P.S, Kapadia Tata electrict company (respondent no 7) contravenes CRZ notification 1991? UNSPECIFIED.
Full text not available from this repository. (Request a copy)Abstract
In this case writ petition was filed against construction of a Bulk Receiving Station by Tata Electric Company (the respondent), in contravention of the CRZ Notification, 1991, in the Backbay Reclamation area in Bombay, Maharashtra, India. The other points to be determined were --whether the construction of helipad by the respondent on the same plot of land contravened the abovesaid Notification as also the provisions of the Air Craft Act, 1934, read with the rules framed thereunder and, whether converting existing garden/playground to Government housing plots was in contravention of the said Notification. The CRZ Notification, 1991, came to be issued under Sections 3(1) and 3(2)(v) of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986, to protect ecology balance in the coastal areas. Applying this Notification the court held, that the respondent did not violate the provisions of the Notification, 1991, declaring that construction of the Bulk Receiving Station was a long drawn process, that no objection had been taken by the petitioners, that the citizens welcomed the construction, that in the adjoining plot the B.E.S.T. had its sub station and it would prevail in the larger interest of the public, that the construction which included laying of underground cables over long distance, had started prior to the said Notification, 1991. On the question whether construction of helipad on the same plot contravened the Notification of 1991, as also the provisions of the Air Craft Act, 1934 read with the rules framed thereunder, the court held in the affirmative, but held that it required to be clarified that the Order would not prevent the respondent from obtaining requisite permission to construct the helipad, after obtaining permission licence/approval from the competent authority under the provisions of the Air Craft Act, 1934 read with the rules framed thereunder. On the question whether the change of user from garden/playground to Government housing/residence plot was in contravention to the CRZ Notification, 1991, the court held in the affirmative, that without permission from the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority, it would not be permissible to change the earmarking of the two plots from garden to residence/Government housing. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
| Item Type: | Documents |
|---|---|
| Class Number: | 510.TAT001 |
| Keywords: | India, Maharashtra, CRZ, Legislation, Construction, Industries, Coastal Zones, HTL, Coastal Development, Environmental Management, CZMP |
| Subjects: | Right to Resources |
| Depositing User: | Jeeva ICSF Rajan |
| Date Deposited: | 30 Dec 2021 08:32 |
| Last Modified: | 17 Jan 2022 07:26 |
| URI: | http://icsfarchives.net/id/eprint/8077 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
