The Bombay High Court on Wednesday allowed Adani Cementation Limited to cut 158 mangrove trees for its jetty project along the Amba River in Raigad district.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre emphasized that while the project aligns with the company's commercial interests, it should not lead to significant depletion of natural resources.
The Court also underscored the importance of implementing compensatory measures to mitigate the project's environmental impact.
“By ensuring that any activity though aimed as a commercial activity do not deplete the available natural resources and even if it does so, in any minimised way, by ensuring that its loss is compensated, by considering that all the statutory permissions have been secured by the Petitioner and with the requisite compliances to be ensured at every level, when the necessary permissions were granted, we are convinced that the Project propounded by the Petitioner deserve our 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," the Court said.
Adani Cementation Limited, a subsidiary of the Adani Group, had petitioned the Bombay High Court to direct the relevant authorities to approve its construction of a captive berthing jetty, conveyor corridor, and approach road along the Amba River in Raigad.
The ₹172 crore project, the Court was informed, would impact 158 mangrove trees and shrubs. The company argued that the project is essential to meet the growing cement demand in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region, with the jetty enabling the transportation of cement, clinker, and other raw materials via waterways.
Adani Cementation had already secured multiple 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 by these authorities, such as minimizing mangrove cutting, using enclosed belt conveyors to prevent spillage, and ensuring sustainable development practices.
However, the Bombay Environmental Action Group (BEAG) opposed the project, arguing that the jetty was primarily for industrial use, with limited public benefits. BEAG raised concerns about the project's impact on CRZ-IA areas (ecologically sensitive coastal zones) and the destruction of mangrove habitats. The group contended that a private, profit-driven venture should not proceed at the cost of environmental degradation.
While acknowledging that the project primarily serves industrial interests, the Court observed that it could also have public benefits, such as reducing road traffic congestion and lowering carbon emissions. It took note of the company’s commitment to compensatory afforestation, including replanting mangroves at a higher ratio than those removed, and its in-principle approval for forest land diversion.
The Court further emphasized the detailed environmental studies submitted by Adani, including an assessment of the area's hydrological conditions and their impact on mangrove growth.
“In light of the aforesaid, by keeping in mind the goal of sustainable development of striking a balance between the necessity of the Project, which aims at meeting the every increasing need of cement, but at the same time, by not compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, it is necessary to ensure that the Project results into minimum damage to the environment/ecology, and, the natural resources, particularly when the entire planet is coping up with the crisis of climate change, bio-diversity and pollution."
The Court concluded that the environmental and regulatory clearances secured by Adani Cementation were comprehensive and included safeguards to minimize harm to mangrove ecosystems and other environmental resources. Consequently, it allowed the company’s plea, subject to its representative filing an affidavit within two weeks, undertaking to comply with all conditions set by the relevant regulatory authorities.
Senior Advocate Vikram Nankani, along with Advocates Pranav Narsaria, Rohan Dakshini, Shweta Jaydev, and Feroza Bharucha, instructed by Rashmikant & Partners, represented Adani Cementation.
Advocates YR Mishra and Shailendra Mishra appeared for the Union of India.
Advocate Jaya Bagwe represented the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority.
Government Pleader Neha Bhide, along with Additional Government Pleaders OA Chandurkar and GR Raghuwanshi, appeared for the State.
Advocate Rakesh L Singh, instructed by MV Kini & Co, represented the Maharashtra Maritime Board.
Advocate Aditya Mehta, along with Advocates Viloma Shah, Deepali Bagla, and Ativ Patel, instructed by AVP Partners, appeared for BEAG.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy