Case Note & Summary
The writ petition arose from a decision of the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) deferring permission for the National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited to cut or fell mangroves in CRZ-I areas for the Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed Rail Project. The project, India's first bullet train, covered 508.17 km with 155.642 km in Maharashtra, 21.913 km of which fell in the coastal regulation zone. The petitioner proposed construction largely on viaducts and bridges with underground tunnels, affecting 13.3668 hectares of mangrove vegetation and 53,467 trees, and offered compensatory afforestation at a ratio of 1:5. The MCZMA at its 128th meeting on 20 December 2018 deferred the proposal, noting that proposed activities were situated within a 50-metre mangrove buffer zone and that the Coastal Zone Management Plan for Thane and Palghar under CRZ Notification, 2011 had not been finalised. It also referred to a High Court order dated 17 September 2018 in PIL No. 87 of 2006 and suggested the project proponent approach the High Court for relief. The petitioner challenged the communication by writ petition, contending that the project was of vital national importance, reducing travel time, pollution, and carbon footprint; that environmental impact assessment and integrated mangrove conservation plan had been prepared; and that the court's PIL judgment itself permitted cutting mangroves for public good or national interest. The petitioner argued that MCZMA wrongly deferred instead of deciding whether the project served larger public interest. In an interim order dated 12 February 2019, the High Court observed that the Division Bench in PIL No. 87 of 2006 had carved out a clause allowing permission for public good or public interest, and that in some matters permission had been granted after expert bodies such as the Ministry of Environment and Forest and MCZMA had granted permissions. The court held that these expert bodies must first apply their mind to determine whether permission is necessary in the larger public interest, and that MCZMA's approach of requiring the petitioner to first approach the High Court was a reverse procedure. Consequently, the court directed MCZMA to take a decision on the petitioner's proposal within four weeks, and stood the matter over to 18 March 2019. The extract ends at paragraph 11 without disclosing the subsequent decision of MCZMA or the final outcome of the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Environment Law - Mangrove Protection - Public Trust Doctrine Exception - Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011, CRZ-I - Proposal to cut mangroves in CRZ-I area for Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed Rail Project was deferred by MCZMA citing 50m mangrove buffer zone and pending CZMP for Thane & Palghar; the High Court in PIL No.87 of 2006 had banned destruction of mangroves but permitted exceptions for public good or public interest; the court directed MCZMA to decide whether permission is necessary in larger public interest after due application of mind by expert bodies, rather than requiring prior court approval (Paras 1-10). B) Administrative Law - Role of Coastal Zone Management Authority - Reverse Procedure Impermissible - Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 - MCZMA deferred the proposal and suggested the project proponent approach the High Court for relief; the court held that expert bodies like MCZMA must first determine larger public interest and then the court can review; directing the proponent to approach court first reverses the prescribed procedure (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether MCZMA could defer the petitioner's proposal and require the petitioner to approach the High Court for relief under PIL No.87 of 2006 instead of deciding on merits whether the project serves larger public interest; whether cutting mangroves in CRZ-I area for a public infrastructure project qualifies for the public good/public interest exception.
Final Decision
The High Court, by interim order dated 12 February 2019, directed Respondent No.2 MCZMA to take a decision on the petitioner's proposal within four weeks and observed that expert bodies must first determine larger public interest; the matter was stood over to 18 March 2019. The extract ends before final disposal.
Law Points
- Mangroves are forests protected under public trust doctrine
- destruction permitted only for public good or public interest
- expert bodies must first determine larger public interest before granting permission
- Coastal Zone Management Authority cannot require prior court approval thereby reversing procedure
- CRZ-I areas require strict scrutiny
