- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Bombay HC dismisses PIL challenging BMC’s decision to sever 2646 trees in Aarey
[ By Bobby Anthony ]A bench of Bombay High Court Justices Bharati Dangre and Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog dismissed all Public Interest Litigations filed by Vanashakti – a Non Government Organization to declare Aarey a forest. A petition challenging the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s (BMC) decision to sever 2,646 trees for the construction of a Metro Car Shed at Aarey was...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
A bench of Bombay High Court Justices Bharati Dangre and Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog dismissed all Public Interest Litigations filed by Vanashakti – a Non Government Organization to declare Aarey a forest. A petition challenging the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s (BMC) decision to sever 2,646 trees for the construction of a Metro Car Shed at Aarey was also dismissed.
The Development Plan for the construction of the Metro Car Shed showed reservation of 33 hectare land as reserved for the same.
The petitioners had pleaded that Aarey is contiguous to the Sanjay Gandhi National Park and has a natural tree cover, most of which is forest species and the area is rich in biodiversity. The Petitioners pleaded that the land comprised in Aarey Colony needs to be declared as a reserved or a protected forest.
The Maharashtra government claimed that Aarey colony cannot be termed a forest and that the issue has been already decided by another Bombay High Court bench. Moreover, the issue as to whether Aarey Milk Colony is liable to be declared as an eco-sensitive zone is still pending consideration before the National Green Tribunal. Also a Special Leave Petition is pending before the Supreme Court of India.
The Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) and the BMC, in their affidavits in response to Bathena's plea, said the petition was stalling a public transport project which is in larger public interest and a vital public infrastructure.
The High Court of Bombay dismissed the petition on the grounds of commonality and not on the grounds of merit.
The bench further imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on Shiv Sena corporator Yashwant Jadhav — a member of the tree authority of BMC — who had filed a plea against the approval granted by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s tree authority.