Bullet Train power line gets mangrove-felling clearance, but Maharashtra must create afforestation land banks and a public monitoring portal: Bombay High Court

The Petitioner, Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited (MSETCL), sought permission to construct and lay a 132 KV transmission line from the Dahanu Sub-Station to the proposed Ambeserai Traction Sub-Station in Palghar District, forming part of the Mumbai–Ahmedabad High-Speed Rail Corridor.

The project required diversion of 3.3561 hectares of forest land, comprising 1.9656 hectares of mangrove forest and 1.3905 hectares of private forest, and the felling of 847 mangrove and 196 non-mangrove trees.

The Union Government granted Stage-I and Stage-II forest approvals, while the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority granted CRZ clearance.

MSETCL undertook compensatory mangrove plantation of 26,664 saplings over six hectares in Palghar District and compensatory afforestation of 7,457 non-mangrove trees over 6.7122 hectares at Katphal, Taluka Sangola, District Solapur.

Various amounts were deposited towards compensatory afforestation, mangrove plantation, tree cutting, Net Present Value, fencing and maintenance.

The Bombay Environmental Action Group did not dispute the project’s public importance but objected that the proposed non-mangrove compensatory afforestation at Solapur was approximately 500 kilometres from the affected area and would not adequately restore the local ecological loss.

The Petitioner consequently sought leave under the directions issued in Bombay Environmental Action Group v. State of Maharashtra and related orders governing the diversion or cutting of mangroves.

Whether MSETCL should be granted permission to divert 3.3561 hectares of forest land and fell 847 mangrove and 196 non-mangrove trees for construction of the 132 KV transmission line forming part of the High-Speed Rail Project.

Whether the proposed compensatory afforestation of non-mangrove trees at Solapur, a distant location from the project site, could be accepted as an exceptional measure.

What conditions and monitoring mechanisms were necessary to ensure that the compensatory plantation resulted in effective ecological restoration and remained subject to public and judicial scrutiny.

The Court applied Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, now the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980, under which diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes requires statutory approval.

It relied on the permission framework established in Bombay Environmental Action Group v. State of Maharashtra, PIL No. 87 of 2006, read with the order dated 2 November 2018, requiring prior judicial permission for activities involving mangrove diversion or cutting.

The Court further relied on M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, which emphasised that compensatory afforestation should meaningfully address ecological loss and ordinarily be undertaken close to the affected area.

It adopted the general safeguards and transparency requirements prescribed in Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority v. Union of India, including dedicated public portals, disclosure of project and plantation details, identification of afforestation land banks, monitoring of survival rates, and commencement of afforestation before or alongside tree felling.

The Court also applied the principles reflected in Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation v. Union of India and the applicable forest-conservation rules and guidelines, including the requirements of compensatory afforestation, protection, maintenance and compliance monitoring.

The Court accepted that the transmission line and traction sub-station were integral to a project of national importance and that the diversion proposal had been examined and approved by the competent statutory and expert authorities.

It therefore declined to interfere with the expert assessment, but treated the Petitioner’s ecological commitments and the assurances of the State and Mangrove Cell as conditions precedent to granting permission.

The Court found substance in the objection to the Solapur plantation because compensatory afforestation is intended to restore ecological functions, not merely replace the number of trees felled; plantation hundreds of kilometres away ordinarily would not compensate for the environmental loss in Dahanu–Palghar.

Nevertheless, since the statutory authorities had already approved the Solapur proposal and the project was of national importance, the Court permitted it only as an exceptional, non-precedential measure.

To prevent compensatory measures from remaining merely documentary, the Court imposed detailed requirements concerning prior or simultaneous plantation, fencing, tidal channelling, ten-year maintenance, public disclosure, land banks, geotagging, survival monitoring and periodic judicial review.

The Court also directed senior State forest authorities to remedy their failure to establish the required public portal, land banks and monitoring framework.

MSETCL was granted permission to divert 3.3561 hectares of forest land, including 1.9656 hectares of mangrove forest, and to fell 847 mangrove trees in Mankode and Saravali, Dahanu, for construction of the 132 KV Dahanu–Ambeserai transmission line.

Felling was confined to 847 mangrove and 196 non-mangrove trees and was required to occur under strict Forest Department supervision.

MSETCL was directed to undertake compensatory mangrove plantation of 26,664 saplings over six hectares, with tidal channelling, fencing and ten years’ protection, by November 2026.

Compensatory afforestation of 7,457 non-mangrove trees at Katphal, Solapur, was permitted as an exceptional measure and was required to be maintained and protected for ten years.

The Court directed publication of project and plantation information, creation and maintenance of afforestation land banks, operation of a public monitoring portal, and compliance with applicable statutory and judicial conditions.

MSETCL and the concerned forest authorities were required to file biannual status and audit reports for ten years, with the matter to be listed for compliance review; failure to file the reports would be treated as contempt of court.

Liberty to apply was granted.