IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 196 OF 2006 with CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 349 OF 2006 with CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 358 OF 2006 with CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 360 OF 2006 with CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 361 OF 2006 with CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 362 OF 2006 with CHAMBER SUMMONS Nos. 363 OF 2006 with CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 18 OF 2007 in WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 87 OF 2006 Bombay Environmental Action Group & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents And M/s. Goodwill Developers Sai Ganesh Coop Society M/s Bhuvan Developers M/s Dharati Corporation M/s Alpha Developers Palak Enterprises M/s Shivshradha Developers ... Applicants Mr. V.M. Thorat for the applicants in support. Mr. N.H. Seervai, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Gautam Patel, and Mr Jagtiyani instructed by M/s. M.V. Jayakar & Company, for the petitioners to show cause. Mr. R.M. Kadam, Advocate General, with Mr. K.R. Belosay, Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1,5, 5A and 9 to show cause. Mr. Rajiv Chavan for respondent No.2 to show cause. Mr. R.V. Govilkar for respondent No.3 to show cause. Mr. K.K. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, with Mrs. Shobha Ajitkumar, for respondent No.4 to show cause. CORAM: H.L. GOKHALE, Ag. C.J., & V.M. KANADE, J. DATE: JANUARY 24, 2007. P.C. All these Chamber Summons are taken out by the societies/developers of societies which are aggrieved by the order passed by the Division Bench in PIL 87 of 2004 dated 6th October 2005 as well as the stop work notices issued by the planning authority. The parties of these cases are as follows: C.S. Date of allotment date on which plan date of stop work no of plot to the society was sanctioned notice 196/06 23.9.2005 31.10.2005 31.5.2006 349/06 1.10.2003 15.3.2005 15.4.2006 358/06 12.6.2004 27.12.2005 12.5.2006 360/06 27.8.2003 26.10.2005 12.5.2006 361/06 Nov. 2004 7.4.2005 12.5.2006 362/06 July 2003 Dec. 2004 12.5.2006 363/06 Oct. 2003 Oct. 2003 27.5.2006 18/07 Dec. 2003 January 2005 17.12.2006 2. From amongst all these matters as far as first two societies i.e. Chamber Summons Nos. 196 and 349 of 2006 are concerned the planning authority is the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation. As far as the others concerned they are situated at village Kamothe which falls in CIDCO area and not within the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation limits. The case of the applicants is that their buildings were permitted by the concerned planning authority and on the date on which this court passed the order dated 6th October 2005 neither the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation nor CIDCO were party to the petition. It is therefore, submitted that the applicants should not be made to suffer the injunction which this court has passed. 3. On the other hand it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the order passed by this court dated 6th October 2005 was an order to protect mangroves not merely in the area covering Navi Mumbai but it was specifically to protect mangroves in the entire State of Maharashtra. A reference is also made in paragraph 8(i) of that order which clearly states that there shall be a total freeze on the destruction and cutting of mangroves in the entire State of Maharashtra . In fact if we look at the entire order it clearly refers to the coastal area of the entire State including its creek and mangroves abutting thereof. The submission of the petitioners is that though the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation was joined subsequently the order was clearly understood to have passed with respect to coastal area in the State. The State was expected to inform all the bodies which were concerned and the order passed by the court ought not to be permitted to be defeated on such ground. As far as the various buildings which are being put up are concerned it is submitted that the construction in the cases of three out of eight matters i.e. in Chamber Summons Nos 196 of 2006, 358 of 2006 and 360 of 2006 have been started subsequent to the order passed on 6th October 2005. There is a serious dispute as to whether there were mangroves in those areas and it is difficult to arrive at a prima facie determination at this stage. Stop work notices have been issued long back and time is taken to take out Chamber Summons by the applicants concerned. In the circumstances it will not be proper to vacate the injunction as far as these societies are concerned as prayed by them. 4. We accordingly permit the applicants to intervene in the petition. Parties may file their reply and rejoinder if any. However, all the Chamber Summons will be heard along with the main petition as and when it is heard. All the Chamber Summons are accordingly disposed of. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE V.M. KANADE, J.