HC raps MCZMA, SEIAA for procedures in clearing Navi Mumbai Coastal Road

Mumbai: Noting that the coastal road project at Navi Mumbai was of vital public importance, the Bombay high court rapped the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) and State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for the way they had proceeded to grant the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearances to CIDCO to construct the road.

The coastal road will connect Panvel Creek to Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT). It will also provide connectivity between Mumbai Trans Harbour Link (MTHL) junction and the airport at Navi Mumbai.

The court said that both the MCZMA and SEIAA had not followed proper procedure for granting permission to execute the work of phase-1 of the coastal road which required the diversion of 32.6 hectares of forest land including the felling of mangrove trees. The HC noted that though MCZMA had noted deficiencies in CIDCO’s application for CRZ clearance in 2017, it had gone ahead and given the CRZ clearance and thereafter the SEIAA had also not bothered to take note of the deficiencies pointed out by MCZMA and granted clearance as well.

The bench noted that in view of such lacunae in the permissions of the concerned authorities, the CIDCO could not go ahead with the project and hence MCZMA and SEIAA needed to reconsider CIDCO’s proposal for the clearance. MCZMA has been asked to consider CIDCO’s proposal in the first week of May and SEIAA to decide the same by May 15.

The division bench of acting chief justice SV Gangapurwala and justice SV Marne while hearing the petition was informed that MCZMA and SEIAA had given the go-ahead for the project which was to be carried out in two phases in 2017 and 2019 respectively.

The bench was informed that thereafter the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change had also accorded in-principle approval for the diversion of forests for the project in 2022 however it had imposed conditions.

As the requisite permissions had been secured, CIDCO approached the HC for approval for undertaking work in mangrove areas.

However, after perusing permissions by the various authorities noted that the MCZMA permission of 2017 while issuing CRZ clearance had sought some clarifications on mangroves that were to be felled, the same was not on record. The bench noted that though MCZMA submitted that CIDCO had clarified, the same was not brought on record.

Similarly, the bench noted that the SEIAA clearance was also without referring to the clarifications which were sought by MCZMA and hence it needed both authorities to consider the CIDCO proposal afresh.

“We are thus not satisfied with the way MCZMA and SIEAA proceeded to grant their respective clearances to the project. At the same time, we are conscious of the fact that the project undertaken by CIDCO is of vital public importance,” said the bench. It added that due to the faulty procedures adopted by MCZMA and SEIAA, it could not grant permission to CIDCO to execute the project.