SC stays HC verdict restoring protected status to Kanjurmarg landfill
The Supreme Court order was delivered on a special leave petition (SLP) filed by the state government, challenging the May 2 verdict of the high court, which had set aside a 2009 decision of the BMC to denotify the protected forest status of the land, so that they could use it as a dumping yard.
On Friday, a division bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran took note of the submissions by solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state, that the landfill had been incorrectly notified as a protected forest. As a result, the state contended, it had de-notified the 118 hectares in question in 2009, so that the land could be used as a dumping ground.
'We will stay the order,' said the apex court. When a lawyer representing the state government opposed the order, the bench asked, 'You tell us where the garbage can be dumped now.'
The original PIL, filed in 2013 by non-profit Vanashakti, had challenged the environmental clearances given for the setting up of the landfill on protected forest land. It argued that the 2009 de-notification of the plot violated procedure as noted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
When restoring the protected forest status of the landfill in May, the high court had also given the BMC three months to comply with its order.
The state then filed the SLP in the Supreme Court on July 26, arguing, 'The impugned judgment (…) would have a disastrous effect on the city of Mumbai, as there being no other similar waste disposal ground and landfill. If… it is to be discontinued, the entire city of Mumbai would be deprived of a solid waste dumping area and its residents will have to suffer unnecessary and untold hardships and major health risks.'
It further clarified that only 20.76 hectares of the 141.77 hectares that were de-notified had a mangrove forest on them, and that they had not been impacted by or included in the waste-processing site in the decade and a half that the BMC had been using it. The SP argued that the plot's original notification as a protected forest was erroneous.
Stalin D, director, Vanashakti, said they had been provided with a copy of the SLP on Thursday, only a day before the hearing in the Supreme Court, leaving little time to have their lawyers reach Delhi or prepare for their submissions in court.
'The SC stayed the HC order within two minutes, without hearing us or opening our file. We fought for 15 years against all odds, got a good judgement, only to have it overturned in a few minutes, where we weren't given a fair chance,' said Stalin.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
28 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC judge highlights need to create awareness on rights of disabled people
Supreme Court judge Justice Manmohan on Saturday highlighted the need to create sensitisation and awareness about the rights of persons with disabilities. Justice Manmohan said the courts have and will deliver verdicts on issues concerning the rights of persons with disabilities, but the other organs of the State also have to rise to the occasion. He was speaking at a conference held here on 'Judging and lawyering at the margins disability rights and beyond'. The conference was organised by Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation in collaboration with Qable. "The need of the hour is to create sensitisation, to create awareness. And I think the more awareness is there about the Act, about the rights that are available, the more the society will understand, the more the courts will understand and it will ensure more compliance," said Justice Manmohan when asked about the issue concerning implementation of the judgements. He also spoke on the issue regarding continuous monitoring by the court for compliance of its verdicts. "First of all, the court dockets are absolutely full and really to say that court will pick up this issue and give it absolute priority is not feasible because every day the court is grappling with so many issues," he said. Justice Manmohan said keeping in view the constraints, it has to be ensured that other organs of the State also rise to the occasion. The judge said the legislature will have to be aware of the issue and will have to put in place some mechanism whereby the court orders are given effect to. "Everything cannot be done at the pain of contempt. And if we start using the power of contempt repeatedly, it also loses its utility at some point of time," he added. Justice Manmohan said it has to be ensured the executive machinery understands that this is an obligation on them and this is "not some charity being done". "I think the basic problem that is arising is because everyone is believing that this is some sort of a charity which is being done. You think of any concept, whether it's gender justice, whether it is persons with disability, the mindset of the executive as well, to a large extent, the people who have been adjudicating these matters in the past have been that we will deal with it as if one is doing a bit of a charity," he said. Justice Manmohan further said things will change once people will realise it is a rights-based approach and not charity. "But yes, I agree with you. As a short-term measure, the court will have to monitor and will have to ensure that its judgments are implemented," he said. Justice Manmohan also cautioned if people think the court is going to monitor a matter on a daily basis, it may be raising the hopes too high. "We have to be realistic and we have to ensure that all organs of the State work towards it. Today, everything can't be left at the judiciary's doorstep. If you think that only judiciary is going to resolve the problem of this country, you are sadly mistaken," he said. Justice Manmohan said until and unless all organs, including the society, works for it, there will be issue at hand. "Just see, you need empathy in the society which is lacking," the judge said. "So, the real issue is to sensitise the society to ensure all organs of the society work together and one should not expect that it will be solved only by the judiciary," he added. Justice Manmohan said the judiciary may take the lead in the matter, but it will only get implemented at the ground level when everyone works together.
The Print
42 minutes ago
- The Print
Rights of persons with disabilities: SC judge highlights need to create sensitisation & awareness
He was speaking at a conference held here on 'Judging and lawyering at the margins disability rights and beyond'. The conference was organised by Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation in collaboration with Qable. Justice Manmohan said the courts have and will deliver verdicts on issues concerning the rights of persons with disabilities, but the other organs of the State also have to rise to the occasion. New Delhi, Aug 2 (PTI) Supreme Court judge Justice Manmohan on Saturday highlighted the need to create sensitisation and awareness about the rights of persons with disabilities. 'The need of the hour is to create sensitisation, to create awareness. And I think the more awareness is there about the Act, about the rights that are available, the more the society will understand, the more the courts will understand and it will ensure more compliance,' said Justice Manmohan when asked about the issue concerning implementation of the judgements. He also spoke on the issue regarding continuous monitoring by the court for compliance of its verdicts. 'First of all, the court dockets are absolutely full and really to say that court will pick up this issue and give it absolute priority is not feasible because every day the court is grappling with so many issues,' he said. Justice Manmohan said keeping in view the constraints, it has to be ensured that other organs of the State also rise to the occasion. The judge said the legislature will have to be aware of the issue and will have to put in place some mechanism whereby the court orders are given effect to. 'Everything cannot be done at the pain of contempt. And if we start using the power of contempt repeatedly, it also loses its utility at some point of time,' he added. Justice Manmohan said it has to be ensured the executive machinery understands that this is an obligation on them and this is 'not some charity being done'. 'I think the basic problem that is arising is because everyone is believing that this is some sort of a charity which is being done. You think of any concept, whether it's gender justice, whether it is persons with disability, the mindset of the executive as well, to a large extent, the people who have been adjudicating these matters in the past have been that we will deal with it as if one is doing a bit of a charity,' he said. Justice Manmohan further said things will change once people will realise it is a rights-based approach and not charity. 'But yes, I agree with you. As a short-term measure, the court will have to monitor and will have to ensure that its judgments are implemented,' he said. Justice Manmohan also cautioned if people think the court is going to monitor a matter on a daily basis, it may be raising the hopes too high. 'We have to be realistic and we have to ensure that all organs of the State work towards it. Today, everything can't be left at the judiciary's doorstep. If you think that only judiciary is going to resolve the problem of this country, you are sadly mistaken,' he said. Justice Manmohan said until and unless all organs, including the society, works for it, there will be issue at hand. 'Just see, you need empathy in the society which is lacking,' the judge said. 'So, the real issue is to sensitise the society to ensure all organs of the society work together and one should not expect that it will be solved only by the judiciary,' he added. Justice Manmohan said the judiciary may take the lead in the matter, but it will only get implemented at the ground level when everyone works together. PTI ABA AS AS This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court Upholds Bombay HC Ruling: 18 Unauthorized Flats in Tardeo Must Vacate
MUMBAI: The Supreme Court upheld a Bombay High Court order and declined to intervene against the well-reasoned ruling, which directed "selfish" residents of the top 18 floors of a 34-storey tower in Tardeo, south Mumbai, that lack an Occupancy Certificate, to vacate their premises in two weeks. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The High Court clarified that such members would be entitled to occupy the flats only after the Occupancy Certificate is granted. On July 15, Justices Girish Kulkarni and Arif Doctor of the High Court also observed the lack of a Fire NOC for the entire high-rise but stayed any civic demolition action and adjourned the issue of the first 16 floors for hearing by two weeks. Aggrieved residents rushed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on Friday dismissed a special leave petition filed by Willingdon View Cooperative Housing Society seeking to challenge the High Court judgment. The Supreme Court judges said, "We are of the view that we should not interfere with a very well-considered, bold, and lucid judgment delivered by the High Court." "We appreciate the concern expressed by the High Court," Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan said, adding, "We also appreciate the courage and conviction exhibited by the High Court in taking stern steps against such unauthorised constructions. Sympathy towards the occupiers of such flats on the ground of hardship and difficulties at the end of the Court would be thoroughly misplaced. At the end of the day, the rule of law must prevail. " However, the Supreme Court provided some relief to the residents, saying if they wanted time to vacate, they may approach the High Court with such a request. The Supreme Court also directed that the High Court shall "ensure that all its directions are scrupulously complied with. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Necessary legal action shall also be taken against the wrongdoers and erring officials if any." Before the High Court, there was a batch of petitions. There were more than two categories of petitions, the High Court said. There were petitions filed by purchasers/members of the Willingdon View Cooperative Housing Society Limited, who intended to defend the illegal constructions under the garb of regularisation. There was also a writ petition filed by Sunil B. Jhaveri H.U.F., who assailed several illegalities, including the lack of an Occupancy Certificate for floors 17 to 34 and the lack of a Fire NOC, rendering the building illegal. The High Court expressed its reservations about people occupying even floors 1 to 16 but had stayed BMC's hands in resorting to any demolition under its notices for illegal constructions and posted the issue of the first 16 floors for further hearing on July 29. The High Court order noted that BMC had for years been attempting to take legal actions against these illegalities. "There being no fire NOC, no Occupancy Certificate for floors 17 to 34, itself is glaring. It appears that the persons who are occupying the 34-storey building are least bothered about their own lives. If this be so, how can they be bothered about anybody else, in the event of any untoward incident of any nature taking place? Such an approach, which is wholly contrary to law, cannot be countenanced. In fact, it would set an example to perpetuate illegalities. It needs to be deprecated." What the High Court said: All the occupants or society members who are illegally occupying floors 17 to 34 are required to vacate their respective premises, and in the event they fail to vacate, the Municipal Corporation needs to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law to get the tenements vacated. We would be justified to say that in the present facts, the flat purchasers who have taken the law into their own hands in occupying construction which has no Occupancy Certificate are a selfish lot, who not only with open eyes are acting contrary to the building regulations but also have means to defeat legal actions being taken by the Municipal Corporation by indulging in several statutory violations, which can never be permitted. — Bombay High Court Justices Girish Kulkarni and Arif Doctor
