Disposed¶25

Patel and Associates v. Union of India Thr the Ministry of Environment Forest and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jan 2025WP/18279/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRZ clearance; post facto clearance; MCZMA recommendation pending before Ministry of Environment and Forest (MOEF); MOEF decision dated 21/11/2024 refusing to consider and returning proposal; direction to take decision by speaking order within six weeks; Supreme Court order dated 19/2/2025 in Writ Petition No.1394/20023; earlier Writ Petition No.3281/2023 direction to MCZMA; Coastal Regulation Zone Maharashtra; Patel and Associates v. Union of India; Bombay High Court writ jurisdiction; failure to act on statutory authority recommendation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Ministry of Environment and Forest to take decision on the recommendations submitted by MCZMA in respect of the petitioner by a speaking order within six weeks. ¶25

Patel and Associates vs Union of India Thr the Ministry of Environment Forest and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

906-WP-18279-24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.18279 OF 2024

¶4

Patel and Associates … Petitioner V/S. Union of India Thr The Ministry Of Environment Forest And Ors. … Respondents

¶5

Mr. Saket Mone a/w. Ms. Anchita Nair i/b Vidhi Partners for the Petitioner.

¶6

Mr. Sandesh D. Patil a/w. Mr. Prithviraj Gole, Mr. Chintan Y. Shah i/b Naveena K. for Respondent No.1-UOI.

¶7

Ms. Jaya Bagve for Respondent No.2-MCZMA.

¶8

Mr. Tejas Dande a/w. Ms. Trushna Shah for Respondent No.4. Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. G. P., Mr. N. K. Rajpurohit, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 5.

¶9

CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ. AND M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : 2^nd APRIL 2025

¶10

P. C. :

¶11

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties.

¶12

In this petition, the Petitioner has assailed the decision of the Ministry of Environment and Forest dated 21/11/2024 by which the Ministry has refused to consider the proposal of the Petitioner for grant of CRZ clearance and returned the proposal of the Petitioner.

¶13

Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that in view of the Supreme Court order dated 19/2/2025 passed in Writ Petition No.1394/20023, the MOEF is under an obligation to consider the

rsk

1/3

906-WP-18279-24.doc

proposal submitted for CRZ clearance.

¶18

The facts giving rise to filing of this Petition in nutshell are that the Petitioner on 5/6/2018 submitted an Application seeking post facto clearance to MCZMA. The aforesaid Application was submitted within the prescribed period i. e. which was up to 30/6/2018. No decision was taken on the aforesaid application and therefore the Petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.3281/2023. The said Writ Petition was disposed of with the direction to MCZMA to decide the Application dated 5/6/2018 for grant of post facto clearance within a period of 8 weeks.

¶19

In compliance of the order passed, MCZMA forwarded the recommendation to the Ministry of Environment and Forest. However no decision on the aforesaid recommendation which has been made in favour of the petitioner by MCZMA has been taken by Ministry of Environment and Forest. In this aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction to MO EF to decide recommendation which has been made by MCZMA for grant of post facto clearance.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the MOEF is under an obligation to deal with the recommendations which have been submitted by MCZMA and cannot be permitted to sit over the recommendations made by the MCZMA. On the other hand,

rsk

2/3

906-WP-18279-24.doc

learned counsel for respondent No.1 on instructions submits that suitable decision on recommendation of MCZMA shall be taken within such time as this Court may deem fit.

¶25

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with direction to the Ministry of Environment and Forest to take decision on the recommendations submitted by MCZMA in respect of the Petitioners by a speaking order within a period of 6 weeks from today. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶26

( M. S. KARNIK, J. ) ( CHIEF JUSTICE )

¶27

rsk

¶28

3/3

Patel and Associates v. Union of India Thr the Ministry of Environment Forest and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patel and Associates v. Union of India Thr the Ministry of Environment Forest and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State of Maharashtra through the Collector of Stamps Mumbai City vs Pinak Bharat and Co. and Ors.

Mayura Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. vs Union of India through Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change

Deen Dayal and Sons Partnership Firms Thr Its Partner vs the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Pune and Ors.

Padmashree Dr. Vitthalrao Vikhe Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Anr. vs the Cosmos Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Nalanda Bahuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha, through Authorized Representative Mr. Bhaskar Kaduba Shinde vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Department

Mansukh Patel and Another vs Hemant Rajmal Jain and Another