The Bombay High Court permitted Adani Cement to cut 158 mangrove trees for jetty construction. The decision was made after considering the project requirements. However, the court emphasized the need for compensatory measures. Steps must be taken to reduce environmental damage caused by the tree cutting.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court granted Adani Cementation Limited permission to cut down 158 mangrove trees for its jetty project along the Amba River in Raigad district.
A bench led by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre emphasized that while the project serves the commercial interests of the company, it should not lead to significant depletion of natural resources.
The court also highlighted the necessity for compensatory measures to mitigate the environmental impact of the project.
Also Read: Adani Group Led by Gautam Adani Appoints Top US Law Firms for Indictment Case Defence
The Court stated,
“By ensuring that any activity aimed at commercial purposes does not deplete available natural resources, and if it does, to minimize such depletion while ensuring compensation, we are convinced that the project deserves our approval. However, this is conditional upon the petitioner complying with the conditions imposed by various statutory authorities.”
Adani Cementation, part of the Adani Group, had petitioned the High Court to secure approval for constructing a captive berthing jetty, conveyor corridor, and approach road along the Amba River.
The Rs.172 crore project is intended to meet the increasing demand for cement in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region by facilitating the transportation of cement, clinker, and other raw materials via waterways.
The company already secured several necessary clearances, including a Letter of Intent from the Maharashtra Maritime Board, CRZ clearance from the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA), and environmental and forest clearances from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEFCC).
The court noted that the company had complied with the conditions set forth by these authorities, such as minimizing mangrove removal, using enclosed belt conveyors to prevent spillage, and ensuring sustainable development.
However, the Bombay Environmental Action Group (BEAG) opposed the project, arguing that it was primarily for industrial use with public benefits being secondary. BEAG contended that the proposed jetty would harm ecologically sensitive coastal zones, particularly the mangrove habitats at the site. They asserted that the project, driven by private profit, should not proceed at the expense of the environment.
The court acknowledged that, despite the project’s industrial focus, it could provide public benefits by alleviating road traffic congestion and reducing carbon emissions. It also recognized Adani’s commitment to compensatory afforestation, including replanting mangroves at a higher ratio than those removed, and noted that the company had received in-principle approval for the diversion of forest land.
The court highlighted the comprehensive environmental studies submitted by Adani, which included assessments of the area’s hydrological conditions and their impact on mangrove growth.
The court stated,
“In light of the above, it is essential to balance the project’s necessity, which aims to meet the increasing demand for cement, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,”
Ultimately, the court concluded that the environmental and regulatory clearances obtained by Adani Cementation included measures to minimize harm to mangrove ecosystems and other environmental resources.
It allowed the company’s request, contingent upon the submission of an affidavit within two weeks confirming compliance with all conditions set by various regulatory authorities.
Senior Advocate Vikram Nankani, along with Advocates Pranav Narsaria, Rohan Dakshini, Shweta Jaydev, and Feroza Bharucha, represented Adani Cementation.
Advocates Y.R. Mishra and Shailendra Mishra appeared for the Union of India, while Advocate Jaya Bagwe represented the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority. Government Pleader Neha Bhide, along with Additional Government Pleaders O.A. Chandurkar and G.R. Raghuwanshi, represented the State.
Advocate Rakesh L. Singh, instructed by M.V. Kini & Co, represented the Maharashtra Maritime Board, and Advocate Aditya Mehta, along with Advocates Viloma Shah, Deepali Bagla, and Ativ Patel, represented BEAG.
Case Title: Adani Cementation v. Union of India
Read Attachment