Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from three writ petitions filed by Maharashtra Maritime Board, a statutory board established under the Maharashtra Maritime Board Act, 1996, seeking directions against the Union of India, Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority, State of Maharashtra, Chief Conservator of Forest (Mangrove Cell), State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, and Bombay Environment Action Group to permit execution of public works, namely construction of a passenger jetty and allied facilities at Kelwa, Palghar, a Ro-Ro jetty at Kharwadashri, and construction of jetty and allied facilities at Kharekuran, Thane. The need to file these writ petitions arose because the proposed works fell within Coastal Regulation Zone-I (CRZ-I) and were in the vicinity of mangroves, triggering the requirement of prior permission from the High Court under the decision in Bombay Environmental Action Group v. State of Maharashtra, PIL No.87 of 2006 dated 17 September 2018, which imposed a total freeze on destruction of mangroves in Maharashtra. The division bench in BEAG case held that under the public trust doctrine, the State is duty bound to protect and preserve mangroves, and mangroves cannot be permitted to be destructed unless the Court finds it necessary for public good or public interest. The petitioner contended that the projects are public utilities and do not involve destruction or cutting of any mangroves. The lead petition, Writ Petition No.759 of 2021, concerned the proposed passenger jetty at Kelwa. The petitioner stated that the project would provide an eco-friendly travel option, promote tourism and economic activity, and serve public interest without private or commercial gain. The site of the project was affected by CRZ-I classification as it fell within the 50 metres buffer zone of existing mangrove plantation. The petitioner obtained CRZ clearance recommendation from MCZMA in its 138th meeting held on 10 October 2019, subject to conditions including obtaining prior High Court permission, NOC from Mangrove Cell, NOC from Commissioner of Fisheries, ensuring no mangroves are cut, and maintaining natural creek flow. The State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority in its 202nd meeting held on 20 July 2020 approved the proposal subject to compliance of special condition No. III requiring prior leave of the High Court before commencement of the project. The core legal issues before the High Court were whether public projects in CRZ-I mangrove buffer zones require prior court permission, whether jetties are permissible under CRZ Notification 2011, and whether the petitioner complied with necessary environmental clearances. The petitioner argued that jetties are permissible under clause 4(i)(f) of the CRZ Notification 2011 and that all necessary clearances had been obtained. The Bombay Environment Action Group was impleaded to assist the court on legal issues. The judgment was reserved on August 31, 2021 and pronounced on October 29, 2021; the provided excerpt does not include the final operative directions of the court.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Mangrove Protection - Public Trust Doctrine - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and orders of Bombay High Court in PIL No.87 of 2006 - The High Court in BEAG case imposed a total freeze on destruction of mangroves in Maharashtra and held that the State is duty bound to protect mangroves under public trust doctrine, allowing destruction only if necessary for public good or public interest. Any agency intending to undertake work in mangrove zones must approach the High Court for modification of that order; in the present writ petitions, the petitioner-Maharashtra Maritime Board sought such permission for public projects, contending the projects are public utilities and no mangroves would be cut. (Paras 2-3) B) Coastal Regulation Zone - Permissible Activities - Construction of Jetties - Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011, clauses 3(iv)(a), 4(i)(f), 8(i)(I)(ii)(b) - The petitioner contended that construction of passenger jetties is a permissible activity under the CRZ Notification 2011, specifically citing clause 4(i)(f) which lists construction and operation of ports, harbours, jetties, wharves, quays, slipways, ship construction yards, breakwaters, groynes, and erosion control measures as permissible activities. The MCZMA noted in its 138th meeting that the proposed jetty at Kelwa is adjacent to a mangrove patch but no mangroves would be removed, and recommended the proposal subject to conditions. (Paras 6-7) C) Environmental Clearances - Prior Court Permission - Conditions for Approval - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Section 3(1) and (2); CRZ Notification 2011 - The petitioner obtained CRZ clearance recommendation from MCZMA on 10 October 2019 and approval from SEIAA on 20 July 2020, both subject to specific conditions including obtaining prior High Court permission because the project falls within 50m mangrove buffer zone, obtaining NOC from Mangrove Cell, NOC from Commissioner of Fisheries, ensuring no mangroves are cut, and maintaining natural creek flow. The writ petitions were filed to seek the required prior leave of the High Court as mandated by the BEAG order and the conditions imposed by the authorities. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether public projects proposed in CRZ-I and mangrove buffer zones require prior permission of the High Court in view of the BEAG order; whether the construction of jetties is permissible under CRZ Notification 2011; whether the petitioner has obtained necessary environmental clearances and complied with conditions for execution of the projects.
Law Points
- Public trust doctrine mandates state to protect and preserve mangroves
- destruction of mangroves prohibited unless for public good or public interest
- projects in CRZ-I mangrove buffer zone require prior High Court permission
- construction of jetties is permissible under CRZ Notification 2011 subject to environmental clearances
- conditions imposed by MCZMA and SEIAA include NOC from Mangrove Cell and prior court leave
