Bombay High Court
Mr. Sayyed Abdul Nabi And Anr vs Union Of India Through Solicitor ... on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog, N. M. Jamdar
1/5
20-pil-31-15.doc
pdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 31 OF 2015
1. Mr. Sayyed Abdul Nabi & Anr. .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. A. N. Nesarikar I/by R. N. Kachave for petitioners.
Mr. N. R. Prajapati for respondent No.1.
Mr. Abhay L. Patki, Addl. Govt. Pleader for respondent Nos.4 to
8 & 10-State.
Ms. K. H. Kastkar for respondent No.9 - MCGM.
Mr. Ajai Fernandes a/w Ms. Sneha Pandey I/by Motiwalla & Co.
for respondent No.11.
CORAM: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, CJ. &
N. M. JAMDAR, J.
JULY 09, 2019.
P.C.
1. The Petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 617 of 2013 pleading identical facts and making same prayers. The said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 19 September 2013, which reads as under :-
::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2019 01:35:34 ::: 2/520-pil-31-15.doc " By the administrative directions of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 25 July 2013 the hearing of the Petition has been assigned to this Bench.
2] The two Petitioners before the Court in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution have stated that they carry on the business of transportation and are contractors in respect of earth moving machinery and dumper operating trucks carrying debris, excavated soil etc. The petitioners claim to be office bearers of Mega City Debris Truck Welfare Association.
3] In pursuance of an Environmental Clearance which has been granted on 15 June 2006 by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forest (MOEF) the Mumbai Port Trust is carrying on certain work at the Prince's & Victoria Docks. MOEF modified the conditions of its clearance on 9 November 2006. The contract was awarded to the Seventh Respondent on 1 April 2009.
4] The grievance of the Petitioners is that the Seventh Respondent to whom the contract has been awarded was committing a breach of the environmental clearance by utilising unlicensed debris taken from building sites. The Collector Mumbai City had after issuing a notice to show cause imposed a penalty of Rs.1.68 Crores on 3 December 2012 on the Seventh Respondent. The relief which has been sought in the Petition ::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2019 01:35:34 ::: 3/5 20-pil-31-15.doc is a direction to the competent authorities to stop trucks carrying debris of construction material from entering into the limits of the port area for the purpose of dumping into the sea.
5] An affidavit in Reply has been fled by the Chief Engineer denying the averments contained in the Petition. It has been stated that in pursuance of the Environmental Clearance that was granted on 15 June 2006 as modified on 9 November 2006 the construction of the berth has already been completed; dredging is about 75% complete and the work of filling was about 80% complete. It has been stated that the project is to be completed in two phases; the first phase for a capacity of 0.8 Million TE Units envisages a berth length of 700 meters, while in the second phase there would be an additional capacity of 0.4 Million TE Units and an additional berth of 350 meters. On behalf of the Port Trust it has been submitted that having regard to the modified clearance which has been granted by the MOEF on 9 November 2006, it has been envisaged that surplus dredged soil shall be dumped at the designated site.
6] For the purpose of these proceedings, this Court has not, it must be clarified, entered upon the question as to whether there is due compliance with the terms of the environmental clearance. MOEF is at liberty to enforce and verify compliance of the conditions of its clearance. The Petition, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners clarifies is not filed ::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2019 01:35:34 ::: 4/5 20-pil-31-15.doc in the public interest. The two Petitioners are contractors and their grievance was in regard to the conduct of the Seventh Respondent. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Port Trust has informed the court on instructions that the contract of the Seventh Respondent has been terminated on 27 June 2013 and that the Port Trust would now be required to issue fresh tenders for appointing a suitable contractor for carrying out the work of the project. Similarly the action which has been taken by the Collector against the Seventh Respondent does not fall for consideration and the Collector is at liberty to enforce the order which has already been passed. We see no reason to entertain the Petition in view of the fact that the contract of the Seventh Respondent has been terminated. We also clarify that this order will not come in the way of MOEF ensuring due compliance of the terms of its environmental clearance and from taking action if it is found that the conditions of the environmental clearance have not been observed. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."
2. Instant petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation and we dismiss the same for the reasons same issues were raised by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 617 of 2013. The order dated 19 September 2013 disposing of Writ Petition No. 617 of 2013 shows that the Mumbai Port Trust was carrying ::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2019 01:35:34 ::: 5/5 20-pil-31-15.doc on works at Prince's and Victoria Docks resulting in soil being excavated and debris generated. A private contractor, impleaded as respondent No.7 in the said Writ Petition to whom contract was awarded to remove the debris and excavated soil, was named as the culprit on the plea that he was violating the environmental clearances. It be noted that after carrying out dredging activities, the debris had to be used for reclamation of sea at existing Prince's and Victoria Docks. The further grievance appears to be that the contractor started dumping hazardous bio-waste instead of dredging sand from the designated areas.
3. Suffice it to state the order dated 19 September 2013 left it open for the Competent Authority to decide whether there was compliance with the environmental clearances. Orders passed by the Collector were permitted to be taken to their logical conclusion.
4. The Public Interest Petition is accordingly dismissed.
N. M. JAMDAR, J. CHIEF JUSTICE
::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2019 01:35:34 :::