Disposed

Bombay Environmental Action Group and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Charkop Jeevan Chsl.

Bombay HC4 Sept 2008CHSW/370/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed an applicant society to intervene in a PIL and permitted the municipality to supply water to their completed residential building via an existing pipeline under the road. The court ruled that using the submerged pipeline without cutting adjacent mangroves does not constitute development. The question of prior CRZ violations by the development authority remains open for final hearing

What did the court decide?

Allowed intervention in the main PIL; permitted water supply via existing underground pipeline without cutting adjacent mangroves.

Mr. G.S. Godbole for the Applicants Mr. Gautam Patel i/by M.V. Jaykar & Co. for the Petitioner Mr. N.P. Pandit, AGP for Respondent Nos.1,5,5A & 9 Mr. R. Raghuwanshi, ASG with Rajiv Chawan & Ms. Rutuza Ambekar for Respondent No.2 Mr. J.M. Patade i/by Mr. R.V. Govilkar for Respondent No.3 Ms. P.A. Purandare for Respondent No.4

.Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is submitted that this Court may pass appropriate orders in the matter considering the peculiar facts and circumstances. Therefore, we pass following order:-

"1. The Applicant is seeking modification of the order dated 6.10.2005 passed in PIL No.87 of 2006 (Writ Petition Lodging No.3246 of 2004) to the extent of permitting MCGM and MHADA to dig up the road in front of the building of the Applicant Society situated at Plot No.801, RSC-2, Survey No.41, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-67 for the purpose of providing municipal water connection to the Applicant Society which is not being provided to the Applicant Society by MCGM on account of directions contained in order dated 6.10.2005 passed by this Hon’ble Court in PIL No.87 of 2006. The Applicant is hereby allowed to intervene in PIL No.87 of 2006.

2. In view of the fact that the construction of the building of the Applicant Society is already completed, further in view of the fact that members of the Applicant Society are occupying their respective tenements without any municipal water connection and further, in view of the fact that the Municipal water pipeline is already laid down underneath the road in front of the building of the Applicant Society on Eastern side at a distance of about 1-3 meters; MCGM is permitted to supply water to the applicant Society through the said municipal water pipeline without cutting mangroves as the fact of the case, such a connection cannot be said to be development or construction. It is however accepted that there are even today mangroves on the northern and western sides of the building plot adjoining the plot of the Applicant Society and none of these mangroves will be cut or in any way affected by virtue of this order.

3. It is made clear that the questions whether while developing the Charkop layout under the World Bank sponsored scheme, any violation of the CRZ Notification has been made by MHADA and whether there was any destruction of any mangroves while developing the said layout are expressly kept open to be agitated and considered at the time of final hearing of PIL No.87 of 2006 and the order passed in the present Chamber Summons shall not be construed as an order validating any earlier action of

Bombay Environmental Action Group and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Charkop Jeevan Chsl.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bombay Environmental Action Group and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Charkop Jeevan Chsl.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Shahnawaz Ahmed Siddiqui Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Dept. of Medical Education and 3 Ors.

Ashish Vishwanath Kanikbhat Vs Bank of India Thru Its Zonal Manager and 3 Ors.

4ANAVATI Speciality Chemicals Pvt.Ltd.and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Fehmida Abubakar Varakaya Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Ratnabai Hari Kamble and Ors. Vs M/S. Tata Mills and 2 Ors.

Bombay Environmental Action Group and Anr. Vs State of Mah. and Ors. and Charkop Shri Shivsamarth Chsl.