Citizens Action Group (Cag) vs State Of Maharashtra And 7 Ors on 18 July, 2019

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Citizens Action Group (Cag) vs State Of Maharashtra And 7 Ors on 18 July, 2019

Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog

skn                                        1                         5.19-pill.doc


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
          ORDINARY ORGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

      PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) NO. 5 OF 2019

Citizens' Action Group (CAG).                          ...       Petitioner.
      V/s.
State of Maharashtra and others.                       ...       Respondents



Mr.Ahmed Abdi with Ms.Sonal Mishal with Mr.Eknath Dhokale
i/b. Abdi & Co. for the Petitioner.
Ms.P.H.Kantharia, GP with Ms.Deepali Patankar, Asst. to GP
for the State Respondent Nos.1, 6 and 7.
Ms.K.H.Mastakar with Mr.H.C.Pimple for Respondent No.4.
Ms.Sharmila U. Deshmukh for Respondent No.5.
Mr.Dinyar Madan, Senior Advocate with Mr.Shailesh Mahimtura
and Mr.Jamshed Master i/b. Mahimtura & Co. for Respondent No.8.


                 CORAM :             PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J.

AND N.M.JAMDAR, J.

                DATE :               18 July 2019.

P.C. :

The challenge in the public interest litigation is to the decision taken by Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) on 2 and 3 November 2016 at its 114th meeting, resulting in communication dated 17 February 2017 issued to the Respondent No.8 withdrawing stop work order dated 29 June 2013 concerning plot No.124 bearing CTS No.1/48/1A/2.

::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 01:08:34 :::

skn 2 5.19-pill.doc

2. The reason to withdraw the stop work notice was the opinion formed by MCZMA that the plot in question falls in CRZ-II and as per CRZ 2011 notification construction is permissible on the land covered by CRZ-II.

3. In response to the petition, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the Under Secretary of the Environment Department, Government of Maharashtra confirming the stand taken by MCZMA.

4. We had called upon the Project Proponent to superimpose the Coastal Zone Management Plan over the Development Plan or vice versa. Today, the superimposed plan has been produced before us which supports the case of Respondent No.8 duly approved by MCZMA that the plot in question falls in CRZ-II.

5. Accordingly we terminate proceedings in PIL dismissing the same.

6. The interim order dated 20 June 2019 is vacated.

       N.M.JAMDAR, J.                          CHIEF JUSTICE




      ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019                 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 01:08:34 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court