IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO._______ OF 2019
IN
PIL NO (ST) 44 OF 2019
JYOTI CHAUDHARY … Applicant/ Intervener
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Shweta Wagh & Ors … Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. … Respondents
INDEX
Sr.
No.
Description of Documents
Page No.
1
Proforma.
2
Notice of Motion.
3
Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion.
Advocate for the Applicant/Intervener
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO._______ OF 2019
IN
PIL NO(ST) 36 OF 2019
JYOTI CHAUDHARY … Applicant/Intervener
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Shweta Wagh & Ors … Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. … Respondents
P R O F O R M A
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes. Office Memoranda of ] Court or Judge’s
Coram appearance. Court’s order or ] orders
Direction and Prothonotary’s order ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes. Office Memoranda of ] Court or Judge’s
Coram appearance. Court’s order or ] orders
Direction and Prothonotary’s order ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes. Office Memoranda of ] Court or Judge’s
Coram appearance. Court’s order or ] orders
Direction and Prothonotary’s order ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO._______ OF 2019
IN
PIL NO (ST) 44 OF 2019
JYOTI CHAUDHARY ….Applicant/Interveners
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
1. Shweta Wagh
Age 41, Occ Architech,
R/at 361 A, Laxmi Sadan, V P road
Mumbai – 400 004
2. Collective for spatial atlernatives
201, C- Wing, Baba Sadan, Co-op Society
Ratan Nagar, Four Bunglows, Andheri (W)
3. Girija Gupte
A/4, Navasamaj Nehru Road, Vile parle, Mumbai – 57
4. Pushpa Suresh Mangela
320, Juhu Mora Gaon, Mangela Wadi, JR Mahatre road
Ruia Park, Juhu, Mumbai – 400 049
5. Rajashree Prakash Bhanji
Pitruchaya Building, Dongri Galli, Nr. Vetal Mandir
Versova koliwada, Andheri (W) , Mumbai – 61
6. Jalbiradri
Through Janak Daftary
402, Arunodaya, Azad Nagar II, off Veera desai road, Andheri(W)
7. Surekha Harichandr Jawli
Jawli House, Patil Gally – 2 , Versova, Andheri (W)
8. Dr. Aruna Pendse
196, Brahman Sabha, Bulding No.2, Raja Rammohan roy road
Girgaon, Mumbai – 400 004 … Petitioner
Versus
1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
Through its Commissioner
Having office at head office, Mahapalika Marg
Opp. CST Station, Mumbai – 400 001
2. Maharashtra Costal Zone Management Authority
Through its Chairman, Environment Deparment, 2nd Floor
Room N0. 217, Annexe Building, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32
3. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary, Environment Department,
New Administrative Bhawan, Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32
4. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary, Urban Development Dept.
4th Floor, Main Building, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 0032
5. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary, Dept. of Fisheries,
Gr. Floor, Sir S R Marg, J.N Heredia rd
Ballard Estate, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001
6. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary Revenue and Forest Department
MAntralaya, Mumbai – 400 0032
7. Collector of Mumbai
Mumbai House Collectorate, Old Customs House,
Fort, Mumbai – 400 001
8. Union of India
Through its secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest
And Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jor Bagh, New Delhi – 110 003
New
and Ors. … Respondents
AND
1. Sunil Shantiswarup Gupta,
President, Save Coastal Road Campaign,
residing at Flat No.1, 3rd Floor, Mitrakung, 16,
Pedder Road, Mumbai- 400026
2. Shylaja Vijayan,
Vice President,Our Voice,
Having Office at
Office No. 7, Sagar Tower,
Sai Baba Nagar, Mira Road (E)
Thane
3. Prakash Padikkal,
President,
Borivli Commuters’ Association,
residing at _______________
4 Jyoti Chaudhary
Joint Secretary,
Save Coastal Road Campaign,
B-001, Shalibhadra Yash,
Near Yaswant Gaurav Auto Stand
Nallasopara West, District Palghar … Applicant Interveners
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this Hon'ble Court will be moved before Their Lordships, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice ______________ and Hon’ble Shri Justice ______________ on _________ the ____ day of July, 2019 at 11.00 a.m. or soon thereafter when Counsel can be heard by Counsel on behalf of the Applicants herein for the following reliefs:-
(a) that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to permit the Applicants/Petitioners to intervene in PIL (Lodging) Nos.36 and 44 of 2019; so too for recall of the order dated 1st July, 2019 by which the said PILs are reserved for pronouncement of orders and further afford the Applicants Interveners an opportunity to be heard is in the interests of justice;
(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass any other order as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.
Dated this the __ day of July, 2019.
THIS NOTICE OF MOTION is taken out ]
by Shri Amritpal Singh Khalsa, ]
having their office at ]
304, Hari Chambers, 3rd Floor, ]
58/64, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, ]
Opp. Cheetah Gate, Fort, ]
Mumbai – 400 023. ]
Advocates for the Applicants / Respondent Interveners/
To
1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
Through its Commissioner
Having office at head office, Mahapalika Marg
Opp. CST Station, Mumbai – 400 001
2. Maharashtra Costal Zone Management Authority
Through its Chairman, Environment Deparment, 2nd Floor
Room N0. 217, Annexe Building, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32
3. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary, Environment Department,
New Administrative Bhawan, Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32
4. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary, Urban Development Dept.
4th Floor, Main Building, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 0032
5. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary, Dept. of Fisheries,
Gr. Floor, Sir S R Marg, J.N Heredia rd
Ballard Estate, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001
6. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary Revenue and Forest Department
MAntralaya, Mumbai – 400 0032
7. Collector of Mumbai
Mumbai House Collectorate, Old Customs House,
Fort, Mumbai – 400 001
8. Union of India
Through its secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest
And Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jor Bagh, New Delhi – 110 003
New
and Ors.
the Respondents abovenamed.
N.B. Affidavit of Jyoti Chaudhary, Intervener/Applicant herein, solemnly affirmed on the __ day of July, 2019, will be used in support of this Notice of Motion.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO._______ OF 2019
IN
PIL NO (ST) 44 OF 2019
JYOTI CHAUDHARY … Applicant/ Intervener
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Shweta Wagh & Ors … Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. … Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Jyoti Chaudhary, aged about 42 years, Residing at B-001, Shalibhadra Yash, Near Yaswant Gaurav Auto Stand, Nallasopara (West), District Palghar, for self and on behalf of Intervener/Applicant Nos. 2 and 3, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:-
1. That I am Petitioner No.4 in the Writ Petition (L) No. 1974 of 2019 filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. I am fully acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and, hence, competent to swear this affidavit.
2. I along with Intervener/Applicant Nos 1, .2 and 3 instituted the Writ Petition (L) No 1974 of 2019 seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs:-
a) declare that the challenge to the coastal road project raised in PIL (Lodging) Nos.36 and 44 of 2019 and Others is not maintainable, for, the said project is a matter of policy which is in the exclusive domain of the executive Government and the statutory authorities like the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and that even if the said project results in violation of the fundamental rights of fisherfolks, which it does not in reality, then also it is constitutional, for, the first principle of jurisprudence is salus populi suprema lex esto – the welfare of the people is to be the highest law – and that the fundamental rights are amenable to reasonable restrictions and are not absolute;
b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Union of India, the Government of Maharashtra, the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and other statutory authorities to plant three times mangroves as already provided in the project, prevent discharge of untreated toxic waste water into the streams and creeks, provide for water treatment plants across the shore to prevent discharge of untreated toxic waste water, provide for planting of tropical trees and benevolent and fruit-bearing trees like mango trees, almond and the like all along the coastal roads in addition to the statutory requirement of planting 3 times of the mangroves destroyed in the implementation of the project;
c) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Union of India, the Government of Maharashtra, the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and other statutory authorities to pay to the fisher folks who are likely to be adversely affected substantial and meaningful compensation, even if thousands of families were to be compensated, at the rate of Rs.10,000 per family per month;
d) permit the Petitioner to cure the deficiency, if any, in the instant Writ Petition either by withdrawing this petition with liberty to file a fresh one or by amending the same;
e) pass such other order or orders, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara, counsel for the Petitioners, tendered the Writ Petition in the open Court on 28/06/2019 pointing out that the coastal road project is the dire need of the people who reside at far off suburbs and the said project is the reflection of the acceptance of their long cherished need by the executive Government; that PIL (Lodging) Nos.36 and 44 of 2019 in challenge of the coastal road project are not maintainable because the said project does not involve any lis which this Hon'ble Court could adjudicate; that the said project is a matter which falls within the exclusive domain of executive policy as to what infrastructure project is in the best interest of the citizens of Mumbai and the environment and that if it is to be assumed that the aforesaid PILs are maintainable, which certainly they are not, then the millions of citizens of Mumbai, who support the coastal road project and who are the beneficiaries thereof and whose fundamental right of commuting will be infringed, ought to be heard. Shri Nedumpara further pointed out that if the said PIL Petitioners have a right to seek a declaration that the coastal road project is illegal and unconstitutional, then a right which is akin to their right is vested in the millions of citizens of Mumbai who support the project and the Petitioners in particular for a declaration that the project is constitutional.
4. This Hon'ble Court, however, declined to take on record the Writ Petition so tendered across the Bar and directed the Petitioners to file it in the Registry. It was accordingly instituted in no loss of time on 28th June, 2019 when the hearing of the aforesaid PILs was almost over. After instituting the Writ Petition (L) No. 1974 of 2019, the Petitioners mentioned the matter before the Court at 5.00 p.m. on 28th June, 2019. On 1st July, 2019 Mrs. Rohini M. Amin representing the Petitioners moved a praecipe for taking the Writ Petition on board. This Hon'ble Court was pleased to decline the said plea. Again at 1.00 p.m. on the same day an attempt was made to mention the matter, which too did not succeed. The Petitioners again mentioned the matter before the rising of the Court when the Court was pleased to announce that the PILs are reserved for pronouncement of orders. The Petitioners beg to submit with utmost respect that this Hon'ble Court declined their plea to be heard, particularly on the point as to the non-maintainability of the PILs and, if they are maintainable, to afford them and millions of citizens of Mumbai who support the project a hearing. This Hon'ble Court, the Petitioners beg to submit with utmost respect, has denied an opportunity of hearing to them who support the coastal road project; so too millions of citizens of Mumbai whose long cherished dream is the said project. Every moment’s delay in the completion of the coastal road project results in the violation of their right to life, for, denial of access to the city is denial of their very right to life.
5. It is well settled in law that till a judgment in a case is pronounced in the open Court, there is no judgment, no matter whether a draft of the judgment is prepared and signed. Pronouncement of judgment in the open Court is the very core of the hearing of a case. A Judge is free to change his mind till the judgment is pronounced and it is thereafter signed. If a Judge is free to change his mind before the judgment is pronounced, the parties to the cause and particularly the Petitioners, who were not afforded an opportunity of hearing, so too the citizens of Mumbai, are entitled to seek (i) permit the Applicants/Petitioners to intervene in PIL (Lodging) Nos.36 and 44 of 2019; so too for recall of the order dated 1st July, 2019 by which PIL (Lodging) Nos.36 and 44 of 2019 are reserved for pronouncement of orders and (ii) an opportunity to be heard.
6. The Petitioners not being parties to PIL (Lodging) Nos.36 and 44 of 2019, though they ought to have been made parties, for, the said PILs cannot be maintained without those who support the coastal road project being arrayed as parties, the Petitioners are constrained to seek reopening of the said PILs as third parties thereto. Procedure is only a handmaid of justice and not its mistress. The accompanying Notice of Motion for intervention; so too for recall of the order dated 1st July, 2019 by which PIL (Lodging) Nos.36 and 44 of 2019 are reserved for pronouncement of orders and further opportunity to be heard is only to be allowed in the interests of justice.
7. Similarly, since the above Writ Petition instituted by the Petitioner was refused to be listed and the Petitioners were not heard, they are entitled to seek recall of the order dated 1st July, 2019; they be heard and the above Writ Petition seeking a declaration that the coastal road project is constitutional be listed along with PIL (Lodging) Nos.36 and 44 of 2019 and be heard together. Hence, the accompanying Notice of Motion.
Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai ]
on this ___day of July, 2019. ] Applicant/Interveners
Advocates for the Petitioners
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO._______ OF 2019
IN
PIL NO (ST) 44 OF 2019
JYOTI CHAUDHARY … Applicant/ Intervener
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Shweta Wagh & Ors … Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. … Respondents
NOTICE OF MOTION
Dated this 5th day of July, 2019
MRS. ROHINI M. AMIN,
Advocates for Applicant Interveners
304, Hari Chambers, 3rd Floor,
S.B.S. Road, Near Old Custom House, Fort, Mumbai-400 023.
(Mobile: 9920477447)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO._______ OF 2019
IN
PIL NO (ST) 44 OF 2019
JYOTI CHAUDHARY … Applicant/ Intervener
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Shweta Wagh & Ors … Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. … Respondents
AFFIDAVIT –IN- NOTICE OF MOTION
Dated this 5th day of July, 2019
MRS. ROHINI M. AMIN,
Advocates for Applicant Interveners
304, Hari Chambers, 3rd Floor,
S.B.S. Road, Near Old Custom House, Fort, Mumbai-400 023.
(Mobile: 9920477447)
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO._______ OF 2019
IN
PIL NO (ST) 44 OF 2019
JYOTI CHAUDHARY … Applicant/ Intervener
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Shweta Wagh & Ors … Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. … Respondents
INDEX
Sr.
No.
Description of Documents
Page No.
1
Proforma.
2
Notice of Motion.
3
Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion.
Advocate for the Applicant/Intervener
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO._______ OF 2019
IN
PIL NO(ST) 36 OF 2019
JYOTI CHAUDHARY … Applicant/Intervener
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Shweta Wagh & Ors … Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. … Respondents
P R O F O R M A
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes. Office Memoranda of ] Court or Judge’s
Coram appearance. Court’s order or ] orders
Direction and Prothonotary’s order ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes. Office Memoranda of ] Court or Judge’s
Coram appearance. Court’s order or ] orders
Direction and Prothonotary’s order ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes. Office Memoranda of ] Court or Judge’s
Coram appearance. Court’s order or ] orders
Direction and Prothonotary’s order ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO._______ OF 2019
IN
PIL NO (ST) 44 OF 2019
JYOTI CHAUDHARY ….Applicant/Interveners
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
1. Shweta Wagh
Age 41, Occ Architech,
R/at 361 A, Laxmi Sadan, V P road
Mumbai – 400 004
2. Collective for spatial atlernatives
201, C- Wing, Baba Sadan, Co-op Society
Ratan Nagar, Four Bunglows, Andheri (W)
3. Girija Gupte
A/4, Navasamaj Nehru Road, Vile parle, Mumbai – 57
4. Pushpa Suresh Mangela
320, Juhu Mora Gaon, Mangela Wadi, JR Mahatre road
Ruia Park, Juhu, Mumbai – 400 049
5. Rajashree Prakash Bhanji
Pitruchaya Building, Dongri Galli, Nr. Vetal Mandir
Versova koliwada, Andheri (W) , Mumbai – 61
6. Jalbiradri
Through Janak Daftary
402, Arunodaya, Azad Nagar II, off Veera desai road, Andheri(W)
7. Surekha Harichandr Jawli
Jawli House, Patil Gally – 2 , Versova, Andheri (W)
8. Dr. Aruna Pendse
196, Brahman Sabha, Bulding No.2, Raja Rammohan roy road
Girgaon, Mumbai – 400 004 … Petitioner
Versus
1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
Through its Commissioner
Having office at head office, Mahapalika Marg
Opp. CST Station, Mumbai – 400 001
2. Maharashtra Costal Zone Management Authority
Through its Chairman, Environment Deparment, 2nd Floor
Room N0. 217, Annexe Building, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32
3. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary, Environment Department,
New Administrative Bhawan, Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32
4. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary, Urban Development Dept.
4th Floor, Main Building, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 0032
5. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary, Dept. of Fisheries,
Gr. Floor, Sir S R Marg, J.N Heredia rd
Ballard Estate, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001
6. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary Revenue and Forest Department
MAntralaya, Mumbai – 400 0032
7. Collector of Mumbai
Mumbai House Collectorate, Old Customs House,
Fort, Mumbai – 400 001
8. Union of India
Through its secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest
And Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jor Bagh, New Delhi – 110 003
New
and Ors. … Respondents
AND
1. Sunil Shantiswarup Gupta,
President, Save Coastal Road Campaign,
residing at Flat No.1, 3rd Floor, Mitrakung, 16,
Pedder Road, Mumbai- 400026
2. Shylaja Vijayan,
Vice President,Our Voice,
Having Office at
Office No. 7, Sagar Tower,
Sai Baba Nagar, Mira Road (E)
Thane
3. Prakash Padikkal,
President,
Borivli Commuters’ Association,
residing at _______________
4 Jyoti Chaudhary
Joint Secretary,
Save Coastal Road Campaign,
B-001, Shalibhadra Yash,
Near Yaswant Gaurav Auto Stand
Nallasopara West, District Palghar … Applicant Interveners
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this Hon'ble Court will be moved before Their Lordships, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice ______________ and Hon’ble Shri Justice ______________ on _________ the ____ day of July, 2019 at 11.00 a.m. or soon thereafter when Counsel can be heard by Counsel on behalf of the Applicants herein for the following reliefs:-
(a) that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to permit the Applicants/Petitioners to intervene in PIL (Lodging) Nos.36 and 44 of 2019; so too for recall of the order dated 1st July, 2019 by which the said PILs are reserved for pronouncement of orders and further afford the Applicants Interveners an opportunity to be heard is in the interests of justice;
(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass any other order as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.
Dated this the __ day of July, 2019.
THIS NOTICE OF MOTION is taken out ]
by Shri Amritpal Singh Khalsa, ]
having their office at ]
304, Hari Chambers, 3rd Floor, ]
58/64, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, ]
Opp. Cheetah Gate, Fort, ]
Mumbai – 400 023. ]
Advocates for the Applicants / Respondent Interveners/
To
1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
Through its Commissioner
Having office at head office, Mahapalika Marg
Opp. CST Station, Mumbai – 400 001
2. Maharashtra Costal Zone Management Authority
Through its Chairman, Environment Deparment, 2nd Floor
Room N0. 217, Annexe Building, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32
3. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary, Environment Department,
New Administrative Bhawan, Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32
4. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary, Urban Development Dept.
4th Floor, Main Building, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 0032
5. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary, Dept. of Fisheries,
Gr. Floor, Sir S R Marg, J.N Heredia rd
Ballard Estate, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001
6. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary Revenue and Forest Department
MAntralaya, Mumbai – 400 0032
7. Collector of Mumbai
Mumbai House Collectorate, Old Customs House,
Fort, Mumbai – 400 001
8. Union of India
Through its secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest
And Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jor Bagh, New Delhi – 110 003
New
and Ors.
the Respondents abovenamed.
N.B. Affidavit of Jyoti Chaudhary, Intervener/Applicant herein, solemnly affirmed on the __ day of July, 2019, will be used in support of this Notice of Motion.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO._______ OF 2019
IN
PIL NO (ST) 44 OF 2019
JYOTI CHAUDHARY … Applicant/ Intervener
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Shweta Wagh & Ors … Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. … Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Jyoti Chaudhary, aged about 42 years, Residing at B-001, Shalibhadra Yash, Near Yaswant Gaurav Auto Stand, Nallasopara (West), District Palghar, for self and on behalf of Intervener/Applicant Nos. 2 and 3, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:-
1. That I am Petitioner No.4 in the Writ Petition (L) No. 1974 of 2019 filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. I am fully acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and, hence, competent to swear this affidavit.
2. I along with Intervener/Applicant Nos 1, .2 and 3 instituted the Writ Petition (L) No 1974 of 2019 seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs:-
a) declare that the challenge to the coastal road project raised in PIL (Lodging) Nos.36 and 44 of 2019 and Others is not maintainable, for, the said project is a matter of policy which is in the exclusive domain of the executive Government and the statutory authorities like the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and that even if the said project results in violation of the fundamental rights of fisherfolks, which it does not in reality, then also it is constitutional, for, the first principle of jurisprudence is salus populi suprema lex esto – the welfare of the people is to be the highest law – and that the fundamental rights are amenable to reasonable restrictions and are not absolute;
b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Union of India, the Government of Maharashtra, the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and other statutory authorities to plant three times mangroves as already provided in the project, prevent discharge of untreated toxic waste water into the streams and creeks, provide for water treatment plants across the shore to prevent discharge of untreated toxic waste water, provide for planting of tropical trees and benevolent and fruit-bearing trees like mango trees, almond and the like all along the coastal roads in addition to the statutory requirement of planting 3 times of the mangroves destroyed in the implementation of the project;
c) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Union of India, the Government of Maharashtra, the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and other statutory authorities to pay to the fisher folks who are likely to be adversely affected substantial and meaningful compensation, even if thousands of families were to be compensated, at the rate of Rs.10,000 per family per month;
d) permit the Petitioner to cure the deficiency, if any, in the instant Writ Petition either by withdrawing this petition with liberty to file a fresh one or by amending the same;
e) pass such other order or orders, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara, counsel for the Petitioners, tendered the Writ Petition in the open Court on 28/06/2019 pointing out that the coastal road project is the dire need of the people who reside at far off suburbs and the said project is the reflection of the acceptance of their long cherished need by the executive Government; that PIL (Lodging) Nos.36 and 44 of 2019 in challenge of the coastal road project are not maintainable because the said project does not involve any lis which this Hon'ble Court could adjudicate; that the said project is a matter which falls within the exclusive domain of executive policy as to what infrastructure project is in the best interest of the citizens of Mumbai and the environment and that if it is to be assumed that the aforesaid PILs are maintainable, which certainly they are not, then the millions of citizens of Mumbai, who support the coastal road project and who are the beneficiaries thereof and whose fundamental right of commuting will be infringed, ought to be heard. Shri Nedumpara further pointed out that if the said PIL Petitioners have a right to seek a declaration that the coastal road project is illegal and unconstitutional, then a right which is akin to their right is vested in the millions of citizens of Mumbai who support the project and the Petitioners in particular for a declaration that the project is constitutional.
4. This Hon'ble Court, however, declined to take on record the Writ Petition so tendered across the Bar and directed the Petitioners to file it in the Registry. It was accordingly instituted in no loss of time on 28th June, 2019 when the hearing of the aforesaid PILs was almost over. After instituting the Writ Petition (L) No. 1974 of 2019, the Petitioners mentioned the matter before the Court at 5.00 p.m. on 28th June, 2019. On 1st July, 2019 Mrs. Rohini M. Amin representing the Petitioners moved a praecipe for taking the Writ Petition on board. This Hon'ble Court was pleased to decline the said plea. Again at 1.00 p.m. on the same day an attempt was made to mention the matter, which too did not succeed. The Petitioners again mentioned the matter before the rising of the Court when the Court was pleased to announce that the PILs are reserved for pronouncement of orders. The Petitioners beg to submit with utmost respect that this Hon'ble Court declined their plea to be heard, particularly on the point as to the non-maintainability of the PILs and, if they are maintainable, to afford them and millions of citizens of Mumbai who support the project a hearing. This Hon'ble Court, the Petitioners beg to submit with utmost respect, has denied an opportunity of hearing to them who support the coastal road project; so too millions of citizens of Mumbai whose long cherished dream is the said project. Every moment’s delay in the completion of the coastal road project results in the violation of their right to life, for, denial of access to the city is denial of their very right to life.
5. It is well settled in law that till a judgment in a case is pronounced in the open Court, there is no judgment, no matter whether a draft of the judgment is prepared and signed. Pronouncement of judgment in the open Court is the very core of the hearing of a case. A Judge is free to change his mind till the judgment is pronounced and it is thereafter signed. If a Judge is free to change his mind before the judgment is pronounced, the parties to the cause and particularly the Petitioners, who were not afforded an opportunity of hearing, so too the citizens of Mumbai, are entitled to seek (i) permit the Applicants/Petitioners to intervene in PIL (Lodging) Nos.36 and 44 of 2019; so too for recall of the order dated 1st July, 2019 by which PIL (Lodging) Nos.36 and 44 of 2019 are reserved for pronouncement of orders and (ii) an opportunity to be heard.
6. The Petitioners not being parties to PIL (Lodging) Nos.36 and 44 of 2019, though they ought to have been made parties, for, the said PILs cannot be maintained without those who support the coastal road project being arrayed as parties, the Petitioners are constrained to seek reopening of the said PILs as third parties thereto. Procedure is only a handmaid of justice and not its mistress. The accompanying Notice of Motion for intervention; so too for recall of the order dated 1st July, 2019 by which PIL (Lodging) Nos.36 and 44 of 2019 are reserved for pronouncement of orders and further opportunity to be heard is only to be allowed in the interests of justice.
7. Similarly, since the above Writ Petition instituted by the Petitioner was refused to be listed and the Petitioners were not heard, they are entitled to seek recall of the order dated 1st July, 2019; they be heard and the above Writ Petition seeking a declaration that the coastal road project is constitutional be listed along with PIL (Lodging) Nos.36 and 44 of 2019 and be heard together. Hence, the accompanying Notice of Motion.
Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai ]
on this ___day of July, 2019. ] Applicant/Interveners
Advocates for the Petitioners
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO._______ OF 2019
IN
PIL NO (ST) 44 OF 2019
JYOTI CHAUDHARY … Applicant/ Intervener
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Shweta Wagh & Ors … Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. … Respondents
NOTICE OF MOTION
Dated this 5th day of July, 2019
MRS. ROHINI M. AMIN,
Advocates for Applicant Interveners
304, Hari Chambers, 3rd Floor,
S.B.S. Road, Near Old Custom House, Fort, Mumbai-400 023.
(Mobile: 9920477447)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO._______ OF 2019
IN
PIL NO (ST) 44 OF 2019
JYOTI CHAUDHARY … Applicant/ Intervener
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Shweta Wagh & Ors … Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. … Respondents
AFFIDAVIT –IN- NOTICE OF MOTION
Dated this 5th day of July, 2019
MRS. ROHINI M. AMIN,
Advocates for Applicant Interveners
304, Hari Chambers, 3rd Floor,
S.B.S. Road, Near Old Custom House, Fort, Mumbai-400 023.
(Mobile: 9920477447)
Comments
Post a Comment