existing industry or project listed in Schedule-I MOEF. The Notification dated 7th July 2004 Introduces clause (3)(g), which requires environmental clearance for any construction project falling under entry 31 of Schedule-1, including new townships, industrial townships, settlement colonies, commercial complexes, hotel complexes, hospitals, and office complexes for 1000 persons or below or with an investment of Rs.50 crores. The explanation to clause (3)(i) states that the clearance as required by the Notification dated 27 th January 1994, as amended by the Notification dated 7th July 2004, shall be necessary for new construction projects that were undertaken without obtaining the Environmental Clearance required under the said Notification and where construction work has not progressed up to the plinth level. In other words, the clearance required under the Notification shall not be necessary for such projects where construction has reached the plinth level. It is undisputed that the construction up to the plinth level of Building No. 2 was already completed before the issuance of the Page | 11 Notification dated 7th July 2004. Therefore, both conditions outlined in the explanation to clause (3) of the Notification dated 27 th January 1994, as amended by the Notification dated 7th July 2004, are met, as it was a new construction project without the required clearance under the Notification, and the construction work had not progressed up to the plinth level.
10. The general principle regarding the applicability of statutes governing building permissions is that the law prevailing on the date of the grant of permission must be applied by the planning authority, as new liabilities imposed after the grant of valid development permission may Infringe upon the vested right to develop immovable property, as conferred under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning, Act, 1966. However, this unqualified Interpretation may not be strictly applicable to matters of environmental law. Nonetheless, by analogy to the aforementioned general principle, the explanation to clause (3)(9) of the Notification dated 27th January 1994 must be construed to imply that construction up to the plinth level of a building within the project constitutes a new project for the purposes of clause (3)(g) of the said Notification. Accordingly, environmental clearance for the project in question shall not be required."
25. Thus, the case of the respondent no. 5 in this regard is covered by the above judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.
26. The EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 was issued by the Central Government under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 in supersession of the Notification dated 27.01.1994. In the Notification dated 14.09.2006 the things done or omitted to be done before supersession were saved. In the opening paragraph of the Notification dated 14.09.2006 it was specifically provided that: -
"Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, read with clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 and in supersession of the notification number S.O. 60 (E) dated the 27th January, 1994, except in respect of things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby directs that on and from the date of its publication the required construction of new projects or activities or the expansion or modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification entailing capacity addition with change in process and or technology shall be undertaken in any part of India only after the prior environmental clearance from the Central Government or as the case may be, by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, duly constituted by the Central Government under sub-section (3) of section 3 Page | 12 of the said Act, in accordance with the procedure specified hereinafter in this notification."
Emphasis provided
27. That apart appellate authority under Section 47 of the MR&TP Act, 1966 in the order dated 15.01.2007, while allowing the appeal and granting permission to the respondent no. 5 to carry out the redevelopment of his land in terms of the amended plan, had also recorded that the entire project is approved under CRZ provisions and is excluded from the scope of EIA Notification. The appellate authority in order dated 15.01.2007 had clearly recorded as under: -
"6.5 E) Reg. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Clearance The Respondents have taken a stand that the appellant is required to obtain the EIA Clearance under the provisions of Notification No. S.O. No. 801(E), dated 7th Jully, 2004 issued by MoEF, GOI.
6.5.1 With regards to respondents objection, the Appellant stated that the said Notification No. 801(E) dated 7th July, 2004 is, in fact, amended version of earlier Notification No. SO 60(E) dated 27 th January, 1994, consequent to which paragraph 3 thereof clearly spells out exception in respect of certain projects to which this 'Notification does not apply. This exceptions clearly include projects covered by CRZ Notification No. SO 114 (E) dated 20.02.1991, more over the respondents themselves have stated that any redevelopment affected by CRZ will not require EIA clearance. It was therefore emphasized by the Appellant that Respondent's requirement with regard to EIA is unwarranted as the instant project falls within scope of CRZ Notification and EIA Notification does not apply here as CRZ clearance pertains to whole project and not part of it.
6.5.2 On consideration of the submissions of the parties, I am of the view that this contention of the Respondents is misplaced. The Appellant's entire project has been approved under CRZ provisions and is accordingly excluded from the scope of Notification No. SO-60(E) dated 27.1.1994 its amended by Notification No. S.O.801(E) dated 7.7.2004. Accordingly, the objection of the respondent in this regard is rejected."
28. The above order of the appellate authority has attained finality and has not been challenged thereafter. The plea of the respondent no. 5 is that the EIA Notification 2006 could not have been considered by the appellate authority since it came into existence after the hearing of the appeal has also not been controverted. The applicant has submitted that though the appeal was heard earlier but the appellate authority had passed the order subsequent to issuance of EIA Notification 2006.
Page | 13
29. The Environment Department, Government of Maharashtra in its communication by Additional Chief Secretary dated 05.03.2018 to the Member Secretary, MPCB had also clarified this position about non-applicability of the EIA Notification by clearly stating as under: -
"3. It is noted that the project is a composite one and has received sanction from the MMRDA as a composite project on 05.12.2001 after issuance of CRZ Clearance by the U.D.D. vide letter dtd. 6.8.1999. Hence CRZ and non-CRZ portion cannot be practically separated. In conclusion, it is found that the Notification 1994 amended on 07.07.2004 is not applicable to the project due to the exclusions at para 3 (a) thereof.
4. Further also it is seen that the project dimensions have changed negatively i.e. area under construction is less than the initial proposed area and it is an ongoing project. Therefore, EIA Notification dtd. 14.9.2006 is also not applicable to this project."
30. In view of the above, the EIA Notification dated 27.01.1994 as amended by Notification dated 07.03.2004 and EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 had no applicability to this project which was already sanctioned and in which the construction work had commenced based upon the clearance granted under the CRZ Notification dated 19.11.1991, as amended from time to time. It has been pointed out by the counsel for the respondent no. 5 that the area of the project has subsequently been reduced. The plea of the respondent no. 5 that no additional area is intended to be included in the project has not been controverted, therefore, there is no material to treat the project either as a new project or an expansion, or a capacity addition to the existing project under EIA Notification 2006.
31. Further argument of counsel for the applicant is that the project was in two phases and second phase of the project commenced in 2007. As against this, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 5 has referred to the order dated 17.01.2007 passed by the appellate authority in an appeal under section 47 of the MMRDA which indicates that the project is an integrated project having CRZ clearance and building permissions. The counsel for the respondent no. 5 has also shown the commencement certificate dated 05.12.2001 in support of Page | 14 the plea that there was no subdivision of the plot and that the layout and FSI for the entire integrated project were approved by the MMRDA through this layout approval. Though applicant has raised such a plea, but has not pointed out any material to show that the project was in two phases. Thus, the plea of the applicant that the project was in two phases is unsubstantiated.
32. In view of the above analysis, we find that the applicant has failed to establish that EC was required under the EIA Notification dated 27.01.1994 as amended by the Notification dated 07.07.2004 or by the EIA Notification dated 04.09.2006 or the project was sanctioned in two phases, hence, the issues no. I & II are answered against the applicant.
Issue No. III
33. So far as the issue no. III, is concerned, the plea of the applicant is that the construction of the project is illegal because it is being carried out within 50m of Mangrove Buffer Zone without any prior permission. The stand of the respondent no. 5 is that the project does not fall within 50m Mangrove Buffer Zone.
34. The CRZ Notification dated 19.02.1991 was issued under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The classification in respect of the CRZ-I and CRZ-II given in Annexure-I of this notification, relevant part for the present purpose is as under: -
"Classification of Coastal Regulation Zone:
6(1) For regulating development activities, the coastal stretches within 500 meters of High Tide Line on the landward side are classified into four categories, namely:
Category I (CRZ-I):
(i) Areas that are ecologically sensitive and important, such as national parks/marine parks, sanctuaries, reserve forests, wildlife habitats, mangroves, corals/coral reefs, areas close to breeding and spawning grounds of fish and other marine life, areas of outstanding natural beauty/historically/heritage areas, areas rich in genetic diversity, areas likely to be inundated due to rise in sea level consequent upon global warming and such other areas as may be declared by the Central Government or the concerned authorities at the State/Union Territory level from time to time.
Page | 15
(ii) Area between Low Tide Line and the high Tide Line.
Category-II (CRZ-II):
The areas that have already been developed up to or close to the shoreline. For this purpose, "developed area" is referred to as that area within the municipal limits or in other legally designated urban areas which is already substantially built up and which has been provided with drainage and approach roads and other infrastructural facilities, such as water supply and sewerage mains."
35. The CRZ Notification 1991 did not contain any provision for a Buffer Zone in respect of Mangrove for CRZ-II areas. The CRZ clearance dated 06.08.1999 quoted in earlier part of this order clearly mentions that the project falls in CRZ-II.
36. The CRZ Notification of 19.02.1991 was superseded by the CRZ Notification dated 06.01.2011. The clause 7 of this Notification contains the classification of the CRZ. Relevant clauses for the present controversy classifying CRZ-I and CRZ-II in the Notification dated 06.01.2011 are quoted below: -
"7. Classification of the CRZ-For the purpose of conserving and protecting the coastal areas and marine waters, the CRZ area shall be classified as follows, namely: -
(i) CRZ-I-
A. The area that are ecologically sensitive and the geomorphological features which play a role in the maintaining the integrity of the coast,-
(a) Mangroves, in case mangrove area is more than 1000 sq mts, a buffer of 50meters along the mangroves shall be provided; ...
(ii) CRZ-II-
The areas that have been developed upto or close to the shoreline. Explanation.- For the purposes of the expression "developed area" is referred to as that area within the existing municipal limits or in other existing legally designated urban areas which are substantially built-up and has been provided with drainage and approach roads and other infrastructural facilities, such as water supply and sewage mains;"
37. Clause 8 of this Notification of 2011 contains the norms and regulation of activities permissible under the said Notification and the permissible activities in CRZ-II are specified as follows: -
"8. Norms for regulation of activities permissible under this notification,- ...
Page | 16 II. CRZ-II,-
(i) Buildings shall be permitted only on the landward side of the existing road, or on the landward side of existing authorized structures;"
38. The plea of the respondent no. 5 is that the construction is on the landward side of the existing authorised structure.
39. The counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the interim order of the Bombay High Court in PIL 87/2006, whereby the construction within 50m on all sides of the mangroves was restrained and also the final judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 17.09.2018 in this regard.
40. The PIL 87/2006, in the matter of The Bombay Environmental Action Group v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. was filed seeking directions for protection of the mangroves. In the PIL along with the connected writ petitions following interim order was passed by the High Court on 06.10.2005: -
"8. The State Government is directed to designate a Senior Officer not below the rank of concerned District Magistrate and Collector and Deputy Commissioner of Police/Superintendent of Police to oversee the implementation of the following directions. They would entertain complaints from citizens in respect of mangrove destruction. The name, address and contact information of such officers shall be advertised prominently in one English newspaper and two Marathi newspapers, apart from the official websites of the Maharashtra Government and the Forest Department.
(i) That there shall be a total freeze on the destruction and cutting of mangroves in the entire State of Maharashtra. We take note of the fact that in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India and Ors. etc. [Writ Petition (C)No. 202 of 1995 and 171 of 1996], an affidavit was filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra by the Chief Conservator of Forests (Administration), in which on the basis of a report of an Expert Committee, it was stated that in the Mumbai Urban Area alone, 1,534 hectares of land were, inter alia, classified as mangrove areas.
(ii) All construction and rubble/garbage dumping on the mangrove areas shall be stopped forthwith;
(iii) Regardless of ownership of the land, all construction taking place within 50meters on all sides of all mangroves shall be forthwith stopped;
(iv) No development permission whatsoever shall be issued by any authority in the State of Maharashtra in respect of any area under mangroves.
(v) The Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai shall forthwith issue the necessary directions to the Municipal Corporation of Page | 17 Greater Mumbai Building Proposals Department not to entertain any applications for development (as defined in the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966) on or in respect of the mangrove lands, regardless of the nature of ownership;
(vi) The State Government and the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) are directed to file monthly report on the above action plan to this Court. The first report will be submitted within four weeks from today. The report shall specifically state, in addition to the progress/action taken,
(a) the number of complaints received, if any,
(b) the action taken thereon, if any,
(c) the number of offenders named, and
(d) the details of prosecutions/action launched/taken against such offenders.
(vii) The State of Maharashtra is directed to file in Court and furnish to the petitioners copies of the maps referred to in paragraph 10 of the affidavit dated 16th August, 2005, filed by Mr. Gajanand Varade, Director, Environment Department, State of Maharashtra (Page 346 on the record), within four weeks from today;
(viii) The areas shown as mangrove area in the satellite study report "Mapping of mangroves in the Maharashtra State using Satellite Remote Sensing" dated August, 2005, prepared by the Maharashtra Remote Sensing Application Centre (MRSAC) for the MCZMA which was submitted to this Court on 29th August, 2005, form part of Phase I of the mapping by MRSAC. The MRSAC will, in Phase II, carry out mangroves study using high resolution for detailed mapping of mangroves with a view to identify more precisely mangrove areas in Mumbai and Navi Mumbai. After receiving the said satellite data, transfer of mangrove details on city survey/village maps (cadastral map) will be carried out within a period of 6 months from today;
(ix) After the aforesaid process in clause (viii) is completed, the areas so identified which are government owned shall be declared and notified as "protected forests" in accordance with law after carrying out ground survey etc. The areas so identified that are privately owned shall be declared and notified as "forests" in accordance with law, after carrying out ground survey etc. The said declaration/notification will be completed within a period of 8 weeks of the completion of Phase II mapping;
(x) The mangrove areas that are on government owned lands will be handed over to the Forest Department within a period of 12 weeks from the declaration of the same as "protected forests";
(xi) From the list of "mangrove areas" so identified, Government owned lands will automatically be declared/notified as "protected forests". Likewise, privately owned lands from the list of mangrove areas so identified, the same will be declared/notified as "forests";
(xii) The Secretary, Revenue Department, shall from the said date of taking over possession of the Government owned land by the Forest Department, update all the revenue records to ensure that the said Government lands are shown as "protected forests" in the said revenue records within a period of 12 weeks from the same being declared as "protected forests". In the case of lands that are private Page | 18 owned, the secretary, Revenue Department, shall update all the revenue records to ensure that the said private lands are shown as "forests" in the said revenue records within a period of 12 weeks of completion of the steps in clause (x) above;
(xiii) In respect of Government lands, the Forest Department and other authorities of the State of Maharashtra shall take the following necessary steps of protection, conservation and regeneration of the areas that would be declared/notified as "protected forests: in terms of clause (x) above :
(a) Removal of all obstructions that are impeding the growth of mangroves as also the impediments which restrict the flow of sea water in the mangrove areas;
(b) Wherever mangrove growth is found to be sparse and denuded (i.e. with forest density less than 0.4 which means canopy less than 40%) within these identified areas, taking necessary steps for rejuvenation;
(c) On identification of the areas as forest, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai would remove garbage and debris within these areas within a period of three months as per the instructions of the Forest Department. These areas shall be rejuvenated with mangroves;
(d) The Forest Department is directed to take necessary action against the offenders in accordance with law for damaging or destroying mangroves.
9. The Officers so designated in paragraph 8 above shall submit a report on the above action plan every three months to this Court. The first of such reports shall be submitted within four weeks from the date of declaration/notification as "protected forest". In addition to the progress/action taken, the reports shall specifically state the action taken as regards (a) number of complaints received, if any, (b) the action taken thereon, if any, (c) the number of offenders named, and (d) the details of the prosecutions/action launched/taken against such offenders.
10. The State Government shall provide the necessary staff and funds for implementing the aforesaid directions to all concerned departments of the State.
11. The Principal Secretaries of (i) Environment, (ii) Revenue and (iii) Forest Departments, Government of Maharashtra, shall be overall incharge of ensuring total compliance of this order.
12. This order shall partly modify the order dated 9th June, 2004 of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 2208 of 2004.
13. The Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra is directed to send a circular to all concerned Collectors/Deputy Commissioners of Police/Superintendents of Police and all other concerned officials to ensure meticulous compliance of this order.
14. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra with a special messenger."
Page | 19 By the above interim directions, the construction activities in the Buffer Zone of 50m of mangroves were prohibited.
41. Subsequently, the Division Bench of the High Court while considering the chamber summons no. 172/2007 in PIL No. 87/2006 and connected petitions by the order dated 29.07.2015 had noted the reasons for passing the interim order dated 06.10.2005 because there was no such restriction in the CRZ Notification dated 19.02.1991. The High Court also took note of the restriction which was incorporated by the Notification dated 06.01.2011 and accordingly clarified as under: -
"28. It was because there was no such restriction in the CRZ Notification dated 19 February 1991 that this Court had introduced additional safeguard for protection of mangroves, that construction activity was prohibited in the buffer zone area by interim order dated 6 October 2005. Since the restriction is now incorporated in the Notification dated 6 January 2011, as per interpretation placed by us on CRZ Notification dated 6 January 2011, where plot of land falls in 50meters buffer zone but it was already part of an approved layout with infrastructure facilities within a municipal area or in an existing legally designated urban area as on 6 January 2011, then it would have to be treated as falling in CRZII, provided the area was substantially developed as per explanation given in CRZ Notification and as explained in this order. In respect of the plots outside the aforesaid approved MoEF layouts, the concerned persons shall move the competent regulatory authority (MCZMA or MoEF), and not this Court.
29. It is clarified that when any CRZ clearance is sought, MCZMA will have to satisfy itself that the plot in question is beyond the existing concrete/tar road towards landward side and is a part of the developed area, as explained in this judgment."
42. The above order of the Division Bench of the High Court was modified by the order dated 03.09.2015 and the time limit to file the affidavit was extended. Against these orders, SLP Civil (CC) No. 533-539/2016 were preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which were dismissed finding no merit in the SLP, by observing as under: -
"Permission to file the special leave petitions is granted.
We do not find any merit in these special leave petitions, which are hereby dismissed. "
43. The High Court by the above orders had settled that the CRZ clearance could be granted in respect of a plot falling within 50m Buffer Zone if the plot in Page | 20 question was on the landward side of the existing road or landward side of the existing authorised structures. The Government of Maharashtra also issued a circular dated 05.03.2018 directing all the concerned authorities to take cognizance of the above decision of the High Court while making recommendations of such cases to the MCZMA.
44. The applicant has relied upon another judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 17.09.2018 passed in PIL No. 87/2006, whereby the subsequent Division Bench continued the interim direction dated 06.10.2005 on the terms stated therein and further directed a total freeze on destruction and cutting of mangroves in the entire State of Maharashtra.
45. The conflict created by virtue of the order dated 29.07.2015 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CHS/172/2007 in PIL No. 87/2006 and subsequent order dated 17.09.2018 in PIL No. 87/2006 has been resolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the judgment dated 25.02.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3225/2025 in the matter of M/s. Blue Star Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. The Bombay Environmental Action Group & Ors. by observing and holding as under:
"3. The appellants had earlier preferred before the High Court of Bombay either writ petitions, i.e., Writ Petition Nos. 176/2015, 180/2015, 187/2015, 188/2015, 190/2015, 249/2015, 251/2015, or Chamber Summons Nos. 169/2015 & 172/2007, which were disposed of, vide judgment dated 29.07.2015.
4. Dealing with the issues raised, the said judgment, inter alia, held that mangroves were a lifeline and no breach of the directions of the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority could be tolerated. The layouts, forming part of the petitions and other proceedings, were to be taken into consideration before any directions were issued for regularization. In case any plot owner or developer violated the conditions, the plot in question had to be restored to the original state after demolition of the existing structures, at the risk and cost of the developer and the society. Accordingly, Notice of Motion No. 234/2015 taken out by Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board was allowed and it was permitted to exclude the plots in the layouts for which environmental clearance was granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests on 10.02.2003 and 10.11.2005 from the operation of the 50meters buffer zone requirement, but subject to the observations therein.
5. As there was no further restriction in the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification dated 19.02.1991, the High Court of Bombay introduced Page | 21 additional safeguards for protection of mangroves, by barring construction activity in the prohibited buffer zone, by interim order dated 06.10.2005. The additional safeguards in the form of directions given in the interim order dated 06.10.2005, were later on incorporated in the Notification dated 06.01.2011. However, the interim order dated 06.10.2005, and the Notification dated 06.01.2011, exempted a plot of land even if it fell in the 50meters buffer zone if it was already a part of an approved layout plan with infrastructural facilities within a municipal area or in an existing legally designated urban area as on 06.01.2011. We need not pronounce on the said cutoff date for the purpose of the present order and judgment as an issue may arise whether the relevant cutoff date should have been the date of the interim order, which is 06.10.2005.
6. In order to carry out the said exercise, i.e., to identify the plots outside the aforesaid approved Ministry of Environment and Forests layouts, the parties concerned were required to move the competent regulatory authority, i.e., the MCZMA or Ministry of Environment and Forests, and not the High Court of Bombay. It was also recorded that when any CRZ clearance was sought, the MCZMA had to satisfy itself that the plot in question was beyond the existing concrete/tar roads towards the landward side and was a part of a developed area; a concept which was explained in the judgment.
7. Our attention is also drawn to the Notification dated 19.01.2000, issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, on the Coastal Zone Management Plan of Maharashtra and categorization based on High Tide Level and Low Tide Level. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said Notification, dealing with the buffer zone around mangroves, read as under:
"(6) Buffer around mangroves:
The 50meter buffer zone around mangroves of area 1000 sq. meters and above, will not be required on the landward side provided the road abutting such mangroves was constructed prior to February, 1991.
(7) Development of MHADA layout:
Status quo shall be maintained in respect of MHADA Layout at Charkop."
8. As noticed above, the aforesaid Notification was issued prior to the interim order passed by the High Court of Bombay on 06.10.2005.
9. The order dated 29.07.2015 was challenged before this Court in a special leave petition, and the same was dismissed.
10. The impugned judgment dated 17.09.2018, in paragraph '74' refers to the Chamber Summons, which became the subject matter of the judgment dated 29.07.2015. Thereupon, it states that, while passing the judgment dated 29.07.2015, the attention of the Court was not drawn to condition no. xiii imposed in the letter/order dated 27.09.1996, of the Central Government, by which, the Coastal Zone Management Plan for the State of Maharashtra was sanctioned. It was the condition of the said plan that where mangroves with an area of 1000 sq. meters or more existed, the buffer zone of 50meters would form part of CRZ I. However, it is an admitted fact that the requirement laid down in the Coastal Zone Management Plan of a 50meter buffer zone around mangroves of an area Page | 22 of 1000 sq. meters and above, was modified by the Notification dated 19.01.2000, upon satisfaction of the condition stated therein that the buffer zone will not be required on the landward side provided the road abutting such mangroves was constructed prior to February, 1991.
11. In other words, where the road on the landward side abutting the mangroves was constructed prior to February, 1991, the buffer zone of 50meters was not required. The impugned judgment dated 17.09.2018, disposed of the PIL with several directions, including stoppage of all constructions taking place within 50meters on all sides of mangroves, regardless of the ownership of the land having such mangroves and the area of the land.
12. In view of the aforesaid position, we may only clarify that the impugned judgment dated 17.09.2018, shall not be read as having modified or altered the conditions which were imposed, vide judgment dated 29.07.2015, in the writ petitions/chamber summons filed by the appellants, provided all the applicable rules and regulations, including the conditions mentioned in the applicable law and in terms of the judgment dated 29.07.2015, are duly met.
13. We further clarify that the observations and findings recorded in above paragraph only pertain to the nine plots, which were the subject matter of the judgment dated 29.07.2015. The said judgment specifically records the details of the nine plots in question and also notes that the said plots were allotted during the period 1987 to 1994 and the infrastructure in the form of laying of roads, etc., had been completed long ago. In other words, as the development has already been completed, it would be impossible to create a buffer zone of 50meters because of the construction and other development activities which happened long before the interim order dated 06.10.2005. It goes without saying that in case it is possible to create a buffer zone of 50meters, that aspect must be kept in mind by the authorities concerned while granting approvals....."
46. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the earlier judgments and CRZ Notification found that the said 9 plots, in question, were allotted during the period 1987 to 1994 and the infrastructure in the form of laying of the roads had been completed long ago meaning that the development had already been completed, therefore, it would be impossible to create a Buffer Zone of 50m because of the construction and other development activities which had taken place before the order dated 06.10.2005.
47. Though, the Supreme Court in the above judgement had taken into consideration the factual situation of the nine plots under consideration in the judgment dated 29.07.2015 but learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 placing reliance upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 25.04.1989 in the matter of the D. Naveen Chandra & Company v. Union of Page | 23 India reported in 1989 (43) ELT 266 (BOM) and the judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 29.09.1993 in the matter Textile Labour Association v. State of Gujarat reported in 1993 SCC online GJ 140 has submitted that the facts of the present case are identical. Therefore, the respondent no. 5 is entitled to the benefit of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
48. In order to draw parity with the cases which were under consideration before the High Court in the judgment dated 29.07.2015 and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 25.02.2025, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 has stated that the plot was allotted for development of drive- in-theatre to the respondent no. 5 in the 1970s and developed in 1977-78 and that the re-development of the plot with existing structure on the landward side of the boundary wall was granted to the respondent no. 5 on 06.08.1999. The layout plan for the development of the integrated project was approved by the MCZM and a commencement certificate was issued by MMRDA on 05.12.2001 under the CZMP 2000 and amendment was also sanctioned by the MMRDA on 25.11.2002 and the construction of the said project started on 27.06.2003 and the plinth of building C was constructed prior to 15.05.2004. The construction in the project is on the landward side of the imaginary line from the authorised structure, as recorded in 121st meeting of the MCZMA held on 15/16.09.2017 (page 373). As per approved CZMP, 2000 there is no 50m Mangrove Buffer Zone applicable to the project and the project is in the CRZ-II zone. The MMRDA had approved the plan of the respondent no. 5 and had issued the necessary approval in 2001, issued the commencement certificate and part occupancy certificate (OC).
49. Thus, on the basis of the above facts, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 has raised the submission that the case of the respondent no. 5 stands on the same footing as those plots which were subject matter of consideration by the Bombay High Court in the judgment dated 29.07.2015 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 25.02.2025.
Page | 24
50. Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 5 in regard to the Buffer Zone has also relied upon the stand of the MMRDA taken in 2017 as under: -
".....The MMRDA officials further submitted that the mangroves are not present on the plot under reference, however, at present, the plot boundary may be situated between 50m mangroves buffer zone, which is subject to verification as it is dynamic matter....."
51. He has further pointed out that MCZMA had considered the above submissions while revoking the stop work order. He has further pointed out that the Forest Conservator, Mumbai Mangroves Conservation unit, upon a complaint after site inspection had recorded findings on 03.06.2018 as under: -
"....prima facie it was found that there were no mangroves found nearby at the actual site of construction. An old wall was found at the site. GPS reading of the site was taken for checking on Google Earth and colour photograph of the wall is attached here.
As per the above GPS reading, while checking the plans of the plot on the Google Earth App, the wall at the plot mentioned in the complaint exists since long time, and the notified mangrove area is up to 400 meters from the wall. The construction mentioned in the said application is not being done by destroying the mangroves. The said site is outside the notified mangrove area..."
52. The minutes of the 157th meeting of the MCZMA held on 04.02.2022 have been placed on record as Exhibit W (page 436), wherein while considering the complaint against the respondent no. 5 the MCZMA had taken note of the earlier minutes of the meeting of the MCZMA and also the report of the Mangroves Cell stating that the area falls within 50m of the Buffer Zone from the nearby mangrove area and also requiring the respondent no. 5 to take prior High Court permission since the area is within 50m of the Mangrove Buffer Area as reported to the Mangroves Cell.
53. Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 5 has pointed out in a challenge to similar condition, the Bombay High Court had passed the order dated 11.12.2023 in WP No. 15318/2023 in the matter of Shivtej Builders and Developers v. Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors., holding that: -
"1. For some reason that we cannot understand, the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority ("MCZMA") insisted on 10th August 2023 that the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation ("NMMC") had to "ensure" that the Page | 25 Petitioner "obtained permission" from this High Court before it granted an Occupation Certificate to the Petitioner.
2. At least as currently advised, this court is not bound by such directions of the MCZMA. That would require a substantial amendment to the Constitution of India. Nobody has proposed it yet.
3. We direct the NMMC to take up and process the Petitioner's application for an Occupation Certificate in accordance with law, without any regard whatever to Item 2 of the MCZMA order of 10th August 2023 at page 46. We clarify that it is not for the MCZMA to direct that this High Court's permission should or should not be obtained.
4. Mr Dande, Learned Counsel for Respondent No 1, states that the application will be processed expeditiously. We request that this be done in any event within eight to twelve weeks from today."
54. He has submitted that this order of the Bombay High Court was enclosed with the representation but the representation has been kept pending.
55. The counsel for the respondent no. 5 has pointed out that the representation dated 25.04.2022 was made to MCZMA for removal of the condition of seeking prior permission from the High Court. It has been pointed out that another representation dated 26.06.2024 was made to the MCZMA in continuation of the earlier representation which remained undecided resulting in filing of Writ Petition (L) No. 20106/2025 in the matter of The Indian Film Combine Private Limited v. Director, Env. & Ors. which was disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court of judicature at Bombay by order dated 10.07.2025 by directing as under: -
"1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner interalia prays for direction to the Respondent to decide the representation dated 28 April 2025 submitted by it seeking permission to complete the project.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that the representation dated 28 April 2025 submitted by the Petitioner is pending for consideration, we direct that the representation be decided by passing a speaking order thereon.
3. Needless to state that the Respondent shall give an opportunity of hearing in person or to the representative of the Petitioner before deciding the representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of."
56. From the above, it is clear that the issue relating to the violation of norms concerning the Mangroves Buffer Zone is pending before the MCZMA and that Page | 26 the direction to decide the representation has already been issued by the Bombay High Court. Therefore, we are hopeful that the said issue will be decided by the MCZMA, keeping in view, the plea of the respondent no. 5 noted above. Hence, it would not be proper to decide Issue No. III on merit at this stage.
Issue No. IV
57. So far as the issue no. IV, is concerned, we find that the applicant in this OA had filed a complaint on the same grounds to the MMRDA and MCZMA regarding the illegal construction in the project by the respondent no. 5 on 27.07.2016 but this fact has been suppressed in the OA. The applicant had further filed criminal complaint no. 182/2017 before the Court of MM, Bandra against the respondent no. 5 for registration of an FIR for illegal construction in the project on the same ground on 10.08.2017 but this fact has also been suppressed in the OA. He also suppressed the decision of the MCZMA dated 15/16.09.2017 relating to withdrawal of the stop work order dated 11.08.2017, a copy of which was sent to the present applicant. The applicant has also suppressed the ex-parte order dated 06.06.2019 passed by the Court of MM, Bandra, issuing process to directors of respondent no. 5 in the criminal complaint no. 182/2017. He has also suppressed the stay order dated 06.06.2019 passed by the High Court in WP No. 1386/2020 filed by the respondent no. 5 and its directors. Thus, we find that the applicant has not approached the Tribunal with the clean hands, therefore, in addition to the fact that the applicant has failed to establish his case on merits even otherwise he is not entitled to any relief.
Issue No. V
58. So far as the issue of limitation is concerned, since the plea of recurring cause of action has raised and the issue relating to violation of environmental norms is involved, therefore, we do not deem it proper to dismiss this OA on the ground of limitation.
Page | 27
59. Having regard to the above analysis, we find that the applicant has failed to establish any violation of environmental norms by the respondent no. 5. Therefore, no case for granting the prayer for demolition of construction/ structure or imposition of environmental compensation is made out.
60. OA is accordingly dismissed.
Prakash Shrivastava, CP Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM September 26, 2025 OA No.49/2024/WZ avt Page | 28