Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3 . WPST. 96276.2020.doc About 1184 mangrove trees are likely to be affected by the proposed 400 KV Kharghar Vikhroli line. Adequate mitigation measures along with mangrove conservation plan have been incorporated by BNHS in the EIA report to ameliorate and reduce adverse impact on mangroves. The loss of mangroves could be compensated by undertaking afforestation at appropriate and suitable location. Although the statutory scheme contemplates compensatory afforestation at a rate of five times the number of trees affected that is (6000 saplings in lieu of 1184 trees in the present case), the Petitioner intends to plant about 10000 saplings, being a responsible and environmentally conscious organization.

"In view of applicability of public trust doctrine, the State is duty 3 . WPST. 96276.2020.doc 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;"

12. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has taken us through the various permissions granted to the Petitioner by concerned authorities, which would permit the Petitioner to remove mangroves with condition to undertake re-plantation. It is submitted that the project is of vital importance and immense public interest and if orders are not passed by this Court as prayed for, public interest would be severely prejudiced. The learned Counsel has relied on orders passed in (i) Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. V/s. Union of India and Ors.1 (ii) Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority V/s. Union of India and Ors.2 (iii) Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust V/s. Union of India,3 wherein this Court had granted permissions to remove the mangroves to the extent as prayed, considering the public interest and importance of the public project involved.

6 Writ Petition (L) No. 741 of 2019, decided on 12.03.2019.

3 . WPST. 96276.2020.doc was. In all above cases, the issue of cutting of mangroves was involved and the Division Bench was satisfied that the project was of vital importance and in public interest and with the arrangement made by the Petitioners and the stipulations made by the Respondents therein, whereby provisions for afforestation of mangroves were made. In above cases this Court granted permission to remove mangroves as prayed for in the said Petitions. In the case of Conservation Action Trust and another, the Petitioner - Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. (MSRDC) wanted to construct Versova- Bandra Sea Link, and a report was called from the Regional Forest Ofcer which stated that in all 1585 mangrove trees would be destructed for construction of Sea Link project. The Division Bench directed the Petitioner to plant 13332 mangrove trees on the alternate land for the purpose of compensatory afforestation. In the present case in all 1184 mangrove trees will be affected by the project. The Petitioner has shown willingness to provide 10,000 saplings which would be planted to compensate the loss of mangroves in the project.

15. Learned amicus curiae also did not dispute that the project being undertaken by the Petitioner is in public interest. He submits that more afforestation of mangroves are required. He further submits that the Petitioner should plant 15,000 saplings instead of 10,000 as suggested. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner accepted the said suggestion and stated that 15,000 saplings (instead of 10,000) would be planted as loss of mangroves in the project.

16. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that an exception is required to be made in favour of the Petitioner to remove the mangroves as prayed for on the conditions as imposed by the Respondent authorities as the work in question is for public good and in public interest as referred to and in accordance with paragraph 83 (viii) of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Bombay Environmental Action Group and another V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.7 . The Petitioner through its Counsel has expressed willingness to plant 15,000 saplings as indicated above. The Petitioner has shown willingness to place on record an undertaking to the rigorous compliance of the conditions as imposed in the permissions granted by the Respondent Authorities. The public project in question cannot be stalled and we are inclined to grant the reliefs as prayed for. In these circumstances, we allow the Petition in 3 . WPST. 96276.2020.doc terms of prayer clause "a" which reads thus:p-