Bombay High Court Approves MMRDA Plans to Cut Mangrove Trees to Build Metro Line-4

Must Read

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years...

Follow us

The Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA), the petitioner instituted the Writ Petition. The petitioner seeks permission to start construction work for Metro Line – 4. The Court grants permission and disposes of the petition.

Brief Facts of the Case

A Metro Project covering Mumbai and its neighbouring cities like Thane, Kalyan, etc. is proposed. It aims to increase connectivity and improve the public transportation system. Metro Line-4 (“said Project”) in particular aims to connect Wadala-Ghatkopar-Mulund-Thane-Kasarwadawali. A stretch of the said Project falls under the Coastal Regulation Zone area (CRZ). As per a judgment passed by the Bombay HC, any construction in the CRZ zone requires the permission of the Court. In light of this, the petitioner has approached the Court.

Petitioner’s Submissions

The petitioner submits that the said Project is of great public importance. It aims to improve the public transport system in Mumbai. The current rail and road transport systems are overburdened and overcrowded. This leads to unsafe transportation conditions and fatal accidents. The petitioner also provides statistics in support of the same.

A stretch of the line measuring 1.2 km at Bhakti Park, Wadala passes through the CRZ-II area which has mangroves. In light of this, the petitioner has taken necessary permissions from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF & CC). The said authorities have carried out site inspections of the proposed construction area. MoEF & CC has granted an “in-principle” sanction under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

The petitioner further submits that they are ready to make payments necessary to compensate for the destruction of mangroves. The Forest Department has identified 1-hectare land for afforestation purposes. The petitioner has agreed to bear the afforestation and any other incidental costs. The petitioner, thus, seeks permission to carry out construction activities for said Project.

Respondent’s Submissions

Respondent No. 4, the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, submitted an Affidavit. The Affidavit states the importance of the Metro Network in Mumbai and MMR Region. It also states that Wadala is a fast-developing IT and commercial hub that will soon be like BKC. This is one of the primary reasons for the increased importance of a station at Bhakti Park, Wadala. The respondent submits that the petitioner has agreed to plant 10 times more saplings than the number of trees to be cut. The petitioner has also agreed to bear to the necessary costs for afforestation. The petitioner has agreed to abide by all conditions as put forth by the Respondents. The respondent contends that the said Project is more sustainable. It not only ensures increased safety but also reduces pollution to a large extent. Thus, the said project is of utmost public importance.

Court’s Observation

After careful consideration of the submissions, reports, and statistics put forth by the parties, the bench observed that the said project is of public importance and utility. The Court observed that the petitioner has taken requisite permission for said project. The petitioner has agreed to follow any other necessary conditions as required. Thus, the Court has no objections to the execution of the said Metro Project.

Court’s Decision

The Bombay HC Bench allows the prayers put forth by MMRDA. The construction activity for the said Project is approved.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -