2011 (1) TMI 1325 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether terms and conditions mentioned in the Collectors order are followed by the Applicant land owner or not? Whether the Applicant has committed any violation? Whether the land owner has kept water culverts open or not? If the committee finds that the water is stopped which may ultimately cause destroying of mangroves, the committee i.e. Area Officers should make the owner to open the culverts immediately. The committee should make detailed enquiry and the consolidated report should be sent to the District Collector within 15 days?

Issues Involved:
1. Contempt proceedings against the appellants for violating court and District Collector orders.
2. Validity and compliance with the conditional order for repairing the bund.
3. Environmental impact and destruction of mangroves.
4. Legal procedures and jurisdiction concerning the validity of orders and notifications.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Contempt Proceedings Against the Appellants:
The District Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, filed an application (I.A.No. 23/2010) to initiate contempt proceedings against the appellants for violating the Supreme Court's order dated 7.5.2010 and the Collector's order dated 27.1.2010. The allegations included constructing a new bund, obstructing sea water to save the mangrove forest, and using debris and stones, which violated the court's directives. Another contempt petition (Cont. Pet. No. 169 of 2010) was filed by the appellants against the statutory authorities for allegedly violating the Supreme Court's orders by appointing a committee to examine the appellants' compliance with the conditional order. The Bombay Environmental Action Group (Cont. Pet. No. 266 of 2010) also filed a contempt petition against the appellants for willful disobedience of the Supreme Court's orders, seeking to recall the permissions granted and ensure the removal of debris.

2. Validity and Compliance with the Conditional Order for Repairing the Bund:
The Bombay High Court, in its order dated 6.10.2005, directed the identification and protection of mangrove areas. Following this, the Divisional Commissioner issued a notification on 18.2.2009, including the appellants' land, which restricted their salt manufacturing activities. The appellants filed a Special Leave Petition challenging this notification, which was entertained by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to seek permission from the District Collector to repair the bund. The Collector's order on 27.1.2010 permitted the appellants to repair the bund without destroying mangroves or raising its height. However, reports from various authorities indicated that the appellants violated these conditions by increasing the bund's height and width, obstructing water flow, and destroying mangroves.

3. Environmental Impact and Destruction of Mangroves:
Multiple reports and inspections revealed that the appellants' activities had significantly impacted the mangrove ecosystem. The Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai, reported extensive debris and boulders used for bund reinforcement, platforms constructed, and large-scale destruction of mangroves. The CRZ Regulations classify mangrove areas as ecologically sensitive (CRZ-I), restricting activities that could harm the environment. The appellants' actions, including closing water culverts and using debris, violated these regulations and caused substantial environmental damage.

4. Legal Procedures and Jurisdiction Concerning the Validity of Orders and Notifications:
The Supreme Court emphasized that even if an order is void, it must be declared so by a competent forum. The appellants' challenge to the notification's validity was pending before the Bombay High Court. The court highlighted that the appellants could not unilaterally decide the order's invalidity and must seek a judicial declaration. The appellants' contempt petitions were dismissed as they used them to enforce unwarranted claims, demonstrating contumacious conduct by deliberately disobeying court orders and damaging the environment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found the appellants guilty of willful defiance of court and District Collector orders, causing significant environmental damage. The court directed the appellants to restore the bund to its original state within 60 days, ensuring the natural flow of sea water and preservation of mangroves. If the appellants failed to comply, the District Collector was authorized to carry out the restoration and recover costs from the appellants. The court also requested the Bombay High Court to expedite the trial of the appellants' suit. The contempt petitions filed by the District Collector and the Action Group were allowed, while the appellants' petition was dismissed.

← Previous Next →