Dismissed

Arun George v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Others

Bombay HC8 Jan 2015PIL/5/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This batch of PILs sought directions to prevent tree cutting for Metro III projects. The High Court dismissed the petitions as premature since no order had been passed by the Tree Authority, which was required by law to consider the proposals.

What did the court decide?

None granted; PILs dismissed as premature pending the decision of the Tree Authority.

Arun George Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

PILL136/14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) NO. 136 OF 2014

¶5

Arun George … Petitioner v/s The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and others … Respondents

¶6

Mr Sandesh R. Shukla i/b Mr Abhay Nevagi and Associates for Petitioner. Ms T.H. Puranik for Respondent No.1 – BMC. Ms Kiran Bhagalia for Respondent – MMRDA. Mr Milind More, AGP for Respondent No.4 – State. Mr D.P. Singh for Respondent No.5 – Union of India.

¶7

WITH

¶8

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) NO.138 OF 2014

¶9

Vanshakti, a Public Trust and others … Petitioners v/s The Chairman, MMRDA and others … Respondents

¶10

Ms Gayatri Singh with Mr Zaman Ali for Petitioners. Ms Kiran Bhagalia for Respondent – MMRDA. Ms T.H. Puranik for Respondent – BMC. Ms Geeta R. Shastri, AGP for Respondent – State. Mr D.P. Singh for Respondent – Union of India.

¶11

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. & B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.

¶12

DATE : 8 JANUARY 2015

1 of 5

VRD

PILL136/14

P.C.:

In this Public Interest Litigations, the Petitioners have prayed for a direction to the Respondent No.1 – Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai, Respondent No.2 – MMRDA and Respondent No.3 – Mumbai Metro Railway Corporation Ltd. not to remove and / or transplant 2298 trees in Aarey Colony for Metro III Project and to carry out a detailed Environment Impact Assessment of the said Metro III Project before undertaking any development / construction activity.

¶18

As regards prayer (c), the Petitioners have prayed for a direction to the Respondents – Municipal Corporations and Councils across the State of Maharashtra to comply with the directions issued by this Court in its judgment dated 20 September 2013 passed in PIL No.93 of 2009. In PIL No.93 of 2009, we permitted the Petitioners to institute a separate PIL and hence we do not propose to deal with the said prayer.

¶19

In PIL (L) No.138 of 2014, the Petitioner No.1, a nonGovernment Organization, has challenged the proposal of MMRDA for widening the Aarey Colony Road and also the proposal for construction of car shed for Metro III Project which involves cutting of trees. The Petitioners have also prayed for a direction to ensure that the Tree

2 of 5

VRD

PILL136/14

Authority is appointed consisting of environmental members and learned members of the society.

¶24

On 4 December 2014, the matters were adjourned to 17 December 2014 to enable the MMRDA and the Municipal Corporation to file their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, it is stated that as per section 3 of the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Tree Preservation and Protection Act 1975, a Tree Authority for the years 2012 to 2017 has been constituted and nominees are appointed as members of the Tree Authority. The names of the Municipal Councilors nominated members are given in the affidavit. It is further stated in the affidavit in reply that as per provision under section 8(3)(a) of the Tree Act effective grievance redressal mechanism has been set up at the office of the Superintendent of Garden. A reference is also made to the progress made in the tree census work within the jurisdiction of MCGM by adopting modern technology like GPS (Global Positioning System). Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said affidavit are relevant, they read as under :-

¶25

“3. I state that the project will reduce traffic congestion (456,771 less vehicle trips) and will reduce road traffic along the corridor – 35 %. This will result in reduced fuel consumption of 243390 per day. It will also reduce air pollution (PM-133.5, Nox – 594.2, HC – 1328.8, CO – 4327.4, CO2 – 6800.2 tons/year). It will also reduce noise pollution. The project itself is thus tremendously beneficial to improve the travel conditions of Mumbai commuters in a safe

3 of 5

VRD

PILL136/14

and effective manner and reduce environmental pollution and alleviate insufferable traffic conditions having an overall impact of better life. I state that the transplantation and cutting of trees for car depot of Metro Line 3 is found to be unavoidable in an exhaustive feasility study.

¶30

AT the further outset, I state that the petition is based on a wrong premise that Environmental Impact Assessment for Metro Railway Line-3 is mandatory. I state that the EIA Notification 2006 with its amendments does not include metro railway as a project for which Environmental clearance is necessary. Even though it is not mandatory to obtain Environmental clearance for metro Railway Projects, however as per guidelines of JICA, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Social Impact assessment (SIA) were carried out by RITES. The petition based mainly on this ground, therefore, deserves to be rejected.”

¶31

In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the MMRDA, it is

¶32

stated that since Mumbai Metropolitan Region is one of the fast growing metropolitan regions in India, public transport systems are overcrowded and the road network is congested, to decongest the existing public transport systems and increase mobility across the region, MMRDA through MMRC has commissioned the service of Rail India Technology and Engineering Services (RITES) to prepare DPR and environmental / social impact assessment study for corridor of Colaba-Bandra-SEEPZ covering total length of 33.508 kms. for Metro III Project. It is necessary

¶33

to provide the car shed in the Aarey Milk Colony and to accommodate the same, the MMRDA has to cut 254 trees from out of 75 acres of land. The

¶34

VRD 4 of 5

¶35

PILL136/14

¶36

proposal was submitted to the Tree Authority on 10 November 2014 with details and drawings. Notices were published in various newspapers on 15 November 2014 inviting objections and suggestions, to be placed before the Tree Authority to decide whether the permission can be granted or not.

¶37

It is stated in the affidavit that the MCGM will not cut a single

¶38

tree in Aarey Milk Colony without obtaining necessary legal clearance for the same. It is also stated that the rate of survival of transplanted trees with modern technology is high and therefore, hardly few trees are required to be cut.

¶39

Having gone through the aforesaid affidavits in reply on behalf of the Municipal Corporation as well as on behalf of the MMRDA, it is clear that so far no order is passed by the Tree Authority. Therefore, both these Public Interest Litigations are pre-mature. Public Interest Litigations are accordingly dismissed on the ground that they are premature.

¶40

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶41

B.P. COLABAWALLA,J.

¶42

5 of 5

¶43

VRD

Arun George v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun George v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vidarbha Pradesh Prakalpagrasta Sangharsha Samiti, Thr President, Amravati and Anr. Vs State of Maha. Thr Secretary, Dept of Education, Mumbai and Others

Shri. Murari G. Tripathi Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Govt of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Prakash Ganpat Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Association for Aiding Justice, through Mr. Ram Keswani Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, of Ministry of Education and Ors.

Bhagwanji Raiyani Vs Maharashtra Met. Region Dev. Authority and Ors.

Shr. Bharat Maruti Lotale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Narayan Rajaram Morajkar Vs Chief Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Narayan Rajaram Morajkar Vs Chief Secretary and Ors.

Suravi Infrastructure and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Others

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Radhey Shikshan Vikas Mandal, Kowad through Its Headmaster

M/S. Shree Richa Realtors and Another Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Others

Vanashakti, a Public Trust and 4 Ors. Vs the Chairman and 3 Ors.

Surendra Parikh Vs Officcial Liquidator of Surendra Engineering Corp. Ltd. and Anr.

Joshi Shivshankar Jathashankar Vs the Superintendent General Stamp Office and 3 Ors.