on the basis of an opinion obtained by CIDCO from a senior advocate, Supreme Court of India. In paragraph 61 it is averred, based on the report of the Senior Law Officer, that pockets ‘A’ to ‘E’ are falling under CRZ, wetland/water bodies and part of pocket ‘D’ is certainly a wetland which is not disputed and/or controverted, and that these facts are suppressed while granting permissions. The petitioner in paragraph 67 further pleads that “The Senior Law Officer, CIDCO is not an expert on the subject so as to understand the CRZ, ecology, environment, wetland, forest, mangroves, inter tidal zone, water bodies etc. which are extremely complex subjects and then without applying mind and without hearing the parties concerned, holding that pockets ‘A’ to ‘E’ though considered as a single project, however, in view of modified agreement to lease, the contractual obligation which CIDCO has to discharge will prevail over the piece of land.” The petitioner thus pleads a case of violation of environmental laws and that the permissions have been illegally obtained for developing the project on wetlands which will have a serious impact on the ecology/environment.
