LAWS(BOM)-2022-2-176

SUNIL SURESHCHANDRA AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On February 11, 2022
Sunil Sureshchandra Agarwal Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Public Interest Litigation petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: -

(2.) The petitioner prays for the reliefs set out above, on the following set of facts:

(3.) It is thus the petitioner's case that a fraud has been practiced at all stages right from inception by Mistry Construction Company Private Limited in active connivance with the statutory authorities. The petitioner sets out a case that fraud would vitiate all orders of allotment made in favour of Mistry Construction Company Private Limited and the consequential permissions granted by CIDCO for development of the project. The petitioner in paragraph 62 states that wetlands/water bodies/ponds/lakes are being illegally reclaimed and alleges destruction of natural resources which has cascading effect on ecology/environment. The petitioner sets up a case of fraud on the basis of an opinion obtained by CIDCO from a senior advocate, Supreme Court of India. In paragraph 61 it is averred, based on the report of the Senior Law Officer, that pockets 'A' to 'E' are falling under CRZ, wetland/water bodies and part of pocket 'D' is certainly a wetland which is not disputed and/or controverted, and that these facts are suppressed while granting permissions. The petitioner in paragraph 67 further pleads that "The Senior Law Officer, CIDCO is not an expert on the subject so as to understand the CRZ, ecology, environment, wetland, forest, mangroves, inter tidal zone, water bodies etc. which are extremely complex subjects and then without applying mind and without hearing the parties concerned, holding that pockets 'A' to 'E' though considered as a single project, however, in view of modified agreement to lease, the contractual obligation which CIDCO has to discharge will prevail over the piece of land." The petitioner thus pleads a case of violation of environmental laws and that the permissions have been illegally obtained for developing the project on wetlands which will have a serious impact on the ecology/environment.