Kumar & Ors Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors  INSC 165 (26 April 1999)
D.P.Wadhwa, N.Santosh Hedge D.P. Wadhwa, J.
- Indian Heritage Society and others are aggrieved by the judgment of the
Bombay High Court dated September
11, 1996 holding that
construction of toilet block near "Gateway of India" in Mumbai by the
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay is valid.
petitioners had filed writ petition in the Bombay High Court as Public Interest
Litigation praying for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate 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 sea on the
northern side of the plaza of the Gateway of India and for the demolition of
the existing old toilet block". A writ of mandamus was also sought
directing Indian Hotels Company Ltd. to take all necessary steps under the
provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 to prevent
and prohibit the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, the Municipal
Commissioner and the State of Maharashtra from proceeding with the construction
of the said new toilet block and for demolition of old toilet block. Lastly,
the petitioners prayed requiring Union of India in the Ministry of Environment
and Forests to take necessary steps under the provisions of Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 to prohibit the aforesaid respondents from proceeding
with the construction of the said new public toilet block. There was also a
prayer for demolition of the existing old toilet block and of whatever
construction of the new public toilet block was there. In short the writ
petition was directed against the construction of the new toilet block near the
Gateway of India and for demolition of the old toilet block.
Court in the impugned judgment said that it was not a fit case for interference
under Article 226 of the Constitution when the Municipal Corporation was
providing a facility which is a must for the human beings at a place which is
visited by thousands of persons everyday. It said that facility of providing
toilet block was also to prevent nuisance because there could be unauthorized
use of the open spaces around the Gateway of India by persons to answer calls
of nature. It was noticed that the resolution to construct toilet block was
passed as far back on August
5, 1991 and till after
the toilet block was constructed the writ petition was filed only March 13, 1992. After having said so High Court
also examined the merits of the case and dismissed the writ petition. Interim
relief which the High Court had granted from using the new toilet block by the
public was vacated.
us the petitioners have given up their challenge to the construction of the new
toilet block or relief for demolition of the old toilet block. Their grievance
is that in the judgment High Court made certain observations which will strike
death-knell for other writ petitions pending in the High Court seeking reliefs
under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification dated February 19, 1991
and other provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act. Once it is conceded
that the petitioners are not challenging the construction of the new toilet
block or the existence of the old toilet block it was not necessary for us to
deal with this matter as all the observations made by the High Court would be
with reference to the issue of the construction of new and existence of the old
toilet blocks near the Gateway of India. However, we may note that the
petitioners have objected to the following observations made in the impugned judgment
Necessarily it would mean that once an area is covered under CRZ II, it would
not be covered by CRZ I.
far as the question of applicability of CRZ II, admittedly the area near
Gateway of India is fully developed upto shore line. It is within the Municipal
limits of Greater Mumbai. It is already completely built up and it has been
provided with drainage and approach roads and other infrastructural facilities.
Hence, the entire city of Mumbai would
fall within the ambit of CRZ II.
view of clause (1) of CRZ II it is clear that building cannot be permitted to
the seaward side of the existing road or proposed in the approved Coastal Zone
Management Plan. Considering the above, it cannot be said that the construction
of toilet block on the existing road is in violation of CRZ II. It is not
beyond the road on the sea- ward side.
to petitioners the effect of these observations would be (1) that the entire
city of Mumbai fall within the ambit of CRZ II; (2) that once an area is
covered under CRZ II, it could not fall within the ambit of CRZ I or CRZ III;
and (3) that for construciton to be not in violation of CRZ II, it must fall
beyond the existing road on the seaward side, as against being on the road
which is the condition prescribed in the CRZ Notification, 1991.
have examined the record of the case. We do not think it is anybody's case that
whole of the Mumbai would fall within the ambit of CRZ II. Observations of the
High Court that entire city of Mumbai would
fall within the ambit of CRZ II do not appear to be quite warranted.
Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests issued Notification No.
S.O. 114(E) dated February 19, 1991 under the provisions of Section 3(1) and
Section 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act and Rules made thereunder
declaring coastal stretches as Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and regulating the
activities in the CRZ. A corrigendum bearing No. S.O. 190(E) dated March 18, 1991 was issued in partial modification
of the aforesaid notification dated February 20, 1991. There has been amendment to these
regulations by Notification No. S.O. 494
(E) dated July 9, 1997. Central Government also addressed
a communication dated September
27, 1996 to the Chief
Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai on the subject of Coastal Zone
Management Plan (CZMP) of Maharashtra
conveying its approval subject to certain conditions and modifications
mentioned in the said letter.
not necessary for us to refer to the notification dated July 9, 1997 and the letter of approval to the
CZMP dated September
27, 1996 as these
developments have occurred after the impugned judgment and the effect thereof
would be considered in an appropriate case.
Government before us has submitted that as per approval dated September 27, 1996 construction of building shall be
permitted only to the landward side of the existing road. Central Government
does not accept the view that the entire city of Bombay falls within the ambit of CRZ II. It is stated that the
impugned CZMP of Maharashtra CRZ areas of Mumbai city have been categorized as
CRZ I, CRZ II and CRZ III as per definition given in the notification dated February 20, 1991. It is further stated that
"the areas that are relatively undisturbed and those which do not belong
to either category I or II will qualify for CRZ- III category. These areas will
include Coastal Zone in the rural areas (developed and undeveloped) and also
areas within municipal limits or in other legally designated urban areas which
are not substantially built up. From this provision, it is clear that CRZ- III
areas can exist even within the municipal limits or urban areas." Central
Government has also submitted that since the revised CZMP of Maharashtra has
not yet been received from the Government of Maharashtra, the Ministry of
Environment and Forest is not aware whether the area under
reference (area around the Gateway of India) is categorized as CRZ-I or CRZ-II.
In case the area is categorized as CRZ-I, no new construction is permissible in
the CRZ area only to the extent upto which the area has been categorized as
CRZ-I. In case the area is categorized as CRZ-II construction of buildings are
not permitted on the seaward side of the existing road (or road proposed in the
approved CZMP of the area) or on the seaward side of the existing authorized
of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay has been to the validity of the
construction of the new toilet block. That is something which is not now being
challenged. As to the observations in the impugned judgment that "the
entire city of Bombay would fall within the ambit of Coastal Regulation Zone
II", it was submitted that the High Court was not concerned with the other
areas except Fort area where the structure of Gateway of India is situated and
whole of the area is built up within roads and all infrastructural facilities
to the structure. In this view of the matter it was submitted that it was not
necessary in this case to consider whether the structure or any other place
falls within the CRZ I or CRZ II. It was then submitted that State Government
had clarified that it would be sending the revised guidelines for CRZ and it
was most unlikely that the structure of Gateway of India would be falling with
the CRZ I and the area around it would fall in CRZ II and that the said revised
proposal was likely to be issued by the State Government "very soon".
said so we do not think it is necessary for us to consider the matter any
further and would leave the consideration of notification dated July 9, 1997
amending the earlier notification dated February 20, 1991 and also the communication
dated September 27, 1996 addressed by the Central Government to the State of Maharashtra
in an appropriate case.
these observations these petitions are disposed of.