Skip to main content

Ban construction on wetlands: HC

Its earlier order not yet complied with, the Bombay High Court Monday asked the state's urban development department (UDD) to issue a circular within a week to all municipal corporations and zilla parishads instructing them to disallow construction on wetlands. The court had on October 14 this year directed the UDD to issue the circular.

A division bench of Justice V M Kanade and Justice M S Sonak was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by a group of NGOs on violations of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notifications and rules on safeguarding the wetlands.

The petitioners had said they were aggrieved by the callous attitude of the authorities concerned in protecting areas consisting of intertidal currents, wetlands

and mangroves, in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region.

Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Gayatri Singh pointed out that the state government had failed to constitute the state wetland authority. The bench directed the state to file its reply in this regard by December 23.

The bench also asked to be informed, at the next date of hearing, the timeframe within which the principal secretaries of both the environment and forest departments would adopt the Centre's Wetland Atlas or whether they would like to prepare their own maps.

The bench also directed the chief conservator of forests (mangrove cell) to conduct an inspection of all sites within the MMR listed in the petition and submit a report to the court.

The petition alleged that the wetlands were undergoing severe environmental and ecological damage due to activities of illegal reclamation and construction.

"The respondents have failed in their statutory duty to protect wetlands including mangroves, despite directions given by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to prepare both wetland and CRZ maps in a time-bound manner and take action against those persons violating provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act,1986," stated the petition.

Article referred: w.indianexpress.com/news/ban-construction-on-wetlands-hc/1205634/2

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more