The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on a petition filed by the National Fishworkers Forum challenging the Bombay High Court’s refusal to interfere with permissions granted for mangrove diversion and forest clearance for the road connectivity component of the Vadavan Port Project in Maharashtra.
During the hearing, counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the environmental approvals for the integrated port project, including its road and rail connectivity, were granted on the express representation that no mangroves would be cut and no forest clearance would be required. According to the petitioner, after obtaining those approvals, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), acting on behalf of the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority (JNPA), subsequently sought separate forest and mangrove clearances for the road project, proposing the diversion of approximately 9 hectares of mangroves.
Explaining the challenge, counsel argued that the road connectivity could not be treated as an independent project while simultaneously relying upon the composite environmental and Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearances obtained for the port project.
“
“A composite environmental clearance and a composite CRZ clearance were obtained for the entire project, including the road and rail connectivity, on the categorical representation that there would be no forest clearance and no destruction of mangroves. After securing those approvals, NHAI independently sought clearance for the road project stating that forest and mangrove clearance were now required. If it is truly an independent project, then it must obtain its own environmental clearance and its own CRZ clearance. They cannot rely upon a clearance founded on the representation that no mangroves would be affected.”
The petitioner further submitted that the project proponent had identified five alternative alignments during the environmental appraisal process, each of which avoided forest land and mangroves. It was argued that the authorities nevertheless proceeded with an alignment involving mangrove diversion despite the availability of environmentally less damaging alternatives.
Counsel also questioned the Bombay High Court’s reliance on a letter issued by a Deputy Conservator of Forests treating the road as an independent project.
“
“The High Court proceeds entirely on a letter obtained from a Deputy Conservator of Forests just two days before the petition was filed, treating the road as an independent project. But if it is an independent project, it requires its own environmental clearance and its own CRZ clearance. Otherwise, this judgment will become a template for future clearances, including the railway alignment. We are not against development; we are only saying that authorities and courts cannot be misled.”
The Bench observed that the issues requiring consideration would be confined to compensatory afforestation and the expert assessment of environmental damage, while directing that notice be issued in the matter.