Allowed

Bombay Environment Action Group and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Applicant)

Bombay HC22 Nov 2016NMW/404/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed the petition for modification of earlier court orders restricting developmental activities in mangrove areas. The Court granted permission to Bharat Petroleum for laying an underground pipeline subject to strict conditions regarding minimizing damage, conditions on replanting in the same area or alternative locations, and inspection by forest officials.

What did the court decide?

Notice of motion allowed and disposed of with conditions to minimize mangrove damage, ensure replanting in the same or alternative areas, and subject to inspection by Dy. Conservator of Forest.

Bombay Environment Action Group and Anr. Vs the… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

NMW. 404-16

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION No. 404 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION No. 87 OF 2006

¶5

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. … Applicants In the matter between

¶6

Bombay Environment Action Group & Anr. … Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶7

¶8

Mr. Jai Chhabria a/w Shreya Parikh i/b M/s. M. V. Jaykar & Co. for the Petitioner in NMW. 404/2016, NMWL. 784/2015, NMWL. 314/2016 in PIL. 87/2006.

¶9

Mr. Chirag Balsara a/w H. N. Vakil, Ms. S. Kapoor, Rushil Mathir i/b Mulla & Mulla & CBC for the Applicants in NMW. No. 404/2016.

¶10

Mrs. P. H. Kantharia, AGP a/w Abhay Patki, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 5 & 5A in NMW. 404/2016, NMW. 406/2016 and NMWL. 784/2015.

¶11

Mr. Rui Rodrigues a/w N. R. Prajapati a/w Y. R. Mishra, D. A. Dube, H. V. Mehta, Upendra Lokegaonkar, for the Respondent – UOI.

¶12

¶13

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 22, 2016

¶14

PC.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶16

1 / 4

¶17

NMW. 404-16

¶18

Applicants appearing – Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the other respondents, including the learned counsel appearing for the original Petitioner – Bombay Environmental Action Group. This Court in PIL No. 87/2006 by an order dated 6.10.2005 has imposed a restriction on carrying out the developmental activities in areas where mangroves are situated.

¶19

An application was made by several government and other authorities for modification of the said order on the ground that whenever any public utility projects are to be undertaken by the government and semi government authorities, this restriction may be modified. The said application was partly allowed by an order dated 27.1.2010, and this Court was pleased to permit the applicants therein to carry out public utility project, however, imposed a condition that whenever any public utility project is undertaken, such authority shall obtain leave of this Court.

¶20

In view of the said order, several applications were filed from time to time and this Court, after examining the said project and ensuring that the permissions have been obtained from all the concerned authorities, and the conditions imposed by this Court have

¶21

2 / 4

¶22

NMW. 404-16

¶23

been complied, has granted leave for the purpose of carrying out construction in respect of the said project. This Court, however, has ensured that there is minimum destruction of mangroves, and secondly, whenever it is not possible to save mangroves while undertaking such projects, directions have been given by this Court from time to time to the party who wants to remove the mangroves should replant them elsewhere. Further conditions have also been imposed by the various Courts from time to time. In the present case Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. wants to lay down an underground pipeline wherein it will be necessary to lay down a pipeline for a distance of 45 Kms. from Mankhurd to Bhiwandi. The Applicants have annexed at Exhibit “E” copy of the route map and at Exhibit “F” copy of Artist sketch to the affidavit filed in support of the notice of motion. The Applicants have also annexed all the permissions obtained from the various authorities. The Applicants have also annexed report of an expert, who has considered three different routes through which pipeline can be laid down, and suggested the shortest route of 45 Km. between Mankhurd to Bhiwandi.

¶24

We are satisfied that the Applicants have taken necessary

¶25

3 / 4

¶26

NMW. 404-16

¶27

permissions from all the concerned authorities. We are also satisfied that the said project is a public utility project and though there may be destruction of few mangroves, the project will benefit large number of people in Mankhurd and Bhiwandi area. We, however, grant permission to the Applicants subject to further condition that apart from obtaining permission from all concerned authorities, the Applicants shall ensure that there is minimum damage done to the mangroves, which will be removed while laying down the pipeline. Secondly, the Applicants shall ensure that whenever mangroves are removed, they shall be replanted after the pipeline is laid down. Thirdly, whenever it is not possible to again plant mangroves in the said area, an undertaking shall be given to this Court that they shall replant mangroves in some other areas. After the pipeline is laid down, the Dy. Conservator of Forest shall inspect the said area and he may then direct the Applicants to replant mangroves at some other places. Notice of motion is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶28

Sd/Sd/ [Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J.] - [V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶29

Vinayak Halemath

¶30

4 / 4

Bombay Environment Action Group and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Applicant)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bombay Environment Action Group and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Applicant)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitin Anant Kshirsagar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Juhu Citzens Welfare Group and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 14 Ors.

Sanjay Ratan Bhakta Vs the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Shivaji Sopan Jawale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jason Nath Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Zabihullah Safiullah Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.