HC quashes, sets aside lower court order on pollution at Worli Seaface

Justice Mridula Bhatkar on Thursday said that if there is air or noise pollution, it has to be controlled by monitoring PUC (Pollution Under Control) certification and honking by vehicles.

The HC was hearing petitions filed by R L Mopalwar, vice-chairman & managing director of MSRDC; two engineers of MSRDC; two officials of the environment department and the MPCB, challenging the March 8, 2018 order passed by the metropolitan magistrate at Dadar, issuing process under Environment (Protection) Act, Environment (Protection) Rules and Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules, 2000.

A person named Dileep Nivetia had moved the Bombay High Court alleging that after the inauguration of the Bandra Worli Sea Link (BWSL) project, nearly 45,000 additional vehicles had started plying daily on the road against the earlier 3,000 to 5,000 vehicles. He claimed that this was leading to an abnormal increase in air and noise pollution levels. Nivetia also alleged that the level of air pollution is beyond the National Ambient Air Quality Standard norms issued by the Central Pollution Control Board.

While hearing Nivetia’s complaint, the HC had directed him to move the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The NGT, in turn, directed the government to ensure that noise and air pollution levels do not exceed the permissible limits.

Maintaining that there has been no change in noise and air pollution levels even after giving prerequisite notice to all the parties, Nivetia lodged a private complaint before the metropolitan magistrate. During the hearing, Nivetia informed the court that the NGT had opined that “it is desirable that separate bodies discuss the issues with the applicant (Nivetia) by way of amicable settlement”. The magistrate court held that “there is sufficient material to proceed with the complaint…” and went on to issue process against the petitioners.

Following this, the accused moved the HC, seeking quashing of the metropolitan magistrate’s order.

Senior counsel Daraius Khambatta, appearing for MSRDC and Mopalwar, argued that the magistrate court’s order is “bad in law”, as the complaint and the documents relied upon do not disclose any offence committed by the accused. Nivetia, meanwhile, told the court: “The government authorities and officers/accused working in those departments had no inclination to take remedial measures to prevent environment pollution caused by BWSL in Worli Seaface.”

Following this, the court said, “Undoubtedly, it is the duty of the government or their officers to maintain ecological balance and ensure pollution free city for the citizens. However, it is necessary for the complainant to show specific incidents of such air or noise pollution…”

“The high court not only has supervisory powers to stop the abuse of powers but is required to use its powers to do the justice and stop unnecessary criminal litigations when no specific offence is made out,” Justice Bhatkar observed. She added: “I appreciate the efforts taken by the respondent/original complainant (Nivetia) for maintaining the ecological balance of this fully crowded city. Though the process is quashed… the mission taken by the complainant to fight against air and noise pollution cannot be underestimated.”