TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY J. - (1.) Society for Direct Initiative for Social & Health Action and Paribesh Academy have approached this Court through the instant public interest litigation challenging, inter alia, the illegal attempt on the part of the private respondent no.11 to fill up substantial portions of a large wetland area located in the Hindustan Motors area in Uttarpara Municipality and Kanaipur Gram Panchayat. Records reveal that an interim order was passed on 6th May, 2016 directing the State respondents and also the High Power Committee constituted by the State to keep vigil whether the water bodies are closed without adhering to the procedure. The Court also directed the parties to exchange their affidavits. Pursuant to such direction affidavits have also been exchanged by the parties.
(2.) Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are concerned with environmental protection and they are aggrieved on account of the illegal attempts on the part of the respondent no.11 to fill up water bodies. Such illegalities were noted by the Assistant Director of Fisheries and he filed a substantive report before the Director of Fisheries on 15th April, 2008 categorically stating that water areas in ward Nos.22 and 24 within the jurisdiction of Uttarpara-Kotrung Municipality are being attempted to be filled up by the respondent no.11 with fly ash. The said officer also lodged a complaint on 7th July, 2008 before the respondent no.9 against a representative of the respondent no.11 for violation of Section 17A of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1994. Upon consideration of a further complaint lodged against the respondent no.11, the Chief Law Officer of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board by a memorandum dated 29th June, 2009 reiterated that the respondent no.11 should not start any construction or fill up any water body without prior permission of the appropriate authority. In the backdrop of the said facts a Forum for Human Legal & Economical Rights, Bansdroni & Ors. approached this Court was earlier through a writ petition being W.P. No.606 (W) of 2011 and upon being satisfied that there was an attempt on the part of the respondents to illegally fill up various water bodies, this Court by an order dated 3rd February, 2012 directed the State to constitute a High Power Committee (hereinafter referred to as HPC) to examine the specific grievances as well as to formulate a policy so that there may not be any occasion for future grievances. Pursuant to such direction the HPC was constituted and upon conducting inspections HPC recommended various steps to be taken by the State Government for protecting the water bodies within the State of West Bengal and the government was also directed to form a timeframe for implementation of its recommendations. Notwithstanding such recommendation of remedial measures, the wetlands and water bodies already filled up were not restored. In the midst thereof, the petitioners' came to learn that a State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (hereinafter referred to as SEAC) by an order dated 21st March, 2015 had allowed the respondent no.11 to resume its construction by filling up the water bodies within its Integrated IT Township & Auto Ancillary Park (hereinafter referred to as the said project) and that the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (hereinafter referred to as SEIAA) by its order dated 25th March, 2015 had granted clearance to the said respondent no.1 to resume its construction work. Aggrieved by such directives the petitioner submitted representations ventilating their grievances but the same were not attended to.
(3.) He further submits that both SEAC and SEIAA casually ignored the recommendations made by HPC and allowed the respondent no.11 to resume its constructional work. The clearance has been granted without defining the location of or the area covered by Phase I of the said project. Had the members of the SEAC and SEIAA applied their minds properly to the exact location of the project site seeking clearance then the site would have been defined clearly in the minutes. The recommendation and the clearance granted are absolutely discrepant which create avenues for the respondent no.11 to fill up water bodies indiscriminately.;