Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd., a public sector undertaking, filed a writ petition seeking prior permission from the High Court to construct a 132 KV D/C transmission line from Dahanu Substation to Suryanagar and Kavdas Substations in Thane District. The proposed line, approximately 80 kilometers long, passed through mangrove forest lands, reserved forests, protected forests, and areas within Dahanu and Jawhar forest divisions. Under a previous judgment in PIL No.87 of 2006, any construction activity within 50 meters of mangroves required prior court permission. The petitioner had obtained all statutory clearances from the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change and the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority under the Coastal Zone Regulations, 2019. The Deputy Conservator of Forests directed the petitioner to approach the court for permission. The total forest land diversion was 94.6802 hectares, of which 8.2188 hectares were mangrove forests and 86.4614 hectares were non-mangrove areas. Around 21,022 non-mangrove trees were to be felled. The petitioner deposited Rs. 30,80,61,242 in the CAMPA account towards compensatory afforestation, including costs for afforestation on degraded forest land, net present value, and other charges. An additional Rs. 3,66,20,686 was deposited with the Mangrove Foundation for mangrove compensatory plantation. Site inspections revealed no live mangroves in the area. Respondent No.5, the Mangrove Cell, filed an affidavit supporting the petition and confirming that the compensatory afforestation scheme would be implemented, with 25 hectares of degraded forest identified for mangrove plantation. The court noted similar matters decided in Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority v. Union of India (Writ Petition No.3727 of 2025) and Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation v. Union of India (Writ Petition No.3790 of 2025), where strict conditions were imposed. The court allowed the writ petition, granting permission subject to conditions from paragraph 40(IV) of the MMRDA judgment. To ensure compliance, the petitioner was directed to file an annual status-cum-audit report for ten years, disclosing plantation extent, survival rates, and maintenance measures, with affidavits from its Managing Director and Respondent No.5. Failure to file reports would be treated as contempt. The court would monitor compliance annually in January.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Construction in Mangrove Buffer Zone - Prior permission of the High Court is required for any construction activity within 50 meters of mangroves as per directions in PIL No.87 of 2006; the petitioner sought permission for a transmission line passing through mangrove forests - Held, permission granted subject to conditions (Paras 1, 6). B) Forest Conservation - Compensatory Afforestation - Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and CRZ Notification, 2019 - The petitioner proposed to divert 94.6802 hectares of forest land, including 8.2188 hectares of mangrove forest; compensatory afforestation was mandated on degraded forest land for non-mangrove areas and three times the mangrove area for mangrove forest; the petitioner deposited the required charges and the authorities confirmed the scheme - Held, the proposed measures were adequate and would be monitored (Paras 2-5). C) Judicial Precedent - Conditions from Previous Judgments - The court applied the conditions recorded in paragraph 40(IV) of Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority v. Union of India (Writ Petition No.3727 of 2025) to ensure effective implementation of compensatory afforestation and mangrove plantation - Held, the present project shall be governed by those conditions (Paras 6-7). D) Compliance Monitoring - Annual Audit Reports - To secure continued compliance, the court directed the petitioner to file an annual comprehensive status-cum-audit report for ten years, supported by affidavits from the Managing Director and Respondent No.5, disclosing survival rates, mortality, and maintenance measures; failure to file reports would be treated as contempt - Held, the court would monitor compliance every January (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether permission should be granted to the petitioner for construction of a transmission line through mangrove and forest areas, subject to conditions ensuring environmental compliance and effective implementation of compensatory afforestation.
Final Decision
Writ Petition allowed; permission granted to petitioner to remove/fell mangrove trees on 8.2188 ha as part of total 94.6802 ha forest diversion for transmission line, subject to conditions in paragraph 40(IV) of MMRDA v. Union of India (WP 3727/2025) and annual compliance reports to be filed for 10 years, with contempt for non-compliance.
Law Points
- prior court permission required for construction within 50 meters of mangroves under PIL orders
- compensatory afforestation mandatory under Forest (Conservation) Act
- 1980 and CRZ Notification
- 2019
- three times mangrove compensatory plantation mandated
- annual compliance reporting for 10 years to ensure survival of plantations
- contempt for non-compliance
