Case: Bombay Environmental Action Group Vs. State of Maharashtra

review in a matter and project of the instant nature. He contended that the Courts jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was not unlimited. If the Court found that the concerned Government authorities, both at the Centre and State level, have applied their minds to the relevant facts and circumstances and that there are no extraneous considerations weighing with the authorities, then, in the absence of mala fides or ulterior motive, it was not open to the Court to revoke the executive and / or administrative decisions merely and only because another view of the matter may also perhaps be a possible view. He contended that all the objections were duly considered. Indeed, the matter was even reconsidered in the light of subsequent representations. He emphasised that there was no allegation of any ulterior motive or any mala fides. In a matter such as this involving diverse pros and cons, technical and otherwise, the Courts should be extremely slow to interfere unless inevitable.15. Mr. Andhyarujina invited our attention to the Supreme Court ruling in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 359 and in particular to the following observations at page 363 :--"It is for the Government and the Nation and not for the Court to decide whether the deposits should be exploited at the cost of ecology and environmental considerations or the industrial requirement should be otherwise satisfied. It may be perhaps possible to exercise greater control and vigil over the operation and strike a balance between preservation and utilisation. That would indeed be a matter for an expert body to examine and on the basis of appropriate advice, Government should take a policy decision and firmly implement the same."Reference was also made to yet another Supreme Court ruling viz. Shri Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1109 and in particular to the following observations therein :"The question raised in the present case is whether the Government of West Bengal has shown such lack of awareness of the problem of environment in making an allotment of land for the construction of a Five Star Hotel at the expense of the zoological garden that it warrants interference by this Court. Obviously, if the Government is alive to the various considerations requiring thought and deliberation and has arrived at a conscious decision after taking them into account, it may not be for this Court to interfere in the absence of mala fides."16. The, petitioners, as public spirited organisations and citizens, have, through their respective Counsel, done their duty by invoking this Courts writ jurisdiction and placing before us all such facts and circumstances as considered best by them. We in our turn, have done our duty by carefully examining all the facts and circumstances in the context of the rival contentions advanced before us on either side. In the course of this elaborate exercise and at every stage of the judicial process, we have kept asking ourselves the question -- Have the authorities shown such lack of awareness or have they been so oblivious of the needs of environment as to warrant Courts interference We do not think so. On the contrary, considerable though deliberation, consultation and application of mind by all concerned authorities and experts has gone into the decision making process. We find on the part of the authorities, and experts all the seriousness while considering and deciding upon the varied factors and circumstances including environment in relation to this project. The indepth analysis, the conditions imposed and the precautions taken inspire Courts confidence and, if, at the end of it all, the Court finds that a very conscious decision has been taken in the light of all possible pros and cons, it would then not interfere. The decision of the authorities cannot be said to be arbitrary or capricious or one not in good faith or actuated by improper motive or extraneous considerations.17. Environmental issues are relevant and deserve serious consideration. But the needs of the environment require to be balanced with the needs of the community at large and the needs of a developing country. If one finds, as in this case, that all possible environmental safe-guards have been taken, the check and control by way of judicial review should then come to an end. Once an elaborate and extensive exercise by all concerned including the invironmentalists, the State and the Central authorities and expert-bodies is undertaken and effected and its end result judicially considered and reviewed, the matter thereafter should in all fairness stand concluded. Endless arguments, endless reviews and endless litigation in a matter such as this, can carry one to no end and may as well turn counter productive. While public interest litigation is a welcome development, there are nevertheless limits beyond which it may as well cease to be in public interest any further.18. We hope the controvercy will at least now be set at rest and the erstwhile spirit of confrontation replaced by a spirit of cooperation in the larger interests of the community. Qua a project such as this, if steps are not taken well in time, this metropolis and its over twelve million inhabitants by now, will in the near future find themselves be set with serious energy crisis, perforce compelling this vast population to live without adequate power and energy which, in this age and times, has become basic for a minimum standard of life and living. It is, in our considered view, in nobodys interest to inordinately delay this project of immense benefit. As it is, it has stood delayed inter alia as a result of this litigation. Any further delay would result in speedily rising costs as also loss of valuable time. The cost escalation itself would run into crores every year.We may not be hoping against hope in expecting the environmentalists as good citizens to appreciate the over-all position and accept this as final curtain on this litigation by way of this judgment.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]6. On the first contention supra, we find that the Ministry of Environment and Forest has carefully applied its mind to the relevant guidelines and there was nothing in the memorandum dated 29th March 1989 to suggest that the clearance from environmental angle was in violation of these guidelines. Moreover, this is not a case of any blanket or arbitrary permission de hors any terms or conditions. In fact, as many as fifteen stringent conditions have been imposed. Several expert authorities, both of the State and the Central Governments, have also applied their minds to the relevant factors including the factor of preservation of ecological balance. The following authorities have given their approval to the project from the environmental angle :Government of Maharashtra;State Appraisal Committee;c) Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest;d) Maharashtra Pollution Control Board;e) Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources, Central Water and Power Research Station;f) Indian Institute of Tropical Meterology;g) World Bank Environmental Review AideThe company had appointed Tata Consulting Engineers to investigate and find suitable sites, carry outstudies and prepare a feasibility report. About nine sites were investigated; eight of these had to be discarded ongrounds such as nearness to habitation, use of scarce irrigation water resource for agricultural use, large township nearby, drastically curtailing irrigated lands and land; used for agricultural cultivation, transmission lines traversing through forest area involving deforestation. Out of nine sites, only Bassein site was found to be viable but this also had to be given up as it fell within the BMRDA area. Ultimately Dahanu site was approved both by the Central and State Governments stipulating several stringent term and conditions. Why Dahanu was approved is also clearly set out in the affidavit of both Pinge and Ziradkar. We also have the very detail chart prepared by the company dealing with and giving point by point reply to the report of the appraisal committee. We also have the exhaustive office memorandum of 26th June 1990. Experts in the field have also taken relevant factors into consideration before approving the present site. We have gone though the entire material placed before us. Considering the same, we are unable to take a contrary view of the matter. In our opinion, the decision consciously reached and taken by the experts as also the State and to Central Government is well justified and does not warrant interference. The first contention thus fails and is rejected.Apart from the above, we also have the notification dated 27th July 1990 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests in the exercise of powers conferred by(1), read with clause (v) of(2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (Act No. 29 of 1986). Under the said notification, there are certain prohibited activities as against permissible activities within the Coastal Regulation zone. Under para 3(2)(iii) thereof, thermal power plant is permissible but subject to the clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. The State Government as well as the company have confirmed that 500 meters distance from high tide level will be maintained. The State Government has further informed the Central Government that it has issued instructions to the company that it should strictly follow guideline regarding prohibition for locating structures within 500 meters of high tide line either on the creek side or on the beach side. In order to avoid all controversy, the company agreed to shift the location of the power station so as to keep 500 meters distance from all sides. The plan and the map in this behalf was also shown to us and we have no reason to doubt that the company will not act accordingly. With the increasing economic activity coupled with increasing demand for fresh water for domestic, industry and irrigation purposes, there is considerable strain on fresh water resources. It has, therefore, become necessary to locate thermal power plant in coastal area where sea water can be utilised for cooling purposes. The requirement of maintaining distance of 500 meters from high tide line is, however, ensured. We are satisfied that the two Central Government memoranda viz., one of March 1989 and the other of June 1990 and the conditions imposed ensure compliance with the requisite precautions. This contentions also, therefore, fails and isNo. (vi) in the office memorandum dated 29th March 1989 of the Central Government is as under :"The temperature of the water coming out of the condenser should not exceed 50C at the point of discharge."Going through and considering the affidavit of Pinge, we are satisfied that elaborate arrangements would be made for cooling the water that is discharged into the creek. The opinion of the expert body viz.; the Khadakvasla Research Station, vide its letter dated 21st May 1990 shows thus :"As regards the dispersion of the hot water in the creek, mathematical model studies carried out and given in our interim report show that with the assumption made, and with the temperature of 5 degree C above ambient at the proposed outfall point, the temperatures at all points downstream of the outfall (towards the intake) would drop to less than 3 degree C outside the mixing zone under all tidal conditions and stages."The respondents rightly placed reliance also on the letter dated 8th November 1988 issued by the Indian Institute of Tropical Metereology. Moreover, we have, in addition, the office memorandum dated 26th June 1990 which on this aspectlarger availability of power by setting up this plant will result in availability of power for running the irrigation pumps, etc. in the region which in turn will help greater agricultural and horticulture productivity. This will improve the potential for resource generation for the people of the area, instead of adversely affecting as predicted by the petitioners."In all the circumstances, we find the petitioners apprehension more imaginary than real. This contention also thus fails.13. We also find no merit in the contention relating to a possible breach of the assurance on no industrial development in Dahanu Zone. The letter dated 24th September 1988 by the Environment Department of the State Government to the Director of Industries, Government of Maharashtra, ensures in para 3 thereof as underYou are, therefore,Not to sponsor any organised industrial estates or even private industrial estate in Dahanu Taluka in order to keep cultural heritage of the area and also maintain horticulture status of the area.ii) Not to allow to come up small scale industries and middle scale industries of hazardous types which are likely to cause water, air or soil pollution."Reference may also be made to conditions Nos. (x), (xii) and (xv) in the Central Governments memorandum dated 29th March 1989 which read as under :"(x) In order to prevent any deleterious effect in future the State Government has agreed that chemical or other polluting industries will not be allowed to come up in Dahanu Taluka. Having regard to the cultural heritage and horticultural status of the area and for protection of the system, the State Government has agreed not to sponsor any organised industrial estate or encourage private industries in Dahanu Taluka. Necessary orders in this regard will be issued by the State Government and communicated to this Department.(xii) A green belt of adequate density and width must be created all around the proposed plant.(xv) No further expansion of the plant at the site will be permitted."We see no good reason to entertain any doubt that these assurances will not be adhered to. It will also not be fair to start with suspicion and doubt about the future. We feel confident that the assurances given and the conditions imposed will be duly adhered to.The, petitioners, as public spirited organisations and citizens, have, through their respective Counsel, done their duty by invoking this Courts writ jurisdiction and placing before us all such facts and circumstances as considered best by them. We in our turn, have done our duty by carefully examining all the facts and circumstances in the context of the rival contentions advanced before us on either side. In the course of this elaborate exercise and at every stage of the judicial process, we have kept asking ourselves thethe authorities shown such lack of awareness or have they been so oblivious of the needs of environment as to warrant Courts interference We do not think so. On the contrary, considerable though deliberation, consultation and application of mind by all concerned authorities and experts has gone into the decision making process. We find on the part of the authorities, and experts all the seriousness while considering and deciding upon the varied factors and circumstances including environment in relation to this project. The indepth analysis, the conditions imposed and the precautions taken inspire Courts confidence and, if, at the end of it all, the Court finds that a very conscious decision has been taken in the light of all possible pros and cons, it would then not interfere. The decision of the authorities cannot be said to be arbitrary or capricious or one not in good faith or actuated by improper motive or extraneous considerations.17. Environmental issues are relevant and deserve serious consideration. But the needs of the environment require to be balanced with the needs of the community at large and the needs of a developing country. If one finds, as in this case, that all possible environmentalhave been taken, the check and control by way of judicial review should then come to an end. Once an elaborate and extensive exercise by all concerned including the invironmentalists, the State and the Central authorities andis undertaken and effected and its end result judicially considered and reviewed, the matter thereafter should in all fairness stand concluded. Endless arguments, endless reviews and endless litigation in a matter such as this, can carry one to no end and may as well turn counter productive. While public interest litigation is a welcome development, there are nevertheless limits beyond which it may as well cease to be in public interest any further.18. We hope the controvercy will at least now be set at rest and the erstwhile spirit of confrontation replaced by a spirit of cooperation in the larger interests of the community. Qua a project such as this, if steps are not taken well in time, this metropolis and its over twelve million inhabitants by now, will in the near future find themselves be set with serious energy crisis, perforce compelling this vast population to live without adequate power and energy which, in this age and times, has become basic for a minimum standard of life and living. It is, in our considered view, in nobodys interest to inordinately delay this project of immense benefit. As it is, it has stood delayed inter alia as a result of this litigation. Any further delay would result in speedily rising costs as also loss of valuable time. The cost escalation itself would run into crores every year.We may not be hoping against hope in expecting the environmentalists as good citizens to appreciate theposition and accept this as final curtain on this litigation by way of this judgment.