Facts
Petitioner No. 1, Tata Power Company Limited, proposed to upgrade its existing 110 kV Kalwa–Kalyan transmission line to 220 kV in view of increased electricity demand in the Mumbai–Thane region.
Source reference: paras. 2–4; pp. 2–4The transmission line, more than 75 years old, passes through villages, forest land and areas falling within the Coastal Regulation Zone.
Source reference: paras. 2–4; pp. 2–4The project involved replacing 87 existing transmission towers, including two towers situated within 50 metres of the mangrove buffer zone, thereby requiring permission under paragraph 83(viii) of the Bombay High Court’s order dated 17 September 2018 in PIL No. 87 of 2006.
Source reference: paras. 2–4; pp. 2–4The Petitioners asserted that the project would not involve cutting or destruction of mangroves.
Source reference: paras. 3–4; pp. 2–4The project required diversion of 4.5773 hectares of forest land, and the requisite forest, regulatory and environmental permissions were obtained, including Stage-I and Stage-II forest clearances, Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission approval, Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority recommendation and CRZ clearance.
Source reference: paras. 3–4; pp. 2–4The Petitioners also deposited amounts towards net present value and compensatory afforestation.
Source reference: paras. 3–4; pp. 2–4Although 82 trees were proposed to be felled in the Thane Forest Division, no mangrove trees were proposed to be felled in the Mumbai Mangrove Conservation Unit.
Source reference: para. 8; p. 5The Respondent authorities did not oppose the project, stating that the necessary statutory permissions and clearances had been granted.
Source reference: paras. 5–6; p. 4Issues
Whether the Petitioners should be granted permission under paragraph 83(viii) of the judgment dated 17 September 2018 in PIL No. 87 of 2006 to replace and upgrade the transmission towers situated within the mangrove buffer zone?
Source reference: paras. 2, 10 and 12; pp. 2, 6–7Whether such permission could be granted in view of the project’s public importance, the absence of mangrove destruction, the statutory clearances obtained and the Petitioners’ compensatory afforestation obligations?
Source reference: paras. 3–4, 7–10; pp. 2–6Law Applied
The Court applied paragraph 83(viii) of its judgment and order dated 17 September 2018 in PIL No. 87 of 2006, which requires permission for activities involving the mangrove buffer zone.
Source reference: paras. 2 and 10; pp. 2 and 6It also relied on Section 2 of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980, under which diversion of forest land requires approval of the competent Central authority.
Source reference: para. 4(i); p. 3The Court considered the statutory forest and CRZ clearances, the approval of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, and the requirement of compensatory afforestation and payment of net present value.
Source reference: paras. 7–11; pp. 4–6The governing principle was that permission could be granted where the project served a public purpose, did not involve cutting or destruction of mangroves, complied with applicable statutory requirements, and was subject to effective monitoring and restoration safeguards.
Source reference: paras. 7–11; pp. 4–6Reasoning
The Court found that upgrading the transmission line was necessary to meet increased electricity demand in Greater Mumbai and Thane and that replacement of the existing towers was integral to the 110 kV-to-220 kV upgrade.
Source reference: para. 7; p. 4The project did not involve cutting or destruction of mangroves, and the replacement towers would be erected within the areas occupied by the existing towers.
Source reference: para. 3; p. 2The Petitioners had obtained the requisite forest, CRZ, regulatory and environmental approvals and had complied with financial obligations relating to net present value and compensatory afforestation.
Source reference: paras. 4 and 8–9; pp. 3–6The Court also noted that no Respondent authority had objected to the project.
Source reference: paras. 5–6; p. 4On these facts, the Court concluded that the statutory safeguards and the project’s public importance justified granting the permission contemplated under paragraph 83(viii).
Source reference: para. 10; p. 6To ensure continuing compliance, it directed the Petitioners to submit biannual status and audit reports, supported by affidavits of the Managing Director and Respondent No. 5, for ten years.
Source reference: para. 11; pp. 6–7Holding
The Writ Petition was allowed.
The Court granted the Petitioners permission under paragraph 83(viii) of the judgment dated 17 September 2018 in PIL No. 87 of 2006 to execute and replace the 110 kV transmission towers with 220 kV towers on the Kalwa–Kalyan transmission line, including the towers located within the mangrove buffer zone, subject to the statutory permissions and conditions applicable to the project.
Source reference: para. 12; p. 7Rule was made absolute, with liberty to apply.
Source reference: para. 13; p. 7The Petitioners were directed to file Interim Applications with comprehensive biannual compliance and audit reports on or before 12 January and 12 July every year for ten years.
Source reference: para. 11; pp. 6–7Non-filing of the reports or applications would be treated as contempt of court.
Source reference: para. 11; pp. 6–7Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Linked provisions open on LawLens.
Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 19801
Original Court PDF
The Tata Power Company LimitedvsUnion Of India
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
