Disposed

Neena Sunil Patel and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Mar 2012WP/1544/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL concerned allegations of illegal land reclamation at a botanical garden near Sassoon Dock. The court examined affidavits, notices, and photographs to determine if the Port Trust's restoration work violated the CRZ Notification. Finding no illegality but recognizing a procedural gap in monitoring, the court directed the Coastal Zone Management Committee to establish an inspection team.

What did the court decide?

Directorate instructed to set up an inspection team to verify coastal construction complaints and ensure periodical monitoring of coast lines.

Neena Sunil Patel and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2012)

wpl 273.12

SSK/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

O.O.C.J.

¶6

WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 273 OF 2012

¶7

Mrs. Neena Sunil Patel & anr. ....Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr. Arif S Doctor with Ms. Neelam Thoke and Mr. Vikram Shinde i/b. M/s. Vigil Juris, advocates for the petitioners.

¶9

Ms. Uma Palusule-Desai, AGP for respondent No.1. Ms. Sharmila Modle, advocate for respondent No.2.

¶10

Mr. Girish Kulkarni with Ms.Swati Deshmukh i/b. M. V. Kini & Associates, advocates for respondent No.3.

¶11

Mr. D. A. Athavale with Mr. N. R. Prajapati, advocate fore respondent No.4. Mrs. Sharmila Deshmukh, advocate for respondent No.5.

¶12

CORAM : MOHIT S SHAH, C.J. & RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 2^nd March, 2012.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

In this petition, in the nature of public interest litigation, the petitioners have prayed for appropriate directions to respondent No.2Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and respondent No.5Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Committee to demolish and remove the impugned construction/land reclamation carried on outside Botanical Garden near Sassoon Dock at Colaba and restore the foreshore to its natural and original state. The petitioners have further prayed that the said respondents be asked to forbear and resist from carrying on any further land reclamation/construction on the said land and also to direct the said

wpl 273.12

SSK/

respondents to carry on all work only with prior environmental clearance from respondent No.4- Union of India.

¶19

Affidavit-in-reply dated 24^th February, 2012, has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3- Mumbai Port Trust, stating that there is no reclamation of any of the sea land nor is there any construction of any road or wall. Respondent No.3 – Mumbai Port Trust has a botanical garden known as “Sagar Upavan” at Sassoon Dock which is spread over about 12 acres of land and southern side of the said garden is touching the sea and about 500 mtrs. of the periphery is clearly sea-facing. In the year 1985, stone protection was provided at the periphery of the garden to prevent the erosion. The said botanical garden is being used by hundreds of people daily and that the sea facing portion of the garden is subject to heavy tidal forces. The stone protection provided during the development has been washed out at various places. The seatouts provided in the periphery has caved in, endangering the safety of the garden users. The Port Trust, therefore, decided to reinstate the damaged stone protection and restore the damaged seatouts along the seashore, at its own cost. The stone protection in Geogrid rock toe and sloped stone pitching form is being provided for about 200 m. length without extending the land portion. The work is only restoration of damaged sea protection provided at the garden, and therefore, the existing protection about 300 m. long which is not damaged will be kept untouched.

¶20

In view of the above statements in the affidavit in reply, which are not disputed, there would be no justification to entertain this petition.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, invites our attention to notice dated 19^th January, 2012 of Maharashtra Coastal Zone

wpl 273.12

SSK/

Management Authority-respondent No.5. The relevant portion of the notice reads as under :

¶26

“ The above referred solicitors firm issued notice against construction of a road on the beach as infrastructure for access to Vikrant in violation of CRZ Notification and a copy of the said letter endorsed to your office also.

¶27

It is alleged in the notice that, MbPT being the owner of the land on which construction activities carrying on and is a party for the said activity and BMC has cleared the activity of MbPT to reclaim the seabed and make it into a road in violation of CRZ Notification.

¶28

It is therefore, requested not to carry construction activity till prior CRZ clearance obtained from the competent authority, if the said area is falling in CRZ.”

¶29

The learned counsel for Mumbai Port Trust states that in response to the above notice, respondent No.3-Mumbai Port Trust sent a reply dated 14^th February, 2012, a copy whereof is placed on the record of these proceedings and marked as Exhibit “X” for identification. The learned counsel for Mumbai Port Trust also invites our attention to the statement made in the affidavit-in-reply that the Port Trust has not constructed any road nor is involved in any way in connection with infrastructure access to “Vikrant”. Photographs are also produced showing the pre-restoration of seatouts and the post restoration of seatouts in order to show that polyproplyne mesh Gabion filled with stones are provided to control the tidal waves washing out the shore as a precautionary measure.

wpl 273.12

SSK/

Mrs. Sharmila Deshmukh, learned counsel for respondent No.5Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Committee, states that after considering the reply of Mumbai Port Trust, respondent No.5-Authority has not found any substance in the complaint i.e. the impugned activity of the Port Trust. The learned counsel, however, states that no personal inspection was carried out at the site by/or on behalf of respondent No.5-Authority, as respondent No.5 does not have any inspection team.

¶34

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the averments made in the petition, affidavit-in-reply and affidavit-in-rejoinder, we do not find that the impugned activity of respondent No.3-Mumbai Port Trust, amounts to any activity which would require environmental clearance from Respondent No.4- Union of India (Ministry of Forests and Environment) or respondent No.5-Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Committee. It is after looking at pre-restoration and post-restoration photographs that we have come to the above conclusion. We do, however, find substance in the grievance being made on behalf of the petitioners that respondent No.5 ought to have carried out personal inspection at the site after receiving the complaint from the petitioners.

¶35

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find that respondent No.3-Mumbai Port Trust has committed any illegal activity. While disposing of the petition, we certainly would like to observe that respondent No.5 – Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Committee ought to have a team which must carry on regular inspection of the coastal areas and, if any, activity is being carried out which requires prior environmental

SSK/

wpl 273.12

clearance, then, the team of Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Committee must report the matter to the concerned authority and prevent repetition of such activity.

¶40

In view of the above, Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority and Union of India through the Director of Ministry of Forests and Environment shall consider setting up an inspection team for inspecting the coast lines. If any complaint is made about any construction activity without prior environmental clearance, such inspection team must personally visit the site and verify whether there is any truth in the complaint. Even without such complaint being lodged, it would be the duty of respondent No.5Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Committee, to send its inspection team for periodical inspection of the coast lines on regular basis for the purposes of monitoring enforcement of the coastal zone regulations.

¶41

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of the above directions.

¶42

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶43

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

Neena Sunil Patel and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neena Sunil Patel and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Telang Road Residents Association and 12 Ors., Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

The Committee for Rights to Housing and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 10 Others

Kantibhai Jitmal Jain Vs Majaj Mukhtar Dolare and Ors.

Mumbai Taximen Sangathan and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pukhraj Chunilal Bafna Vs State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Dhiren Dungarshi Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and 10 Ors.