Allowed

The Bombay Environmental Action Group and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and 19 Ors. and the Tata Power Company Limited (Applicant)

Bombay HC14 Feb 2017NMW/469/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought to modify the order dated 16/12/2011 to shift the site for compensatory mangrove plantation from Trombay to Sarsole. The court noted the petitioner had no objection and the affidavit stated tripartite agreement would be executed.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 16/12/2011 is modified to substitute Trombay with the site indicated in Exhibit-F for mangrove re-plantation.

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

1/3

NMW/469/2016

BDPPS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.469 OF 2016 IN

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.87 OF 2006

¶6

The Tata Power Company Limited

¶7

….. Applicant.

¶8

In the matter between

¶9

The Bombay Environmental Action Group and Another

¶10

….Petitioners.

¶11

V/s

¶12

State of Maharashtra and Others …..Respondents.

¶13

Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. C.S. Balsara Mr. H.N. Vakil, Mr. Rushi Mathur i/b Mulla and Mulla and CBC for the Applicant in Notice of Motion No.469 of 2016.

¶14

Ms. Sneha Parikh i/b M/s. M.V. Jayakar & Co. for the Petitioners

¶15

Ms. P.H. Kantharia, Government Pleader a/w Mr. Amar Mishra for Respondent Nos. 1, 5 and 6.

¶16

Mr. Rui Rodrigues a/w Mr. N.R. Prajapati for Union of India.

¶17

Ms. Sharmila Deshmukh a/w Ms. Shraddha Vavhal for Coastal Zone Management Authority.

¶18

Ms. Trupti Puranik a/w Mr. Sagar Patil for Respondent/BMC.

¶19

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

¶20

DATE: 14^th February, 2017

2/3

NMW/469/2016

P.C.:-

1] Heard Mr. Dhakephalkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original Petitioners.

¶25

2] This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Applicant, seeking modification of the order dated 16/12/2011. It is submitted that in the said order, the Applicant had given undertaking that it would be planting mangroves at the site indicated in para 5 of the said order. It is submitted that the Applicant would like to change the location for planting the mangroves.

¶26

3] In the affidavit in rejoinder, at page No.156, it is stated in reply to point No.5(e) that 14000 mangrove saplings covering 5 hectare area were planted on 31/12/2016 and more saplings would be planted in this area depending on mortality. In reply to point 5(f), it is stated that M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation has agreed to help the Applicant in the process of compensatory plantation and the re-plantation would be done at Sarsole. It is further stated that tripartite agreement would be executed between the Applicant, M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation and Divisional Forest Officer, Mumbai Mangrove Conservation Unit of Mangrove Cell, Forest Department. This statement is accepted. In view of this statement, the learned Counsel for the original Petitioners has no objection if the said modification is made.

¶27

3/3

¶28

NMW/469/2016

¶29

4] Accordingly, Order dated 16/12/2011 is modified and the site indicated in para 5 of the said order which was mentioned as “Trombay” is substituted by the site indicated at Exhibit-F on page 41 to the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion which is a Map indicating the place at which this re-plantation would be done.

¶30

5] Notice of Motion is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and disposed of.

¶31

(P. R. BORA, J. )

The Bombay Environmental Action Group and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and 19 Ors. and the Tata Power Company Limited (Applicant)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Bombay Environmental Action Group and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and 19 Ors. and the Tata Power Company Limited (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

Matoshri Ramabai Ambedkar Vidyarthi Vastigraha Trust Vs State of Maha. through Its Principal Secretary of Social Welfare and Special Asstt. Dept. and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Soni Mahendra @ Rajesh Nag and Ors.

Akhil Bhartatiya Grahak Panchayat Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sou. Sandhya Vijay Sansare Vs Mr. Vijay Samwel Sansare

Sou. Sandhya Vijay Sansare Vs Mr. Vijay Samwel Sansare

Dost Mohammad Allabhbux Makrani Vs Kailas Babulal Deora and 4 Ors.