Bombay High Court
Environmental LawAdministrative and Public Law

Transmission tower replacement within mangrove buffers is permissible upon statutory compliance without mangrove destruction.

The Tata Power Company Limited vs Union Of India

Bombay High CourtJUDGMENT: August 21, 20263 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Transmission tower replacement within mangrove buffers is permissible upon statutory compliance without mangrove destruction.. The Tata Power Company Limited vs Union Of India. Bombay High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

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. 2–4

The 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. 2–4

The 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. 2–4

The Petitioners asserted that the project would not involve cutting or destruction of mangroves.

Source reference: paras. 3–4; pp. 2–4

The 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. 2–4

The Petitioners also deposited amounts towards net present value and compensatory afforestation.

Source reference: paras. 3–4; pp. 2–4

Although 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. 5

The Respondent authorities did not oppose the project, stating that the necessary statutory permissions and clearances had been granted.

Source reference: paras. 5–6; p. 4
02

Issues

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, 6–7

Whether 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. 2–6
03

Law 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 6

It 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. 3

The 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. 4–6

The 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. 4–6
04

Reasoning

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. 4

The 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. 2

The 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. 3–6

The Court also noted that no Respondent authority had objected to the project.

Source reference: paras. 5–6; p. 4

On 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. 6

To 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. 6–7
05

Holding

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. 7

Rule was made absolute, with liberty to apply.

Source reference: para. 13; p. 7

The 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. 6–7

Non-filing of the reports or applications would be treated as contempt of court.

Source reference: para. 11; pp. 6–7
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Linked provisions open on LawLens.

Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 19801

Section 2
Bombay High Court

Original Court PDF

The Tata Power Company LimitedvsUnion Of India

Bombay High Court · August 21, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment