The Bombay High Court on Wednesday questioned the Mumbai Suburban District Collector for demolishing the crematorium of the fisherfolk at Erangal Beach in Malad (West) and wondered if the Collector, who acted without following due process of law, was "so naive" despite being aware of the laws and regulations. The court made oral observations after it was informed that the Collector Nidhi Choudhari was merely following orders of the Maharashtra State Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) to undertake demolition. A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav J Jamdar was hearing a plea by Chetan Vyas, who had challenged the construction of the allegedly unauthorised Hindu crematorium on the beach by the fishing community and had said that the same was in violation of Coastal Regulation Zone rules. On September 19, the bench observed that the “court's machinery was abused to remove the crematorium. The bench had noted that an order for inspection of the said structure was obtained through another bench in October last year when the Chief Justice was not in town, however the same intended the due procedure, including issuance of show-cause notice, be followed.” On Wednesday, after the court was told by Additional Government Pleader Abhay Patki that the collector was merely following MCZMA's order, the bench said that she could have at least informed the Authority that show-cause notice was required to be issued. The bench on Wednesday noted that in another matter, the HC had directed the same Collector to take action against structures that violated the height restrictions near the airport. The bench referred to a PIL wherein the suburban collector was asked to take action against structures around Mumbai airport that flouted height norms and said that a different approach was taken by her in that matter. “The same Collector, when asked to demolish structures facing the airport, takes a wholly different approach, saying there are difficulties to demolish. We were told that the Collector's office was not aware of whom to issue show-cause notice to and this is under order of this court. We also thought of taking the right way forward and going in accordance with law and did not take action then,” said the court. It went on to remark, "But look here (present case), she is a district collector and cannot be so naive that she cannot tell the (MCZMA) committee that fisherfolk would have to be heard first and a fact-finding inquiry has to be carried out. Being a member on that committee, you (Collector) cannot take shelter of the MCZMA order. What we expect the district collector to do is take action in accordance with law." The court also pulled up MCZMA for issuing a letter seeking action against the crematorium without due process and said, "Why should the MCZMA write all this demanding action?You could have asked them to carry out an inquiry. Is it not the duty of the MCZMA as custodian authority to first depute an officer to inquire." The bench perused a death register submitted by the BMC lawyer, which showed that the said crematorium was in existence prior to the CRZ notification of 1991 (that mandated MCZMA clearance for constructions in the CRZ area) coming into force. It noted that there were two cremations conducted there in December 25, 1990, and February 16, 1991, and the same showed it was there before the notification. The bench said it feels the court too was at fault in the present case and reserved its verdict, which will be pronounced in due course.
