Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation vs Union Of India Through The Ministry Of Environment Forest And Climate Change

CNR No : HCBM020177952026

Judg - WPL-17795-2026.doc
PANCHAL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 17795 OF 2026
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
...
Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Joel Carlos and Ms.
Oorja Dhond, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Manish Kelkar a/w Ms. Gauri Phadake, for Respondent
No.2/MCZMA.
Smt. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. GP a/w Smt. Nazia Sheikh, AGP for
Respondent Nos.3 & 4/State.
Mr. Aditya Mehta i/by Bagla & Associates, for Respondent
No.5.
...
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
th
RESERVED ON : 9 SEPTEMBER, 2026.
th
PRONOUNCED ON : 17 SEPTEMBER, 2026
JUDGMENT (Per, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, CJ.) :-
1. The Instant Writ Petition is preferred under Article
226 of the Constitution of India for the following substantive
relief: -
“(a) This Hon'ble court be pleased to issue a writ of
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or
direction in the nature of mandamus under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, thereby granting permission
to the Petitioner to cut 1237 mangroves on an area of
2.7515 Ha for the purposes of constructing the
Proposed bridge of 2064 Meter on Malad creek at Versova
connecting Madh Island and Versova over the Malad Creek
subject to compliance with the terms and conditions set out
in paras 9(A) to (E) Above.”
1
Uploaded on - 17/09/2026 Downloaded on - 17/09/2026 19:35:01

Judg - WPL-17795-2026.doc
2. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with
the consent of parties.
3. The Petitioner – Corporation is the planning
authority for the city of Mumbai. The Petitioner has
approached this Court primarily to seek permission to cut
1237 mangroves on an area of 2.7515 Ha for the purposes of
constructing the proposed bridge of 2064 meters on Malad
creek at Versova, connecting Madh Island and Versova over
the Malad creek. Accordingly, permission of this Court is
sought inter alia, in terms of the judgment of a co-ordinate
th
Bench of this Court dated dated 17 September 2018 in
Bombay Environmental Action Group Vs. The State of
1.
Maharashtra & Ors
4. The Respondent No.1 through its Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change (“ MoEFCC ”), is a
nodal agency in the administrative structure of the
Government for the planning, promotion, coordination and
overseeing the implementation of India’s environmental and
forestry policies, including but not limited to grant of Coastal
Regulation Zones (“ CRZ ”) and Environment Clearance. The
Respondent No.2 is the Maharashtra Coastal Zone
Management Authority (“ MCZMA ”) constituted under the CRZ
Notification, 1991 under the provisions of the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 (“ EPA ”) responsible for regulation of
1 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2680.
2
Uploaded on - 17/09/2026 Downloaded on - 17/09/2026 19:35:01

Judg - WPL-17795-2026.doc
activities in Coastal Regulation Zones and grant of CRZ
clearances. The Respondent No.3 is the State of Maharashtra
through its Environment Department. The Respondent No.4 is
the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Mangrove
Cell (“ Mangrove Cell ”). The Respondent No.5 is an NGO and
Bombay
Original Petitioner in PIL No.87 of 2006 i.e.
Environment Action Group (Supra).
5. The Facts relevant for adjudication of this petition
are summarized below: -
A. Factual Matrix: -
6. Historically, the city of Bombay now Mumbai was a
cluster of islands. The significance of the city grew by leaps
and bounds commencing from the British times, when it was
used as a port city and became a center of economic growth
and progress in India. The city was capital of Bombay State
before the formation of State of Maharashtra. It became
financial center of India and attracted people from across India
in anticipation of employment.
6.1. Mumbai, is the center of the Mumbai Metropolitan
Region, a population of over 2.3 crores and there is huge
population density and the city is also surrounded by sea. The
constraints of geography and inability of the city to expand
have already made it the densely populated city. In view of the
massive influx of the population and business activities, the
Petitioner - BMC has launched major infrastructure projects
3
Uploaded on - 17/09/2026 Downloaded on - 17/09/2026 19:35:01

Judg - WPL-17795-2026.doc
and the present project claims to be crucial link towards this
objective. The BMC has statutory obligation to develop,
regulate, facilitate and administer all the civic amenities and
infrastructure in the city of Mumbai.
6.2. A part of the proposed road and bridge falls in CRZ
1A (Mangroves), CRZ 1A (50 Meter Buffer Zone), CRZ-IB, CRZ-
II, CRZ-III (NDZ within CRZ-II-Greater Mumbai) and CRZ-IV as
per the approved CZMP Map prepared by NSCM Chennai vide
CRZ Notification 2019.
6.3. The proposed project is a permissible activity as per
th
Clause 5.1.1 (ii) and (iii) of the CRZ Notification dated 18
January, 2019. Under Clause 7(iii) of CRZ Notification 2019,
the CRZ clearance has to be considered by Respondent No.1-
MoEFCC based on recommendations of Respondent No.2-
MCZMA.
6.4. In the course of seeking the requisite clearance, the
Petitioner initially submitted an Environmental Impact
Assessment (“ EIA ” for short) report to Respondent No. 2 –
th
MCZMA on 17 June 2021. The said EIA Report estimated
that approximately 2.80 hectares of mangrove area and about
560 mangrove trees would be affected.
th
6.5. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 2 - MCZMA on 4
th
February 2022 in its 157 meeting factored in the EIA report
but stated that a separate proposal be submitted for the
present project and prescribed further requirements for the
4
Uploaded on - 17/09/2026 Downloaded on - 17/09/2026 19:35:01

Judg - WPL-17795-2026.doc
EIA.
6.6. Pursuant thereto, a fresh EIA was prepared, and a
revised proposal was submitted by the Petitioner. The
Respondent No.2 - MCZMA, upon consideration of the
th rd
proposal in its 164 meeting held on 23 February 2023,
noted that the proposed alignment was necessary, inter alia , to
ensure that the movement of local fishermen's boats was not
obstructed. It further recorded that although the final
alignment affected approximately 2.5 hectares of mangrove
area, about 2 hectares would be restored and the permanent
impact would be confined to approximately 0.5 hectare
corresponding to the footprint of the bridge piers.
6.7. The Respondent No.2 - MCZMA accordingly
recommended the proposal to the Respondent No. 1 - MoEFCC
th
for grant of CRZ clearance vide its Letter dated 28 March
2023. One of the conditions attached to the recommendation
was that prior permission of this Court be obtained, in view of
th
the involvement of mangrove cutting and the Order dated 17
September 2006 passed by this Court in Bombay
Environmental Action Group (supra).
6.8. Before approaching this Court, the Petitioner/the
Project Proponent had acquired various clearances and
permissions for carrying out the said project, particularly since
it affects the mangroves in the region/area. The requisite
permissions as set out in the Petition are as under: -
5
Uploaded on - 17/09/2026 Downloaded on - 17/09/2026 19:35:01

Judg - WPL-17795-2026.doc
A) Permission from Maharashtra Maritime Board.
B) Permission from MCZMA.
C) Permission from competent authority of Forest
Department.
D) Permission from MOEFCC.
E) Other Permissions as set out in the Petition.

Rival Contentions: -
B. Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner:-
7. Mr. Aspi Chinoy, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the Petitioner submitted that the proposed project is for the
construction of a four-lane cable-stayed bridge (having a
bridge length of 2064 meters) to connect Madh Island and
Versova over the Malad creek. The said bridge will be line with
a 27.45 M wide DP Road and the Coastal Road alignment and
is a missing link part of recommendations made in
Comprehensive Transportation Study (CTS) of MMRDA, DPR
prepared for Coastal Road by BMC.
7.1. The newly developed DP roads and the proposed
bridge will help to divert significant traffic from SV Road and
Link Road and are expected to cater one-way design daily
traffic of 48, 186 PCU to 29,724 PCUs from Andheri to
Kandivali. Post completion of the project the distance shall be
reduced by 18 to 20 kms and time taken will be reduced from
the present 1.5 hrs to only 5 minutes resulting in saving of
travel time of 70 to 80 minutes. He submitted that the
construction of the proposed bridge will significantly reduce
6
Uploaded on - 17/09/2026 Downloaded on - 17/09/2026 19:35:01

Judg - WPL-17795-2026.doc
the traffic congestion and accidents on the New Link Road.
7.2 Mr. Chinoy would contend that that once the project
is complete, there will be 93% reduction in Co2 from the
current level and relied upon paragraph No.4(g) of the Writ
Petition, which is reproduced hereunder :-
(g) On completion of the project there will be 93% Reduction in
Co2 from the current levels.
Design Traffic PCU per day (both way) : 15,536
Parameters Current Project
Scenario scenario
Travel
Distance –
current
scenario
22 km 1.5 km
Co2 Emission
(kg) – current
scenario
38,356 2,615

7.3. He submitted the motorable bridge will also provide
a vital link for Air Force and Navy which have their stations at
INS Hamla at Madh-Marve Road, to other parts the city during
an emergency.
7.4. He would further submit that the Petitioner – BMC’s
bridges department applied to the Respondent No. 2- MCZMA
as a first step towards getting the MoEFCC CRZ clearance for
th
the proposal. The Respondent No. 2 - MCZMA in its 155
meeting deferred the matter while requiring the submission of
the rapid (EIA) Report of the proposed project from the
Petitioner. Pursuant thereto, Petitioner arranged for an EIA
7
Uploaded on - 17/09/2026 Downloaded on - 17/09/2026 19:35:01

Judg - WPL-17795-2026.doc
report to be prepared by Tandon Urban Solution Pvt.
Consultant (“BMC Consultant”) regarding the Bridge Project
along with other projects. The EIA report estimated that the
construction of the bridge would affect mangrove area of 2.80
Ha and it estimated that 560 mangrove trees would be
affected/have to be cut.
7.5. Mr. Chinoy would next submit that the Petitioner
submitted the said EIA report to the Respondent No. 2 -
th
MCZMA on 17 June 2021. The Respondent No. 2 - MCZMA on
th th
04 February 2022 in its 157 meeting considered the EIA
report but stated that instead of submitting one common
proposal for 6 bridges, a separate proposal be submitted. It
also issued further directions for the manner in which the EIA
report should be prepared and deferred their decision for a
further meeting.
7.6. Mr. Chinoy would contend that pursuant to the
direction of the Respondent No. 2 - MCZMA, the Petitioner
arranged for an EIA report to be prepared for the present
project by Centre for Envotech & Management Consultancy
Pvt. Ltd. and submitted a fresh proposal to the Respondent No.
th
2 - MCZMA via Parivesh Portal on 30 October 2023. The
proposed Project was taken up for consideration by the
th rd
Respondent No. 2 - MCZMA in its 164 meeting held on 23
February 2023. The Respondent No. 2 - MCZMA minutes
recorded that the present alignment was necessary to meet the
8
Uploaded on - 17/09/2026 Downloaded on - 17/09/2026 19:35:01

Judg - WPL-17795-2026.doc
demands of local fishermen to ensure that that their boats not
be obstructed by the bridge. The Respondent No. 2 - MCZMA
minutes also noted that the final alignment affected 2.5 Ha of
mangrove area, but that this 2 Ha would be restored and the
permanent damage of mangroves would be about 0.5 Ha only,
which is the area covered by the footprint of the piers of the
bridge. Accordingly, the Respondent No. 2 - MCZMA decided to
recommend the proposal to Respondent No. 1 - MoEFCC for
grant of CRZ clearance.
7.7. Mr. Chinoy has submitted that accordingly vide its
th
letter dated 28 March 2023 the MCZMA recorded the
aforesaid and recommended the proposal to the Respondent
No. 1-MoEFCC for grant of CRZ clearance Specific Condition
No. (iii) imposed by Respondent No.2 – MCZMA in the
th
recommendation for CRZ clearance in its letter dated 28
March 2023, which reads thus:-
“3. Prior High Court permission should be obtained by
th
PP as per Hon’ble High Court order dated 17
September, 2018 in PIL/87/2006, since the project
involves the cutting of mangroves”.
7.8. According to Mr. Chinoy, most of the departments/
statutory authorities have already accorded clearance and
rd
relied upon the letter dated 23 February 2026 of the
Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Mangrove
Cell, Mumbai who forwarded the mangrove restoration plan for
the bridge project involving an outlay/expenditure of 12.50
9
Uploaded on - 17/09/2026 Downloaded on - 17/09/2026 19:35:01

Judg - WPL-17795-2026.doc
crores. The mangrove restoration plan records that although a
total mangrove area of 2.7515 Ha would be affected by the
construction of the bridge, after the construction, 2.5 Ha
would be used for in situ mangrove restoration and only 2005
sq.mtrs. i.e. .20 Ha mangrove (i.e. the actual area covered by
the piers and pylons) would be permanently lost. He submitted
the restoration plan is to be executed by the Mangrove and
Marine Biodiversity Conservation Foundation of Maharashtra
(Mangrove Foundation), which is an autonomous body under
the Revenue and Forests Department, Government of
Maharashtra.
7.9. Mr. Chinoy would emphatically submit that the
proposed alignment is not passing through any Protected Area
or Eco Sensitive Zone and relied upon paragraph No.5(q),
wherein categorically a pleading has been set up to state “the
Proposed Alignment is not passing through any Protected Area
or Eco Sensitive Zone.” The Aerial Distance of the Nearest
Protected area is Sanjay Gandhi National Park: 8.2 Km, Thane
Flamingo Creek Sanctuary: 13.9 Km.
7.10. Mr. Chinoy would urge that all statutory and
development permissions required up to this stage have been
duly obtained by the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petitioner has
defrayed the substantial amounts/charges on the legitimate
expectation that the Petitioner will be allowed to act in
furtherance of the above permissions.
10
Uploaded on - 17/09/2026 Downloaded on - 17/09/2026 19:35:01

Judg - WPL-17795-2026.doc
7.11. It is in the above background that the Petitioner has
approached this Court for prior permission to undertake
construction of the proposed bridge as it involves cutting of
mangroves in the said area/region. The leave of this Court is
th
sought in accordance with the judgment and order dated 17
September, 2018 passed by this Court in Public Interest
nd
Litigation No.87 of 2006 read with order dated 2 November,
2018 in Notice of Motion No.278 of 2018 in Public Interest
Litigation No.87 of 2006.
7.12. Mr. Chinoy would urge that in similar facts and
circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court had
considered the similar public utility project and in the light of
a finding at paragraph No.83(viii) of the judgment and order
th
dated 17 September, 2018 in Public Interest Litigation No.87
of 2006 was pleased to grant leave as provided for, in the said
th
judgment. He further relied upon the order dated 24
February, 2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 4138 of 2022. The
Division Bench of this Court has accorded permission to the
present Petitioner to carry out construction of proposed
suction tank for providing adequate water supply to citizens
around Gorai village.
7.13. Mr. Chinoy has placed due reliance on various other
judgments of this court as also extracted in the Petition (at
para 7) where in similar situations, this Court has granted
permissions to cut mangroves for projects undertaken in larger
public interest.
11
Uploaded on - 17/09/2026 Downloaded on - 17/09/2026 19:35:01

Judg - WPL-17795-2026.doc
7.14. According to Mr. Chinoy, in the present case the
Petitioner -Corporation has preferred the instant Petition
seeking permission to cut 1237 mangroves situated on 2.7515
Ha for the purposes of construction of the proposed bridge
precisely on the ground that the construction of the same is
undertaken by the Government undertaking, i.e. the Petitioner
for the benefit of the citizens by carrying out construction of an
important link by way of the proposed bridge. For the same,
various permissions under Clause 5.1.1 read with Clause
5.1.2, Clause 5.2 and Clause 10.3 of CRZ Notification dated
th
18 January, 2019, have been obtained. The proposed project
is, therefore, founded on the principles of public utility,
sustainable development and eco-friendly systems. Moreover,
the same is aimed at benefit of the citizens at large and not
premised on private or commercial gain.
7.15. Mr. Chinoy would urge that each and every
condition set out in paragraph 40(IV) in Mumbai
Metropolitan Region Development Authority Vs. Union of
2
India & Ors. shall be complied with by the Petitioner, to the
extent relevant to the present project and for other conditions
as required under CRZ Notification. In support of his
submission, he has categorically stated that an undertaking
would be furnished in the instant Petition by relying upon
paragraph No. 9 in the Petition. For ready reference,
paragraph No. 9 is reproduced hereunder: -
2 2025 SCC OnLine Bom. 2905
12
Uploaded on - 17/09/2026 Downloaded on - 17/09/2026 19:35:01

Judg - WPL-17795-2026.doc
“9. The Petitioners say and submit :
(A) That as required under the CRZ Notification, as 1237
mangroves situated on 2.7515 Ha would be affected,
compensatory mangrove plantation [three times the number of
mangroves on three times the area] is to be undertaken and
Approx 39000 mangroves are proposed to be planted on 9 Ha of
degraded mangrove forest land in the jurisdiction of the
Divisional Forest Officer, Mangrove Division North Konkan. For
the same the Petitioner has deposited an amount of ₹ 1,42,
02,808/- (Rupees One Crore Forty-Two Lakhs Two Thousand
Eight Hundred Eight only) towards the cost of plantation,
protection measures, and operation and maintenance of the said
9 hectares area for a period of 10 years, including necessary
protective works.”
7.16. Mr. Chinoy would then contend that as provided in
th
the Order dated 12 December 2025, the Petitioner further
undertakes that it shall for 10 years, file an Interim
Application on a yearly basis, with comprehensive status audit
reports, with affidavits signed by the Petitioner, through its
Municipal Commissioner – Respondent No 4 and the Chief
Conservator of Forests, Nagpur.
7.17. With all the above safeguards in place, Mr. Chinoy
would urge that the Petition be allowed and Rule be made
Absolute.
C. Submissions on Behalf of the Respondents
8. Mr. Aditya Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of Respondent No.5 has opposed the Writ Petition
raising concern regarding environmental impact from the
diverse and destruction of mangroves and degraded mangroves
forest land. The same would result environmentally
13
Uploaded on - 17/09/2026 Downloaded on - 17/09/2026 19:35:01

Judg - WPL-17795-2026.doc
degradation and adverse impact on aqua maritime life. He
submitted the authorities have utterly failed to adequately
consider the diverse environmental impact of the project even
under the facts and circumstances compensatory mangrove
plantation is inadequate. He submitted it is paramount
responsibility of the State to ensure the sustainable
development, which is also one of the core objective of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and in support of his
M. C. Mehta
submission placed reliance on the judgment of
3
Vs. Union of India & Ors. .
8.1. The Respondent No. 4 has also filed affidavit-in-
th
reply dated 8 July 2026 in this proceeding. This pleading
proceeds on the premise that the Petitioner has obtained the
requisite permissions from the concerned/competent
authorities, with regard to the proposed bridge under the
applicable statutes. The Petitioner has also paid a sum of Rs.
1,42,02,808/- to the Mangrove Biodiversity Foundation of
Maharashtra as stated in paragraph 5(n) (page 32) of the
Petition. A specific objection is also raised in the said Affidavit
that unless the Petitioner deposits financial outlay of 12.50
crores, no permission should be accorded to the carry out the
proposed bridge project.
8.2. To the above there is a clarification from the
th
Petitioner in its Rejoinder dated 27 August 2026, which is on
record. It is duly clarified that the project requires diversion of
2.8022 ha forest (mangrove) land which is in the area of
3 1994 Supp (3) SCC 717.
14
Uploaded on - 17/09/2026 Downloaded on - 17/09/2026 19:35:01

Judg - WPL-17795-2026.doc
diversion and not reclamation. Following consultation
including that with the fishing community, the alignment of
the proposed bridge was increased. Accordingly, at this stage,
a figure of 2.5 Ha. for diversion was estimated by the Petitioner
based on the EIA report, which was never the actual final
forest diversion figure. The Petitioner stated that all the
permissions are accorded strictly in accordance with law and
abundant precautions are taken at this stage in order to
ensure the project may not harm the environment. The project
has been evaluated and finalized keeping in mind there shall
not be any substantial degradation.
D. Analysis & Conclusion: -
9. We have considered the material placed on record,
the nature of the proposed bridge project, the environmental
impact thereof and the measures proposed for mitigation and
restoration. The principal question which arises for
consideration is whether, having regard to the protection
accorded to mangroves under the orders passed by this Court
in Bombay Environmental Action Group (supra), the
proposed intervention can be permitted in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, in the context of public
good and larger public interest/welfare which has been
espoused by the Petitioner-Corporation in preferring this
Petition before this Court.
9.1. The word “Mangrove” is considered to be a
combination of the Portuguesa word “Mangue” and the English
15
Uploaded on - 17/09/2026 Downloaded on - 17/09/2026 19:35:01

Judg - WPL-17795-2026.doc
word “Grove”. Mangroves are salt tolerant plants of tropical
and sub-tropical inter tidal regions of the world. The specific
regions where these plants occur are termed as ‘Mangrove
Ecosystem’. These are highly productive but extremely
sensitive and fragile. It is said about the mangroves that they
are living life on the edge, with one foot on land and one in the
sea. They are tenacious and useful for the environment.
Mangroves no doubt perform a critical protective function by
acting as natural buffers against coastal erosion, tidal surges
and flooding, thereby safeguarding life, property and vital
coastal infrastructure. They are of particular ecological
significance in creeks and coastal stretches of Mumbai and
Thane. It is in such backdrop that this Court in Bombay
Environmental Action Group (supra) , where the Court was
examining the issue of mangrove destruction in the State of
Maharashtra, invoked the public trust doctrine to
unequivocally hold that mangroves cannot be destroyed for
private, commercial or other purposes, unless such action is
demonstrably required in public interest.
9.2. Applying the above principles, this Court in
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation v/s Union of India
4
& others was confronted with a challenge mounted by the
same Respondent No. 5 in this Petition, to the proposed
Versova-Bhayandar coastal road, intended to connect two
municipal corporations, namely the BMC and the Mira-
Bhayandar Municipal Corporation, respectively, primarily on
th
4 Writ Petition No.3790 of 2025; 12 December 2025
16
Uploaded on - 17/09/2026 Downloaded on - 17/09/2026 19:35:01

Judg - WPL-17795-2026.doc
the ground of cutting of mangroves for such project. This
Court gainfully observed that it is settled law that courts do
not intrude into the domain of policy decisions. A decision as
to whether an infrastructure project should be undertaken, its
nature and its mode of execution squarely lies within the realm
of executive policy making. Where the State has taken
safeguards to minimize the environmental impact, the Court
will not substitute its own assessment for that of statutory
bodies who have applied their technical expertise with
objectivity. We in our analysis, are driven by such settled legal
principles in this regard including those affirmed by the
Supreme Court in decisions discussed below, serving as the
pole star, in arriving at our conclusion, in the present case.
9.3. The present project is a public infrastructure project
intended to establish a direct road connectivity between
Versova and Madh Island across Malad Creek. The material
before us indicates that the proposed bridge would constitute
an important missing link in the existing road network and
would also connect with the proposed Coastal Road/DP Road
alignment. The project is expected to substantially reduce the
travelling distance between the two points and consequently,
the time presently required for such journey. The resultant
diversion of traffic from the existing roads would also have the
effect of reducing congestion on those roads and,
correspondingly, the environmental burden arising from
prolonged vehicular movement.
17
Uploaded on - 17/09/2026 Downloaded on - 17/09/2026 19:35:01

Judg - WPL-17795-2026.doc
9.4. The Petition categorically states that there will be
93% reduction in Co2 from the current levels, upon completion
of the project. The chart referred to above indicates that the
Co2 emission (kg) is at 38,356, which upon completion of the
project would be reduced to 2615. This would show that the
environmental interests would be protected, paving way for
sustainable development. Further, the project would
additionally provide an alternative route which may be utilized
by the Air Force and the Navy in situations of emergency. We
find nothing on record to controvert such position.
9.5. Contextually, these aspects assume significance
while considering whether the proposed intervention is in
public good or greater public interest. The project is clearly not
one undertaken for a private commercial purpose or for the
benefit of a particular private entity. It is being undertaken as
part of the development of public infrastructure and is
intended to serve the public at large by improving connectivity
between Madh Island and the western suburbs of Mumbai.
The proposed bridge is aimed at providing some respite to the
Mumbaikars from the menace of inordinate delays in travel
due to traffic jams/congestion on such widely used roads of
the city. As indicated in the chart above, the travel distance
between Versova and Madh Island to connect which the
proposed bridge is to be constructed, would be substantially
reduced from the present 22km to 1.5km after completion of
the project. This is an important factor to be considered in the
given factual complexion.
18
Uploaded on - 17/09/2026 Downloaded on - 17/09/2026 19:35:01

Judg - WPL-17795-2026.doc
9.6. The fact that the project serves a public purpose,
however, cannot by itself conclude the environmental enquiry.
In this context, the principle of sustainable development
assumes particular significance. In Maharashtra Maritime
5
Board v. Union of India , this Court, while considering public
works in the vicinity of mangroves, relied upon the principles
reiterated by the Supreme Court in  N.D. Jayal v. Union of
6 7
India Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India
,
8
and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India . The Court recognized that
a balance between environmental protection and
developmental activity is to be maintained through strict
adherence to the principles of sustainable development.
Sustainable development does not contemplate development at
the cost of the environment; rather, it requires a course which
permits development while preserving environmental balance
and the interests of future generations.
9.7. On the environmental aspect, the material before us
indicates that the project proponent initially estimated an
impact upon approximately 2.80 hectares of mangrove area
and about 560 mangrove trees. Pursuant to the directions of
the Respondent No. 2 - MCZMA, the proposal was thereafter
reconsidered, and a separate EIA was undertaken for the
present project. The revised proposal was examined by the
competent authority, which took note, inter alia , of the
5 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3667
6 (2004) 9 SCC 362
7 (1996) 5 SCC 356
8 2002 4 SCC 356.
19
Uploaded on - 17/09/2026 Downloaded on - 17/09/2026 19:35:01

Judg - WPL-17795-2026.doc
necessity of the alignment of the proposed bridge to ensure
that the movement of local fishermen's boats was not
obstructed.
9.8. More importantly, the environmental impact has not
been left unaddressed. The restoration plan placed by the
Petitioner is indicative of the fact that approximately 2.7515
hectares of mangrove area may be affected during the
construction phase, while approximately 2.5 hectares is
proposed to be restored in-situ and only 2005 sq meters i.e.
0.20 Ha of mangroves (actual area covered by the piers and
pylons) would be lost permanently which is estimated at
approximately 2005 square metres. We have not come across
these aspects to be controverted on pleadings. Accordingly, we
are not persuaded to not accept but in fact consciously
consider the same, as the proposed bridge is a project in larger
public interest.
9.9. The mitigation measures proposed are also
noteworthy. Against the proposed impact upon 1237
mangroves over approximately 2.7515 hectares, the project
contemplates plantation of approximately 39,000 mangroves
over 9 hectares of degraded mangrove forest land. An amount
of 1,42,02,808/- has also been deposited towards plantation, ₹
protection, operation and maintenance for a period of ten
years. The restoration measures are to be implemented
through the Mangrove and Marine Biodiversity Conservation
Foundation of Maharashtra. These measures demonstrate that
20
Uploaded on - 17/09/2026 Downloaded on - 17/09/2026 19:35:01

Judg - WPL-17795-2026.doc
the project has been conceived keeping in mind the
environmental impact which ought not to be disregarded,
being quint essential for sustainable development.
9.10. We have also taken note of the fact that the
proposed alignment does not pass through any Protected Area
or Eco-Sensitive Zone. The project has been examined by the
statutory authorities concerned and the Respondent No. 2 -
MCZMA. After considering the revised proposal and the
environmental implications, it has recommended the proposal
for CRZ clearance subject to the conditions set out therein.
The requisite permissions and clearances referred to before us
have also been obtained from the concerned authorities.
th
Moreover, the Affidavit in Reply dated 27 August 2026 filed
by Respondent No.2 – MCZMA clarifies that they had
recommended the proposed project for CRZ clearance subject
to fulfilment of conditions and that the said Respondent
confirms in the said Reply on record of the proceedings
(paragraph 24) that the proposed project is permissible in
accordance with the provisions of the CRZ Notification 2019.
This being so, the objections raised by the Respondents in the
given fact situation fall short of convincing us.
9.11. We are, therefore, of the view that the present case
falls within the category of projects where the Court is required
to reconcile environmental protection with a legitimate and
substantial public welfare/ interest. The intervention sought is
not being permitted merely because the project is
21
Uploaded on - 17/09/2026 Downloaded on - 17/09/2026 19:35:01

Judg - WPL-17795-2026.doc
characterized as a public project. It is the combination of the
public utility of the project, the environmental assessment
undertaken, permissions granted by statutory authorities and
the restoration cum compensatory measures proposed by the
Petitioner, which persuades us that the proposed project being
in larger public interest, justifies the grant of relief in prayer
clause (a) supra.
9.12. The permission sought must, however, necessarily
remain subject to strict compliance with the conditions
imposed by the competent authorities and the safeguards
governing the protection and restoration of mangroves. The
Undertaking sought to be given by the Petitioner – BMC, would
act as a catalyst in ensuring compliance with the terms and
conditions with regard to mangrove plantation, in situ, by the
Petitioner. This should dispel the apprehension of the
Respondents and the given case of in situ plantation of
mangoves, would in fact help restore the ecological balance in
the very region that may suffer de forestation, rather than
having it in distant areas. A coordinate Bench of this Court
made such observations in Mumbai Metropolitan Regional
9
Development Authority v/s Union of India & Ors.
which
would assist the case espoused by the Petitioner.
9.13. We have carefully examined the decision of a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Maharashtra State
Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. vs. State of
9 2025 SCC Online Bom. 3180.
22
Uploaded on - 17/09/2026 Downloaded on - 17/09/2026 19:35:01

Judg - WPL-17795-2026.doc
10
Maharashtra and Others duly relied on by Mr. Aditya
Mehta Ld Counsel for Respondent No.5. Here the court
permitted compensatory afforestation for non-mangrove trees
at a distant location as an exceptional case and having regard
to the national importance of that project. However, we are
confronted with a situation of the Petitioner’s undertaking to
carry out in situ rehabilitation of the cut mangroves. For such
reasons, the said decision pressed into service by Mr. Mehta is
of no assistance to the Respondents.
9.14. We find it apposite at this juncture to also refer to
National
the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Highways Authorities of India (Ministry of Road and
Transport Highways) Thane v/s. State of Maharashtra &
11
Ors.
The Court placed due reliance on the decisions of the
Supreme Court in N.D.Jayal vs Union of India, Citizens
Welfare Forum (Supra) and M.C. Mehta vs Union of India
(supra) where the Supreme Court held that adherence to the
principles of sustainable development is a sine qua non for the
maintenance of a symbiotic balance between the rights to
environment and sustainable development. It was held that
construction of a dam or a mega project is definitely an
attempt to achieve the goal of wholesome development and
such works could be very well treated as an integral
component for development. To ensure sustainable
development is held to be one of the goals of Environment
10. 2026 SCC Online Bom 8130.
11 2023 SCC Online Bom 343.
23
Uploaded on - 17/09/2026 Downloaded on - 17/09/2026 19:35:01

Judg - WPL-17795-2026.doc
Protection Act 1986 which is necessary to make effective the
guarantee of “right to life” under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India.
9.15. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, we are satisfied that the proposed project is in
furtherance of a genuine public cause/purpose. In view
thereof, this court’s limited intervention qua the mangroves in
the region coupled with all necessary safeguards and
restoration measures as noted above, would sub serve larger
public interest. It is only on the basis of the express ecological
commitments made and the categorical undertaking furnished
by the Petitioner – Corporation as a public body, that in situ
plantation of the mangroves would be carried out along with
the periodic monitoring for 10 years as noted (supra), that we
are inclined to entertain this Petition. Moreover, we clarify that
the Petitioner will be liable not only qua civil but also criminal
consequences in the event of any breach of such Undertaking
(Supra). Mr. Chinoy in his usual fairness, has, on instructions,
duly acceded to this position.
9.16. As a sequel to the above discussion, with we are of
the considered opinion that the Petitioner has become entitled
to proceed with the proposed project on the touchstone of
larger public good strictly in accordance with the Undertaking
furnished by the Petitioner as recorded by us above, coupled
with the permissions granted by the authorities and subject to
the conditions carved out therein. They are also entitled to the
24
Uploaded on - 17/09/2026 Downloaded on - 17/09/2026 19:35:01

Judg - WPL-17795-2026.doc
exception carved out as observed in the decision of this Court
in Bombay Environment Action Group (supra) as stated in
paragraph 83 (viii), in as much as the Court finds it necessary
and expedient for public good and in public interest that the
proposed project ought to procced, subject to the
observations/directions in our judgment as noted above.
9.17. For all the above reasons, Writ Petition is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (a). Rule is made Absolute accordingly.
9.18. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this
Judgment.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
25
Uploaded on - 17/09/2026 Downloaded on - 17/09/2026 19:35:01
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)