The High Court of Bombay, in a judgment dated August 12, 2024, addressed writ petitions filed by stone crushing plant operators challenging the closure orders issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Panvel. The court upheld the temporary suspension of operations until a committee of experts could assess the potential impact on the Mumbai Trans Harbour Sea Link (Atal Setu). The court emphasized the need for caution given the environmental and structural concerns raised by the authorities.

1. Background of the Case:

The petitioners, operators of stone crushing plants in Raigad, Maharashtra, were ordered to cease operations by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Panvel, on June 28, 2024. The order was issued under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, due to concerns that the plants' activities might endanger the structural stability of the Mumbai Trans Harbour Sea Link and cause environmental damage.

2. Petitioners’ Claims:

The petitioners argued that they possess all necessary licenses and permissions from relevant authorities, including the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB), and use advanced pollution control measures. They further contended that their operations do not involve blasting, which was cited as a concern in the closure order.

3. Government’s Position:

The state government defended the closure, stating it was a precautionary measure taken while a committee of experts, including those from IIT Bombay, investigates the potential risks. The government stressed the importance of safeguarding the newly inaugurated sea link, which has shown early signs of structural damage.

4. Legal Arguments:

The petitioners’ counsel argued that the orders were procedurally flawed, as Section 133 of the CrPC mandates a conditional order before a final order can be passed. They emphasized that the order lacked evidence of immediate danger and highlighted that the petitioners were not engaged in blasting activities.

5. Court’s Analysis:

The court examined the statutory requirements under Section 133 and acknowledged the procedural irregularities in the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's approach. However, it upheld the interim closure given the public interest in protecting a critical infrastructure project.

6. Judgment:

The court directed that the stone crushing plants remain closed until the expert committee submits its findings. The committee’s report will determine whether the operations can be safely resumed without endangering the bridge or the environment.

7. Conclusion:

The case underscores the balance courts must strike between economic activities and environmental safety, especially when major public infrastructure is at risk. The final decision will hinge on expert assessments regarding the actual impact of the petitioners' operations.