Disposed

Save Mangroves and Navi Mumbai Existence (Samne), through President v. State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Sept 2016PIL/2/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a PIL challenging the sanction for developing an airport at Navi Mumbai due to environmental concerns. The Court found the site selection based on expert opinion and dismissed the petitioner's apprehensions, refusing to entertain the petition.

What did the court decide?

The PIL is dismissed; an order refusing to entertain the petition is issued.

Save Mangroves and Navi Mumbai Existence (Samne)… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2016)

1/4

PIL 2 of 2015

Vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 2 OF 2015

¶7

Save Mangroves and Navi Mumbai Existence (Samne) Through its President ...Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra Through the Principal Secretary Government of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

¶9

Mr. D.S. Sapkale a/w. Mr. Mayur Sapkale for Petitioner Ms. Aparna Vhatkar -AGP for the State Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 Ms. Rupali Dixit for Respondent No.6 Ms. Sharmila Deshmukh for Respondent No.7 Mr. A.R. Varma a/w. N.R. Prajapati for Respondent Nos. 11 to 14 Mr. C.M. Lokeshappa for Respondent No.16

¶10

¶11

CORAM : V. M. KANADE &

¶12

Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2016

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner,

¶15

the learned counsel for the CIDCO and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the MCZMA.

¶16

By this petition, which is filed as PIL under Article 226 of the

¶17

2/4

¶18

PIL 2 of 2015

¶19

Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the sanction which has been given by the Urban Development Department dated 30^th July, 2008 for the development of the International Airport at Navi Mumbai and for other consequential reliefs.

¶20

The grievance of the Petitioner firstly is that if this airport comes up at the site selected by the Respondents, it will cause displacement and destruction to the human life and property within the periphery of the proposed Airport at Navi Mumbai and surrounding area. Secondly, it is submitted that the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act,1986, Indian Forests Act, 1927 and Coastal Zone Management Act,1972 would be violated if the Airport comes up at the site. Thirdly, it will cause destruction to the mangroves and also to the ecological system in that area. It is then submitted that other six sites are more convenient for the purpose of locating the Airport. It is then submitted that Airport is situated in an area which is seismically active and it is not advisable to construct a new Airport at a place where there is a possibility of earthquake since the site is situated on a junction of three spots. He then submitted that there is a bird sanctuary which is just 10 kms away from the proposed Airport Site and it is likely to adversely affect on the lives of the various birds and animals due to the noise of the aeroplanes. The learned counsel further submitted that the

¶21

3/4

¶22

PIL 2 of 2015

¶23

conditions which are imposed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) by their letter dated 22^nd November, 2010 have not been complied with.

¶24

Respondent No.3- CIDCO has filed a detailed affidavit in reply. In the said reply, the steps taken by the authorities for the purpose of obtaining clearances from various departments have been mentioned in detail. After having gone through the affidavit in reply, we are satisfied that all steps are being taken by the Respondents for the purpose of obtaining clearances from the various departments. In fact, after going through the affidavit in reply, we are satisfied that the site has been selected after obtaining opinion from the experts in the field. We are of the view that the apprehension expressed by the Petitioner is misconceived.

¶25

It has to be noted that the CIDCO has filed Notice of Motion No. 419 of 2011 in PIL No. 87 of 2006, seeking permission to develop the Green Field Airport at Navi Mumbai and the Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 29^th October, 2013 has granted permission to clear mangroves. The Division Bench in paragraph No.4 has observed as under:

¶26

“4. In view of the above, having heard the learned counsel

¶27

4/4

¶28

PIL 2 of 2015

¶29

for parties, we permit CIDCO to clear mangroves from 108.50 hectors subject to condition that CIDCO shall plant and develop 245 hectors of mangroves at the site indicated in Exh.F and also to protect 370 hectors of mangroves as indicated in Exh.F to the affidavit dated 18^th August, 2011 in support of Notice of Motion No. 419 of 2011. CIDCO is directed to comply with all conditions stipulated by Forest Advisory Committee as well as the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife in the aforesaid approvals/recommendations.”

¶30

We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain this PIL. PIL is disposed of.

¶31

At this stage the learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks stay to this order for a period of four weeks. Since no stay was granted at any stage after the petition/PIL was filed, question of continuation of stay does not arise.

¶32

Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J. V.M. KANADE, J.

¶33

Vaishali Tikam

Save Mangroves and Navi Mumbai Existence (Samne), through President v. State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Save Mangroves and Navi Mumbai Existence (Samne), through President v. State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept 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

Sonaji S/O Ganuji Gawai Vs Zilla Parishad, Akola through Its Ceo, Akola (Water and Sanitation Department) and 5 Others

Surendrakumar K Bajpai S/O.Krishnakumar B Bajpai Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Mukesh Ramesh Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Citizens Grievences Redressal Foundation Vs the State of Maharashtra Throuth Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation and Anr.

Dr.Kirit Somaiya Vs the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and 12 Ors.

Shri. Yogesh Sambhajirao Khaire and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary

Maharashtra Adiwasi Mana Jamat Mitra Mandal, Nagpur through President B. v. Nannaware and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramesh Dhanrajji Solanki Vs the State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Surendrakumar K Bajpai S/O.Krishnakumar B Bajpai Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Mukesh Ramesh Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Citizens Grievences Redressal Foundation Vs the State of Maharashtra Throuth Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation and Anr.

Mrs. Eureka Joy, D/O. Alfred Baptista Vs Mr. Joy Anthony Payyapply

Mr. Anurag Kulshrestha Vs Mrs. Sapna Kulshrestha @ Sapna Srivastava

Ashish Ashokrao Dhankikar Vs Mr. Shahed Ali Inayat Ali Ansari