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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more