Bombay High Court: In the present case, the petitioner-Adani Cementation Ltd. approached this Court seeking issuance of writ of mandamus or any other writ/order or direction, directing the respondents/authorities to permit it to carry out the work of construction of a berthing/captive jetty to facilitate transportation of cement, clinker, and other raw material through waterways along with a conveyor corridor and an approach Road to the proposed cement grinding and fly ash/slag processing unit, a backup storage unit in Shahapur and Shahabaz in Raigad for meeting the increasing need for cement of Mumbai Metropolitan Region. The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, C.J., and Bharati Dangre*, J., granted the requisite permission of cutting down a total number of 158 mangrove trees and shrubs to set up a cement manufacturing unit along Amba River in Shahapur and Shahabaz Taluka in Raigad District, as the requisite statutory permissions were granted in favour of the Project, subject to strict compliance of the conditions ensuring protection of ecology and environment.
Background
Adani Cementation Ltd., a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, was a part of the Adani Group. It submitted that after considering the increasing demand for cement, which was an essential ingredient for modern construction and infrastructural development and its demand in Mumbai Metropolitan Region, for the infrastructure projects such as Mumbai Metro, Navi Mumbai International Airport, Coastal Road Project, and other development works, the present petition stated that around 75% of the current demand of cement was being met through production units in Kalburgi, Karnataka and Vidarbha, Maharashtra.
It was submitted that as the production units were situated around 500 and 900 kms away from Mumbai and the cement was transported through roadways and railways, it not only led to heavy congestion of roads, but left a big carbon footprint behind. Thus, the petitioner desired to set up a project envisaging a step in the right direction to meet a substantial part of Mumbai’s cement need through waterways. Regarding the same, the petitioner stated that the Maharashtra Maritime Board through its Policy formulated in 2016, encouraged setting up of Ports and Jettys to encourage transport via seaways for industrial and economic development and as per the said Policy, the berthing jetty was permitted to be used by third parties identified by the Maritime Board.
Thus, the petitioner wanted to set up a cement manufacturing unit along Amba River in Shahapur and Shahabaz Taluka in Raigad District, intending to reduce the carbon footprint in consonance with India’s pledge in Paris Agreement. The petitioner stated that the said Project would help in reducing the overall pollution and would also accelerate the infrastructure development in Mumbai, and hence it was in larger public interest. Further, the Project would also help in reducing the waste from crop-residue, as the same shall be collected from nearby farms and used as alternate fuel/bio fuel in the cement plant, which would create an additional source of income for the farmers and prevent them from burning the crop residue, thus reducing environmental pollution.
It was prayed that to give effect to the said Project, 158 mangrove trees and shrubs would be affected, and the estimated total cost of the project was around Rs 172 Crore. The petitioner acquired various clearances and permissions for carrying out the said project, since it affected the mangroves and thus, the present petition was filed before this Court seeking necessary directions to give effect to the lawful, valid, and subsisting permissions/clearances granted by the Statutory Authorities concerned for executing the said Project.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court after exhaustive deliberation stated that transporting cement through sea or inland waterways instead of road, would achieve the object of easing congestion on roads and help in the reduction of carbon emission by more than 60%. The Court noted that in the 149th Meeting, the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (‘MCZMA’) stated that transportation of cement via sea/creek was comparatively more fuel efficient and was a green option than transporting it via road/railway, particularly with respect to curbing of carbon emission and decongestion of road traffic.
The Court rejected the contention by Respondent 9, the Bombay Environmental Action Group that the Project was not in public interest and there was an alleged discrepancy regarding the land used/covered by the Project site under CRZ IA (mangrove forest).
The Court noted that the report prepared by Aditya Environmental Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai regarding the “Characteristics of mangrove vegetation and its conservation and management plan with respect to the proposed development of ‘Berthing Jetty, Conveyor Corridor with backup storage facility and approach Road’”, was inclusive of the Mangrove Management and Conservation Plan for construction phase and for operation phase as it provided for compensatory afforestation since destruction of the Mangroves could cause sizable effect on eco system. The Court further noted that the compensatory mangrove afforestation was, therefore, recommended, as per the CRZ Notification 2011, which was at least 5 times the number of mangroves destroyed/cut during the construction process to be replanted in consultation with the Forest Department.
The Court held that it found no difficulty in granting the requisite permission as the requisite statutory permissions were granted in favour of the Project, subject to strict compliance of the conditions ensuring protection of ecology and environment.
The Court opined that after keeping in mind the goal of sustainable development of striking a balance between the necessity of the Project, which aimed at meeting the ever increasing need of cement, by not compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, it was necessary to ensure that the Project resulted in minimum damage to the environment/ecology, and the natural resources, particularly when the entire planet was coping up with the crisis of climate change, biodiversity and pollution.
The Court stated that by ensuring that any activity though aimed as a commercial activity did not deplete the available natural resources and even if it did so, in any minimized way, by ensuring that its loss was compensated, by considering that all the statutory permissions had been secured by the petitioner and with the requisite compliances to be ensured at every level, when the necessary permissions were granted, and thus opined that the Project propounded by the petitioner deserved approval, but it shall be subject to the condition that the petitioner shall ensure compliance of the conditions imposed upon it by various statutory authorities.
Thus, the Court allowed the petition and directed the authorized representative of the petitioner to file an affidavit before this Court within a period of two weeks stating that it shall ensure compliance of the conditions stipulated in the approvals/permissions granted by various authorities, including Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and MCZMA.
[Adani Cementation Ltd. v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 2674 of 2024, decided on 5-3-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Bharati Dangre
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate a/w Pranav Narsaria, Rohan Dakshini, Shweta Jaydev and Feroza Bharucha i/b Rashmikant & Partners for the Petitioner.
For the Respondents: Y.R. Mishra a/w Shailendra Mishra for Respondent 1; Jaya Bagwe for Respondent 2-MCZMA; Neha Bhide, GP a/w O.A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP and G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for Respondents 3 to 6 and 8; Rakesh L. Singh i/b M.V. Kini & Co. for Respondent 7-MMB; Aditya Mehta a/w Viloma Shah, Deepali Bagla and Ativ Patel i/b AVP Partners for Respondent 9.