LexP. NAVIN KUMAR AND ORS. ETC versus BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.... A P. NA VIN KUMAR AND ORS. ETC. v. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. APRIL 26, 1999 B [D.P. WADHWA AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] Environment Protection Act, 1986-Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ)- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966-Public Interest Litigation before High Court to prevent construction of toilet block and C demolish existing block-High court held, such facility necessary and observed that entire city within ambit ofCRZ-11-Held, such observation not warranted Section 3(2) (a)-Notification-Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP)-Categorisation of city under CRZ-1, CRZ-11 and CRZ-Ill pending D approval of State Government-permissibility of construction dependent on categorisation-Held, to be considered in an appropriate case. Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ)--Categorisation-CRZ-JJJ-can exist within municipal limits or urban areas. E The petitioners, Indian Heritage Society had filed a writ petition in the High Court as a public Interest Litigation to quash and set aside all permissions granted by the Municipal Corporation for construction of"new public toilet block" and demolition of existing toilet block abutting th~ sea near Gateway of India. ! F The High Court held that it was not a fit case to be interfered under I Article 226 of the Constitution as this facility is a must at a place visited by thousands of people, and it would also prevent nuisance as there would be no unauthorised use of ope'n spaces. Aggrieved the petitioners filed special leave petition in this Court, only G against certain observations made by the High Court because they could be fatal for the other writ petitions pending there and as the effect would be that the entire city of Mumbai would fall within the ambit of CRZ-11 and that once an area is covered under CRZ-11 it could not fall within the ambit ofCRZ- 1 or CRZ-III. H Union of India contended, before this Court that the entire city does 906 -- P.N. KUMAR v. BOMBAY M.C. [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 907 not fall within the_ambit ofCRZ-11 and the areas have been categorised as A CRZ-1, CRZ-11 and CRZ-III, that they are still not aware whether the said area under reference is categorised as CRZ-1 or CRZ-11, as a response from the Government of Maharashtra is awaited; and that the possibility and permissibility of any new construction would depend upon this categorisation. Disposing of the Special leave petitions, this Court. HELD : 1. It is nobody's case that whole of Mumbai would fall within the ambit of CRZ-11 and the observations of the High Court that entire city would fall within the ambit of CRZ-11 do not appear to be quite warranted. CRZ-111 areas can exist even within the municipal limits or urban areas. B (911-A; 910-F) C 2. The notifications issued in February, 1991 were fater amended by a notification in July, 1997, and the Central Government had also addressed a communication to the Government of Maharashtra regarding Coastal Zone Management Plan in September 1997. These developments occurred after the impugned judgment and the effect thereof would be considered in an D appropriate case. [911-D; 910-C) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21959 of 1996 Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 10/11.9.96 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 619of1992. Mahesh Agrawal for Ms. Purnima Bhat for the Petitioner in SLP. No. 21959/96. Atul Setalvad, Ms. Indu Malhotra and Ms. Shruti Devi for the Petitioner in SLP. No. 22216/96. Bhimrao N. Naik and S. Sukumaran for the Respondent Nos. I-2. E F LG. Shah, D.M. Nargolkar, (Y.P. Mahajan) and P. Parmeswaran for the G Respondent No. 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.P. W ADHW A, J. Petitioner - Indian Heritage Society and others are aggrieved by the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated September I I, H 908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R. - A 1996 holding that construction of toilet block near "Gateway of India" in Mumbai by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay is valid. The petitioners had filed writ petition in the Bombay High Court as Public Interest Litigation praying for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate B writ, order or direction to quash and set aside all permissions and sanctions granted by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and the Municipal Commissioner for the construction of "new public toilet block abutting the ~ea on the northern side of the plaza of the Gateway of I
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.