Bombay High Court: In a case concerning construction of a depot for the metro line by Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (‘petitioner’) and seeking permission for the same, as there was a complete ban on felling of mangroves in Maharashtra. The Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale, JJ., asked AGP to take instructions from the Department concerned, that whether it was possible to constitute a Committee comprising a retired Judge well-versed in environmental matters; a representative of a reputed NGO and any other Government representative concerned with environmental issues, to examine the in-principle approval granted for the entire project, so as to enable the Committee to consider whether there are any viable alternatives to minimize destruction of trees/mangroves. The matter is next listed on 3-9-2025.
Background:
The petitioner sought permission from the Court for the construction of a depot at Kasheli for Mumbai Metro Line 5 along with Extra High Voltage towers and transmission lines for power supply (‘Project’), which involved cutting mangroves and mangrove buffer zones. Mangroves (including mangrove buffer zones) were categories as CRZ-IA and were recognised as not only ‘environmentally most critical’ but were particularly ‘ecologically sensitive areas’ and ‘geomorphological features that played a role in maintaining the integrity of the coast’. The Court had in Bombay Environmental Action Group v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2680, after noting the large-scale destruction of mangroves imposed a complete freeze on destruction and cutting of mangroves in Maharashtra. The State was required to seek the approval of the Court before any mangroves were destroyed, which would then consider whether the same was necessary for the public good.
The following discrepancies were pointed out by the respondents for the Court to consider while deciding whether to grant the permission to the petitioner to continue his project:
-
CRZ Clearance obtained upon incorrect representation of the mangroves to be cut
-
Petitioner had already commenced construction of the Kasheli Depot
-
Piecemeal evaluation of the Metro 5 project by the authorities
-
Safeguards required regarding proposed compensatory mangrove afforestation
It was submitted that the petitioner obtained Coastal Regulation Zone (‘CRZ’) clearance on 23-12-2024 by representing to the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (‘MCZMA’) and the Ministry of Environment and Forests (‘MoEF’) that only 10 mangroves would be cut for the project. However, the total mangroves to be cut were numbered 26. Even to the authorities under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the representation was made that 74 mangroves would be cut as part of the project. However, the petitioner contended that out of the 74 mangroves, only 43 were situated within the CRZ for which it needed CRZ Clearance, and the balance 31 mangroves were located within a designated forest area. But it was argued that knowing about the 43 mangroves, the petitioner had incorrectly stated that only 10 mangroves would be cut.
Respondent 6, its counsel, and the Deputy Conservation Officer had conducted a site visit on 10-07-2025, pursuant to the Court’s order dated 09-07-2025. During this visit, it was observed that at the Kasheli Depot construction was ongoing and no mangrove trees were visible in the entire project site which indicated that the mangroves may have already been cut whilst carrying out work thus, violating the Court’s direction of total freeze on mangrove cutting.
In 2023, the petitioner sought the Court’s permission to cut 31 mangroves for the Metro 5 project stated to be a metro corridor of 24.9 km with 17 stations, a car shed at Kon Gaon MIDC, Thane. And now the petitioner was seeking the permission to cut 74 additional mangroves for construction of a new depot and extra high voltage electricity transmission lines, which were not part of the project disclosed whilst taking the earlier permission. It was submitted that when permissions for a project were sought in such a piecemeal manner, the statutory authorities were not given the true impact of the project on the environment before they granted permissions. Further, the environment impact assessment studies and assessment of alternative sites were also rendered meaningless.
Specific Condition 6 of the CRZ Clearance stated that the mangrove afforestation must be carried out 3 times the area to be affected in consultation with the Forest Department or the Mangrove Foundation, in proximity of the place where the existing trees were situated. But initially, the compensatory afforestation for the present project was proposed to be carried out only in Dhule Taluka which was not in proximity to the project site and was not even a coastal area and only after the Court’s order dated 30-06-2025, Respondent 4 issued a demand notice to the petitioner and had proposed to carry out the compensatory mangrove afforestation in Thane. It was further pointed out that even for the Metro 5 project work which was approved on 10-01-2024, compensatory mangrove afforestation was not yet carried out and was still being planned.
Observations:
The Court vide an order dated 11-07-2025 noted that the respondents sought time to file an affidavit detailing the compensatory plantation of 370 mangroves. The Court was informed that preparatory work for the plantation would begin within the month. Additionally, the respondents sought time to explore the feasibility of creating a dedicated website to monitor mangrove and tree cutting activities, including afforestation efforts.
Thereafter, the Court vide its order dated 16-07-2025, directed that a Court Commissioner be appointed to visit the proposed afforestation site in Village Surai to verify its adequacy for planting 370 mangrove. The Court instructed the Forest Officer, the petitioner, and Respondent 6 to accompany the Commissioner, whose report was to be submitted by the next hearing. The Court also asked for data on afforestation activities and permissions granted over the past two years in the North Konkan Division and sought updates on the launch of a dedicated mangrove website.
In its order dated 22-07-2025, the Court allowed the petitioner to proceed with the project under the conditions set by relevant authorities and acknowledged the Court Commissioner’s report confirming adequate land for planting 370 mangrove saplings. Although permission was granted to cut 74 mangroves, the petitioner stated that only 26 would be cut. Additionally, the Court asked the Government to present records, compliance, and photographs of afforestation efforts over the past three years, including those related to this project.
The Court expressed grave concern over the delays and inefficiencies in compensatory mangrove plantations linked to development projects in its order dated 23-07-2025. After reviewing an affidavit detailing various projects and afforestation efforts, the Court found that despite timely deposit of funds, plantations were often delayed, with some scheduled as late as 2026—2027. It was noted that funds deposited in the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (‘CAMPA’) accounts were sometimes diverted for other conservation purposes. The Court directed the creation of a comprehensive website within four weeks to track all mangrove-related activities, including permissions, deposits, and afforestation. Additionally, the Court Commissioner and the counsel for Respondent 6, were asked to inspect plantation sites and report on their actual status by the next hearing.
Further, the Court vide its current order, directed the AGP to seek instructions on forming a specialized committee that included a retired judge with environmental expertise, a representative of a reputed NGO, and any other government representative concerned with environmental issues, to review the in-principle approval of the entire project and to assess whether any alternatives could reduce destruction of trees or mangroves. The Court also asked to inform when such a Committe could give its recommendation, to enable the Planning Authority to commence with the project.
The matter is now scheduled for further hearing on 03-09-2025.
[MMRDA v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2913, decided on 14-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Saket Mone a/w Srushti Thorat and Fatema Kothari i/b Vidhii Partners.
For the Respondents: Pavan Patil a/w Shubham Saraf, Jaya Bagwe, Neha Bhide, G.P. a/w O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. G.P., and Pooja Joshi Deshpande, A.G.P., Aditya Mehta a/w Deepali Bagla i/b Bagla and Associates.