Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.40 seconds)
The Conservation Action Trust Through ... vs The Union Of India By Its Secretary ... on 23 November, 2023 cites

Bombay Environmetal Action Group Aand ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

103. From the side of learned counsel for appellants, reliance is placed on the Judgment of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in PIL No.87/2006 (Bombay Environmental Action Group & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and other connected Writ Petitions, relevant paragraphs of which we have already cited above while dealing with the argument of learned counsel for appellants. In rebuttal, from the side of respondent No.6/Project Proponent, it is said that in para 2 of the said Judgment, it is very clearly stated that the petition seeks a declaration that the areas covered by mangroves in the State of Maharashtra in addition to those covered by mangroves forest, should be declared as mangroves protection area and that the said matter was confined to the issue pertaining to the State of Maharashtra. He also said that the whole Judgment, if read in totality, would indicate that the issue/problem pertained to the State of Maharashtra specifically, which has been dealt with appropriately by the Hon‟ble High Court and it is in that context that the Hon‟ble High Court has held that all mangroves irrespective of the area would fall in CRZ-I as per both CRZ Notifications 1991 and 2011 and that the buffer zone of 50 mtrs., in case of mangrove area of less than 1000 mtrs. will not be a part Appeal No.74/2016(WZ) Page 57 of 62 of the CRZ-I. This Judgment does not appear to have dealt with the CRZ- IA & CRZ- IB area distinctly. Therefore, in the case in hand, its application in totality does not appear to be reasonable. We have already noted above that the area where the mangroves are found to be there, shall certainly be CRZ-IA area, where construction or any developmental activity cannot be permitted. But in the case in hand, we find that the project was brought into existence long back prior to the present Phase-III. Two phases have already been carried out and it is the third phase, expansion of the same is going to take place in the impugned EC and the CRZ Clearances. It is also not to be forgotten here that the project in question is a project of national importance as well as public need.
Bombay High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 12 - A Oka - Full Document

The National High Speed Rail ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 9 December, 2022

In response to the argument of learned counsel for appellants, from the side of respondent No.6/Project Proponent, reliance is placed on National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.[(2022) SCC OnLine Bom 6701 : (2023) 2 Bom CR 208], where-in a prayer was sought to quash and set aside the communication dated 20.12.2018, pursuant to which Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) had refused to grant permission to the petitioner to cut/fell mangroves falling within Coastal Regulation Zone-I deferring the proposal of the petitioner for carrying out work in respect of the Mumbai- Ahmedabad High Speed Railway Project. The MCZMA in its Meeting dated 20.12.2018 held that "it noted the Hon'ble High Court order dated 17th September, 2018 in PIL 87/2006 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai. Since proposed activities were situated in 50m mangrove buffer zone area, the Authority suggested that the project proponent may approach Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai seeking relief from the above said order dated 17th Sep. 2018. Further, the CZMP under CRZ Notification, 2011 for Thane & Palghar was yet to be finalized and approved by the Appeal No.74/2016(WZ) Page 58 of 62 MoEF&CC, New Delhi. Therefore, the matter was deferred." In this matter, the Hon‟ble High Court directed the MCZMA to permit the petitioner to execute Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed Rail Project including the area falling in mangrove area and the buffer zone area in view of the public importance of the project, subject to the following conditions:-
Bombay High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 Next