Allowed

The Bombay Environmental Action Group and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Mar 2017NMW/170/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted a noise motion allowing the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to proceed with the widening and reconstruction of bridges at Dharavi and Drive-in Theatre in Bandra. The court held the project a public utility, noting the necessity to facilitate river flow and traffic.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to carry out widening and reconstruction of bridges at Dharavi and near Drive-in Theatre, Bandra, subject to obtaining further statutory requirements.

The Bombay Environmental Action Group and Anr. Vs… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

nms672-16.odt

¶2

spb/

¶3

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

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION (L.) NO. 672 OF 2016 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 87 OF 2006

¶5

The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai … Applicants.

¶6

(Org.Respondent No.2).

¶7

In the matter of :

¶8

The Bombay Environmental Action Group … Org. Petitioners. & Anr.

¶9

V/s.

¶10

The State of Maharashtra and Others. … Respondents. (Org.Respondents)

¶11

¶12

Mr. S. S. Pakale a/w. Ms. Trupti Puranik for the Applicants. Ms. Shreya Parikh i/by Jaykar & Co. for the Org. Petitioners.

¶13

Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, AGP for the Respondent-State.

¶14

Mr. Rui Rodgiques a/w. N. R. Prajapati for the Respondent - Union of India.

¶15

Ms. Sharmila Deshmukh a/w. Rupali Dixit for Respondent - MCZMA.

¶16

¶17

CORAM : V. M. KANADE AND P.R. BORA, JJ.

¶18

DATE : 07^th MARCH, 2017

¶19

P.C. :

¶20

1 This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Corporation, the Applicants herein, seeking permission for carrying out widening and reconstruction of bridges at Dharavi

1/3

Borey

spb/

nms672-16.odt

Bridge near Drive in Theatre at C.S. No. 501 at Division Bandra, Mumbai.

¶26

2 We have perused the affidavit-in-support of this notice of motion and have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf the Corporation and also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of other respective parties. We are satisfied that the said project is a public utility project. The necessary approvals have been taken by the Corporation which are marked as Exhs. 1, 2 and 3. Leave is, therefore, granted to the Corporation in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶27

3 It is clarified that all the necessary statutory requirements/permissions that are required to be taken, in addition to the approvals which have already been taken, shall be obtained by the Corporation and thereafter, the said project work may be completed.

¶28

4 The rivers in Mumbai Mithi run through the city of Mumbai and finally they meet the level of Arabian Sea at Mahim. The river is only drainage channel that carries excess water during monsoon. The width of the Mithi river has already been widened at various places except the bridge portion, which has created bottleneck for the smooth flow of river water. In the affidavit-in-reply, the Corporation, in terms, states that re-plantation of the mangroves will be done in the

2/3

Borey

nms672-16.odt

spb/

area shown in the google map in green colour boundary by MCGM. The assistance of the Forests Department may also be taken for widening and reconstruction work. We are, therefore, of the view that the widening and reconstruction work at Dharavi Bridge, where the drive-in take, is necessary to remove the bottleneck for the free flow of traffic.

¶34

5 The Notice Motion is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and it is disposed of accordingly.

¶35

3/3

¶36

Borey

The Bombay Environmental Action Group and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Bombay Environmental Action Group and Anr. v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Prabhakar Joshi Vs State of Maharashstra and Ors.

Shri. Manubhai Vadilal Shah and Ors. Vs M/S. Sonam Builders

Satish Prabhakar Joshi Vs State of Maharashstra and Ors.

Abu Saleh Ansari Vs Hussein Usman Merchant and Ors.

S. D. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

The Bombay Environmental Action Group and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 19 Ors.