logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 SC 500 print Preview print Next print
Court : Supreme Court of India
Case No : Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. of 2026) Diary No. 12005 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SURYA KANT, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Parties : Vanashakti Versus Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: ------ For the Respondents: ------
Date of Judgment : 20-03-2026
Head Note :-
(Full Bench)
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India

2. Catch Words:
- Prior permission
- Mangroves
- Compensatory afforestation
- Environmental Impact Assessment Report
- Writ of Mandamus
- CRZ Clearance
- Annual status report
- Contempt

3. Summary:
The Supreme Court entertained a Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court’s permission to cut mangroves for the Versova‑Bhayandar Coastal Road project. The High Court had granted permission subject to extensive conditions, including diversion of 103.6554 hectares of mangrove land and compensatory afforestation of an equivalent area in Chandrapur district. It also mandated yearly interim applications with audit reports and imposed contempt consequences for non‑compliance. The Supreme Court examined the High Court’s reliance on its earlier 2018 judgment and on directions from a prior case, affirming that compensatory afforestation must accompany any mangrove removal. Finding the safeguards adequate, the Court saw no ground to interfere and disposed of the appeal.

4. Conclusion:
Appeal Dismissed
Judgment :-

1. Permission to file Special Leave Petition is granted.

2. Leave granted.

3. Heard Mr. Chander Uday Singh, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation.

4. The issue pertains to the requirement of obtaining prior permission from the High Court in order to cut mangroves for the initiation of any project in the coastal area in Mumbai, as was earlier directed by the Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment dated 17.09.2018 passed in Bombay Environmental Action Group & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors (Public Interest Litigation No.87 of 2006).

5. In deference to those directions, the respondents applied to the High Court to accord prior approval for the proposed Versova-Bhayandar Coastal Road Project, which is 26.32 kms long, extending to an aggregate length of 33.40 kms inclusive of interchanges, connectors, and ancillary structures. The project cost is approximately Rs.18,263/- crores and the construction is to be completed within forty-two months i.e., by the end of March 2029.

6. There seems to be no dispute that the proposed road will benefit the general public as it will decongest the Western Express Highway, Link Road, and S.V. Road. The construction of the road will also bring several additional benefits to the residents of Mumbai, such as reduction of overall travel time, fuel consumption, and carbon dioxide emissions. The respondents obtained all the statutory permissions/consents as well as state approvals under different laws and thereafter applied to the High Court for permission in terms of the above-stated judgment. In this regard, the respondents have referred to the Environment Impact Assessment Report in terms whereof, the details of the forest land required to be diverted, the mangrove trees which were likely to be affected, etc. were laid down.

7. The High Court has, vide the impugned judgment, granted permission for the same, subject to several conditions, after taking notice of the fact that the respondents have agreed to divert 103.6554 hectares of mangrove forest land. The respondents also undertook before the High Court that an equivalent area of 103.70 hectares of non-forest land situated in Chandrapur District, within the buffer zone of the Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve (TATR), comprising Survey No.354 of village Vihirgaon, District Chandrapur, which is also contiguous to the existing forest area, shall be used for compensatory afforestation. It is in this backdrop that the High Court, after relying upon its previous decision dated 17.09.2018, has accorded necessary permission subject to the following conditions:

                   "22. In the present case, although the petitioner has paid all requisite charges and has undertaken to strictly comply with the statutory permissions and we expect that a similar situation will not recur. We clarify that all the conditions set out in paragraph 40 (IV) in "Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority v. Union of India & Ors." (Writ Petition No.3727 of 2025) shall also apply, to the extent relevant, to the present project. It is only on the basis of the express ecological commitments made and the categorical assurances furnished by the petitioner and the respondent no.4 in this petition, that both in situ mangrove plantation and the compensatory afforestation shall be carried out, protected and duly maintained, that we are inclined to grant the reliefs sought in this petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner and for the respondent nos.l to 4 jointly submitted that the said parties are also willing to comply with any additional condition that this Court may deem appropriate to ensure that the re-plantation of mangroves and compensatory afforestation achieves the intended growth and survival. To ensure that the plantation, maintenance and protection of mangroves and trees is effectively implemented, we direct the petitioner to file an interim application on a yearly basis, with comprehensive status/audit reports with affidavits signed by the petitioner, through its Municipal Commissioner, the respondent no.4 and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF), Nagpur. Such interim application shall be filed every year for the next ten years on or before 12th January and shall be automatically listed on the third Friday of January for the purposes of compliance and review. Failure to file such reports or interim application shall be treated as contempt of this Court. Subject to the outcome of the applications, this Court may impose such further directions as required. In view of the above, Writ Petition No.3790 of 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which read as under:

                   "(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thereby granting leave to the petitioner and directing the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner in terms of paragraph 87(viii) of the judgment and order dated 17th September 2018 passed by this Hon'ble Court in PIL No.87 of 2006 to execute the project of construction of Versova to Bhayandar DP Road in terms of recommendations made by Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority Specific Condition No.(iii) imposed by the respondent no.2-MCZMA in the recommendations for CRZ Clearance in its letter dated 6th September 2024 and Specific Condition No.3 imposed by the respondent no. 1 in the CRZ Clearance in view of the public importance of the subject project"

8. Though the High Court has already issued directions to submit an annual status report with respect to plantation, maintenance, and protection of mangroves and trees as a part of compulsory afforestation, we find from paragraph 21 of the impugned judgment that in another case, the High Court had directed as follows:

                   21. xx xx xx

                   "30. ...It is thus imperative that in every project where permission is granted resulting in cutting of mangroves or trees, compensatory afforestation must be carried out simultaneously, or even prior to such destruction."

                   xx xx xx

9. Since the High Court has relied upon the above-reproduced direction, it is clarified that the same shall be read as part of paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment of the High Court. The annual report to be submitted to the High Court shall contain full details of the non-forest land that has been utilized for the purpose of compensatory afforestation.

10. In view of the safeguards having been taken by the High Court, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of with pending application(s), if any.
 
  CDJLawJournal