Will Ease Road Congestion & Reduce Carbon Emission: Bombay High Court Permits Adani Cement To Cut Mangroves For Jetty Construction In Raigad

Observing that Adani Cement obtained requisite permissions from authorities for cutting the mangroves and it would carry out compensatory afforestation, a division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre observed “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 172 crore project connects Adani Cement's proposed cement grinding unit and fly ash/slag processing unit and backup storage unit in Shahapur and Shahabaz villages, Raigad district and covers total area of 6 hectares with the presence of mangroves in 0.6497 hectares. The jetty would be with total length of 620 meters and width of 35 meters.

In view of the judgment of the High Court in Bombay Environmental Action Group & Anr vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors (PIL No. 87 of 2006), the permission from High Court is mandatory before cutting of mangroves in the State. Adani Cement (petitioner) thus sought permission of the High Court to cut mangroves for the project.

Adani Cement submitted that considering the increasing demand for cement, particularly in Mumbai Metropolitan Region and for development works, the present demand was being met through production units in Kalburgi District in Karnataka and Vidarbha District in Maharashtra. It stated that due to the production units being far way from Mumbai, the cement is being required to be transported through roadways and railways, which leads to heavy congestion of road and leaves a big carbon footprint behind.

Adani Cement stated that it conceptualized setting up of cement manufacturing unit along Amba River an intention to reduce the carbon footprint. It stated that the jetty construction would help in reducing the overall pollution and will also accelerate the infrastructure development in Mumbai, and hence it is in larger public interest.

It stated that it received necessary permissions from Maharashtra Maritime Board, Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA), Forest Department and Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEFCC). It stated that it submitted Environmental Impact Assessment Report and Environmental Management Plan to MOEFCC. It stated that MOEFCC granted Environmental and CRZ Clearance for the project.

However, Bombay Environmental Action Group opposed the project on the ground that the jetty was not necessary for public good and public interest. It submitted that the primary use and benefit of a captive jetty would only be for Adani Cement's industrial unit and that only when it is not using the jetty, the same will be available for use by the public.

It stated that a captive infrastructural project cannot be equated with the public infrastructure project set up to cater the needs of public generally as it is designed to maximise production and profits of industrial unit. It also alleged that there was discrepancy with respect to land covered in the CRZ area.

The High Court noted that Adani Cement has obtained necessary statutory permissions for cutting mangroves.

The Court was of the view that the construction of jetty would achieve the object of easing congestion in roads and help in reduction of carbon.

“On reading of the Petition as well as the annexures appended thereto, we find exhaustive deliberation about the nature of the Project covering a jetty to be used for transporting cement through sea or inland waterways instead of road, which according to us will achieve the object of easing congestion in roads and help in reduction of carbon emission by more than 60%.”

It observed that in MCZMA's meeting, the authority noted that transportation of cement via sea/creek is comparatively more fuel efficient and is a green option than transporting it via road/railway and for decongestion of road traffic.

It noted that Adani Cement has undertaken to compensate the damage caused through the project, by paying the Net Present Value (NPV) for the diverted forest area and further carry out compensatory afforestation.

It did not agree with the Bombay Environmental Action Group's objections and remarked “The objection raised by the Bombay Environmental Action Group (BEAG) i.e. Respondent No.9 is only premised on a ground that the Project is not in public interest and there is an alleged discrepancy regarding the land used / the land covered by the Project site under CRZ IA. We are not at all impressed by the said objection, since we have the details before us which are also been taken note of by the MCZMA as well as the Forest Department and with clarity it has emerged before us that the Project covers total area of 6 HA out of which 1.2 ha falls in CRZ IA area and amongst it the presence of mangroves is only in 0.6497 HA and, therefore, only diversion of this area is sought from the Forest Department.”

In view of the above, the High Court permitted Adani Cement to cut the mangroves for the project.