Newlinkroad's Blog

Here is the complete and final Supreme Court of India verdict summing up our long battle to save our mangroves in Survey 344 Dahisar. Thanks to BEAG and the Collector, MSD, and all the Government officials and Press who united in this fight against injustice.

ITEM NO. 1-A COURT No.10 SECTION IX
(For Judgment )

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

I.A.No.23 in C.A.No. 4421 of 2010

KRISHNADEVI MALCHAND KAMATHIA & ORS. .. Appellant(s)
Versus
BOMBAY ENVIORNMENTAL ACTION GROUP & .. Respondent(s)
ORS.

With
Cont.P.(C)No.169/2010 in C.A.No.4421 of 2010
Cont.P.(C)NO.266/2010 in C.A. No.4421 of 2010

DATE : 31/01/11 These matters were called on for
pronouncement of judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr.Pramod Swarup,Sr.Adv.
Mr.Vijay Kumar,Adv.
Ms. Pareena Swarup,Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Singh B.Adv.
Mr.Vishwajit Singh,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Madhavi Divan,Adv.
Mr. D. Bharat Kumar,Adv.
Ms. Indrani,Adv.
Mr. Balasubrahmanyam Kamarsu,Adv.
Mr. Abhijit Sengupta,Adv.

Mrs.Suchitra Atul Chitale,Adv.

Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv.

Ms. Anagha S.Desai,Adv.

Ms. Sangeeta Kumar,Adv.

….2/-

-2-
—

Hon’ble Dr.Justice B.S. Chauhan pronounced the
judgment of the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice
P. Sathasivam and His Lordship.

Interlocutory application for intervention in
Contempt Petition(Civil)No.169 of 2010 is dismissed.

The contempt petitions and interlocutory
application stand disposed of in terms of the signed
reportable judgment.

[ Madhu Bala] [ Savita Sainani ]
Sr.PA Court Master
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)

2
Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 23 OF 2010

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4421 OF 2010

Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia & Ors. ..Appellants

Versus

Bombay Environmental Action Group
& Ors. ..Respondents

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (C ) NOS.169 OF 2010 and 266 OF 2010

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4421 of 2010

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Civil Appeal No. 4421 of 2010 was disposed of by this

Court vide judgment and order dated 7.5.2010 giving liberty

to the appellants therein to approach the Bombay High Court

to seek appropriate relief. During the pendency of the

appeal, the appellants were given liberty to approach the

District Collector concerned to seek permission to repair the

3

bund. The Collector allowed the appellants to repair the bund

subject to certain conditions. The parties in the appeal have filed three applications alleging various violations of
the orders passed by this Court, as well as by the District Collector.

I.A.No. 23/2010

2. This application has been filed by the District Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, to initiate the contempt proceedings against the appellants Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia & Ors. for violating the order of this court dated 7.5.2010 in Civil Appeal No.4421 of 2010 and his own order dated 27.1.2010 in respect of Survey No. 344 CTS No. 1 of Village Dahisar, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District and, to issue directions to remove the newly constructed bund and allow sea water to come in so as to save the
mangrove forest. Further direction has been sought against the appellants to remove the debris, soil, stones which were
used to construct the bund, from the said survey No.344 to
outside the area, within the stipulated period and further to
restore the bund to its original position as seen in the
Maharashtra Remote Sensing Application Centre map (hereinafter called MRSAC)and further to restrain the appellants from indulging in any activity which may result in the destruction of mangrove forest henceforth.

Cont. Pet. No. 169 of 2010

3. This contempt petition has been filed by the appellants
to initiate contempt proceedings against the statutory authorities i.e. District Collector of Mumbai Suburban District for passing the order dated 20.5.2010 appointing the Committee to examine whether the appellants had violated the
conditional order dated 27.1.2010 permitting the appellants
to repair the bund in such a way that the mangroves may not
die and order dated 26.5.2010 to ensure the compliance of the
order dated 27.1.2010 and to remove the debris and reduce the
height of the bund etc., being in violation of orders passed
by this Court in the appeal.

Cont. Pet. No. 266 of 2010

4. This contempt petition has been filed by the original writ petitioner before the Bombay High Court i.e. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Anr., (hereinafter called `Action Group’) to initiate contempt proceedings against the appellants for willful dis-obedience of the order of this Court dated 22.3.2010 passed in SLP (C) No. 29031/2009 and order dated 7.5.2010 passed in Civil Appeal No.4421 of 2010 and further to recall the permission granted by this Court vide order dated 22.3.2010 in the said case and order dated
7.5.2010 in Civil Appeal No. 4421 of 2010. Further, to give
directions to open the culverts, closed channels of water and
to ensure removal of debris on the subject site at the cost
of the appellants i.e. contemnors Nos. 1 to 10.

5. As all the aforesaid three applications have been filed
alleging violation of the same orders, the applications were
heard together and all being disposed of by the common order.

FACTS:

6.The Bombay High Court while disposing of the Writ
Petition filed by the Action Group vide order dated 6.10.2005
issued several directions including:

“XI. From the list of “Mangrove Areas” so
identified Government owned lands will
automatically be declared/notified as “Protected
Forest”. Likewise, privately owned lands from the
list of Mangrove Areas so identified, the same will
be declared/notified as “Forest”.

7. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction issued by the

High Court, the Divisional Commissioner, issued Notification

being No. RB/Desk-II/Forest/CR-2211/Pvt./A-1 dated 18.2.2009,
which included the land of the appellants Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia and Ors. In view of the said Notification, the appellants could not restart the salt manufacturing,though the appellants had been manufacturing salt on the said land since 1959. It continued upto 1990 and their license for manufacturing salt was valid upto 1993. The Coastal Area Classification and Development Regulations, 1991
(hereinafter called CRZ Regulations) came which provide for
classification of coastal regulatory zone, according to which
it did not prohibit the manufacturing of salt.

8. Being aggrieved, appellants filed Special Leave Petition
along with an application for condonation of delay of 1368
days challenging the Bombay High Court Judgment and order
dated 6.10.2005. However, in view of the fact that the
appellants had not been heard by the High Court at the time
of passing the order in pursuance of which the Notification
has been issued, the delay was condoned and the petition was
entertained.

9. An application was filed by the appellants on
15.12.2009 seeking permission to repair the damaged bund along with the land in issue.The application was opposed by the respondents. However, this Court disposed of the said application vide order dated 5.2.2010 permitting the appellants to approach the District Collector for the said relief. It was clarified that pendency of the proceedings before this Court or any interim order passed therein would not stand in the way of the District Collector to pass appropriate order so far as the repair of the bund was concerned.

10. In pursuance of the said directions the appellants approached the District Collector, who after holding inquiry passed a speaking and reasoned order dated 27.1.2010 giving full details and the case history of the dispute over the title of the land between the appellants and the Government, and the application of the provisions of Coastal Regulatory Zone Regulations 1991; and the Indian Forest Act 1927; and Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. According to the order, the appellants would repair the bund without destroying the mangroves or vegetation on the said land.

11. This Court disposed of the appeal vide order dated
7.5.2010 wherein the parties were given liberty to agitate the issue before the High Court raising all factual and legal issues. So far as the repair of Bund was concerned, this Court directed as under:

“By an interim order passed by this court on
22.3.2010, permitted the petitioners to repair
the Bund. This interim order is made absolute
and petitioners are permitted to maintain and
upkeep the Bund till final adjudication
regarding Notifications dated 18.2.2009 and
15.6.2009 is made and violation of these
orders by parties or other authorities could
be brought to the notice of this Court for
appropriate directions.”

12. The contempt petitions have been filed by the District

Collector and the Action Group making allegations that under

the garb of repairing the bund, the appellants have raised

the height and expanded the width of the bund in such a

manner that mangrove would die a natural death without any

attempt on the part of the appellants, and further that

appellants have destroyed the mangroves to the great extent.

Appellants filed a Contempt Petition alleging that

Collector’s order dated 27.1.2010 is being unnecessarily

interfered with by the statutory authorities.

13. We have heard Shri Ram Jethmalani, Shri Sekhar Naphade,

Shri Dushyant Dave, Shri Atul Yashwant Chitale, learned

senior counsel appearing for the parties and perused the

record.

14. It may be pertinent to mention here that all the learned

counsel appearing for the parties have suggested that the

applications be heard without giving strict adherence to the

procedure for contempt proceedings i.e. framing of charges

etc., as pleadings are complete and parties are fully aware

as what is the case against which of the parties. More so,

all the documentary evidence, required to decide the case is

on record.

15. Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing

for the appellants, submitted that in pursuance of the order

of this Court dated 7.5.2010, the appellants have instituted

a civil suit before the Bombay High Court, wherein notices

had been issued to the respondents/defendants and which is

still pending consideration of all factual and legal issues

had been raised therein. The validity of the Notification

dated 18.2.2009 is also under challenge therein to the extent

that the said Notification is void ab initio for the reason

that the procedure prescribed in law has not been followed.

More so, the Notification does not disclose what are the

statutory provisions which conferred the power/competence to

issue the said Notification.

16. Shri Sekhar Naphade, and Shri Dushyant Dave, learned

senior counsel, submitted that undoubtedly, the Notification

does not disclose the source of power/competence under which

it has been issued, however, the Notification does not become

invalid merely for want of such a statement. Further, it

cannot be urged that the Authority was denude of power to

issue such notification as such powers are available under

Section 21 of the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition)

Act, 1975. The said provisions provide that whenever it

appears to the State Government that any tract of land not

being the property of Government, contains trees and shrubs,
pasture lands and any other land whatsoever, and that it

should be declared, in public interest and for furtherance of

the objects of the said Act, to be a private forest. The

State Government would publish a Notification in the Official

Gazette to declare that it was a forest land after following

the procedure prescribed therein. In fact records of the

Statutory Authority reveal that the said Notification has

been published in view of the order passed by this Court on

12.12.1996 in T.N. Godavarman, wherein it has been held that

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, would apply to lands being

forests, irrespective of who owned the land. For that

purpose, Shri Naphade, has drawn our attention to para 4.2 of

the Report of the Committee, dated 19.5.2010 (Annexure R-5A)

to I.A. No. 23 of 2010.

17. It is settled legal proposition that even if an order is

void, it requires to be so declared by a competent forum and

it is not permissible for any person to ignore the same

merely because in his opinion the order is void.

18. In State of Kerala v. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri

Manikoth Naduvil (dead) & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 906; Tayabbhai

M. Bagasarwalla & Anr. v. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd.

etc, AIR 1997 SC 1240; M. Meenakshi & Ors. v. Metadin Agarwal

(dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. (2006) 7 SCC 470; and Sneh Gupta v.

11

Devi Sarup & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 194, this Court held that
whether an order is valid or void, cannot be determined by
the parties. For setting aside such an order, even if void,
the party has to approach the appropriate forum.

19. In State of Punjab & Ors. v. Gurdev Singh, Ashok Kumar,
AIR 1991 SC 2219, this Court held that a party aggrieved by
the invalidity of an order has to approach the court for
relief of declaration that the order against him is inoperative and therefore, not binding upon him. While deciding the said case, this Court placed reliance upon the
judgment in Smith v. East Ellore Rural District Council,

[1956] 1 All ER 855 wherein Lord Radcliffe observed:-

“An order, even if not made in good faith is
still an act capable of legal consequences.
It bears no brand of invalidity on its
forehead. Unless the necessary proceedings
are taken at law to establish the cause of
invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise
upset, it will remain as effective for its
ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of
orders.”

20. In Sultan Sadik v. Sanjay Raj Subba & Ors., AIR 2004
SC 1377, this Court took a similar view observing that once
an order is declared non-est by the Court only then the
judgment of nullity would operate erga omnes i.e. for and
against everyone concerned. Such a declaration is permissible if the court comes to the conclusion that the
author of the order lacks inherent jurisdiction/competence
and therefore, it comes to the conclusion that the order
suffers from patent and latent invalidity.

21. Thus, from the above it emerges that even if the order/notification is void/voidable, the party aggrieved by
the same cannot decide that the said order/notification is
not binding upon it. It has to approach the court for seeking such declaration. The order may be hypothetically a
nullity and even if its invalidity is challenged before the court in a given circumstance, the court may refuse to quash
the same on various grounds including the standing of the
petitioner or on the ground of delay or on the doctrine of
waiver or any other legal reason. The order may be void for one purpose or for one person, it may not be so for another
purpose or another person.

22. Be, that as it may, the matter regarding the validity of
the said Notification is still pending consideration in a
suit before the Bombay High Court on its original side, it is
not desirable on our part to consider the said submission
raised on behalf of the appellants.

23. The relevant part of the conditional order of the District Collector dated 27.1.2010 provides as under:

13
(i) The Applicants will only carry out the repairs
of the Bund and shall not carry out any other
construction activities on the said land.
(ii) The Applicants will not destroy mangroves and/or
vegetation on the said land.
(iii)The Applicants shall not raise the height of the
Bund above as in existence at present.

On receiving numerous complaints from the public at large and officials, the District Collector passed the order
dated 20.5.2010:

“xx xx xx

The earlier order passed by this authority giving
permission to repair the bund is hereby stayed and
all the concerned parties should maintain status
quo.

xx xx xx

This committee will visit and check minutely the
following important points in the matter:-

a) The permission given by the District Collector
for the repair of the bund No.C/Desk-21
Mangrove/WS-610/2009 dated 27.1.2010, which was
rendered by the Supreme court in its orders
dated 22.3.2010 and 7.5.2010 whether terms and
conditions mentioned in the Collectors order are
followed by the Applicant land owner or not?
b) Whether the Applicant has committed any
violation?
c) Whether the land owner has kept water culverts
open or not? If the committee finds that the
water is stopped which may ultimately cause
destroying of mangroves, the committee i.e. Area
Officers should make the owner to open the
culverts immediately.

The committee should make detailed enquiry and
the consolidated report should be sent to the
District Collector within 15 days.”

14
After receiving the report from the Committee duly

constituted by the District Collector on 20.5.2010, the

District Collector passed the order on 26.5.2010 directing

the appellants as under:

1) All the material used for filling to
increase the height be removed, maintain
the earlier position of the bund as
expected in the permission order dated
27.1.2010.
2) Remove the rubble dumped in the open land
in question.
3) Remove the rubble and filling and let the
natural flow of sea water, which is at
present obstructed, entering inside the
S.No. in question.
4) Remove filling used for increasing the
height of bund to the height as expected in
the permission order dated 27.1.2010.

24. The aforesaid order has been passed by the Collector after considering various reports of experts/officers.

(A) The report submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer, Mumbai Suburban District dated 18.5.2010 (Annexure A-20 of
Con. Pet. 266/2010) makes it clear that the Tahsildar Borivali and Additional Chitnis had visited the spot and
found that a new bund had been made having the width of 10 ft. and height of bund 4 ft. and running to 1 to 1½ KMs.

There had been culverts in the old bund which were filled up.
The natural flow of water existing earlier had been closed.
The closure of the water supply had adverse effect on the
existing mangroves. The direction issued by the District
Collector in his order permitting the construction of bund
that adequate arrangement to ensure that mangroves are not
damaged, has not been complied with and there has been a
breach of the said condition.

(B) Report dated 19.5.2010 from the Committee appointed for
inspection reveal that after having inspection of the site,
the Committee reached the conclusion that the appellants have
grossly violated the conditions incorporated in the order of
the District Collector dated 27.1.2010, permitting them to
repair the bund. They have not only raised height of the bund
but widened it so as to obstruct the flow of water in the
creek which may cause damage to mangroves. There has been a
violation of the order of the Collector; the order of the
Bombay High Court, and the order of this Court. The mangroves
at places were destroyed during the construction of the new
roads and the new bunds. Debris, garbage, mud and stones have
been dumped along the new road. Large quantities of mud have
been excavated from the site itself and used for construction
of the bund. The Committee made the following
recommendations:

(1) That all illegal work should be
immediately stopped by the revenue authority.

(2) The Bund and the Road that have blocked
the smaller creeks should be immediately removed to
prevent the destruction of the mangroves.

16
(3) Proper action as per the law may be
taken by the revenue authority. It is brought to
the notice that in writ petition no. 3246 of 2004
the Maharashtra Govt. vide circular dated
21.10.2005 clarified that the Collector should take
care of the mangroves of the private land and
Government lands till the area is handed over to
forest department.

(C) There is another report of the Tahsildar BorivaliMumbai, Suburban district dated 22.5.2010 which reveals that
earlier some culverts were in existence, the same had been
closed and a new mud bund erected thereon. By making a huge filling, the width of the bund had been expanded by 12 to 15 ft. At the end of bund again filling of debris had been done.
Branches of the adjacent mangroves had been cut. The report
further reveals that a crime had been registered on 22.5.2010 in MHB Police Station under Section 15(i)(ii) of Environment Protection Act, 1986 against the owner of the land on account of the cutting of branches of mangroves,
causing damage to mangroves and stoppage of the natural water
flow of nalla.

(D) Another report dated 14.6.2010 of a Committee consisting
of six State officials is on record. According to it, there
have been flagrant violations of the order passed by the
District Collector and the courts. The relevant part reads as
under:

CONCLUSIONS:

17
Conditions in Factual position
order dated observed by the
27.1.2010 Committee on the spot
i) The applicants No structural
will only carry construction
out the repairs of activities carried
the Bund and shall out on the site, but
not carry out any it is observed that
other construction the permission holder
activities on the has done massive
said land. filling work by
dumping debris and
garbage on the said
land. Bund has been
widened by mud and
debris filling. Now
the permission holder
converted existing
bund into new road.
The permission was
only to repair the
existing bund. But
the land holder has
constructed a new
bund.
ii) The applicants Destruction of
will not destroy mangroves and
mangroves and/or vegetation done in a
vegetation on the large scale.
said land.
iii) The Applicants Permission holder has
shall not raise raised height of the
the height of the existing bund by 1.5
Bund above as in Mtrs. as well as
existence at width of the bund.
present.
iv) Upon completion of Compliance report of
the repairs, the work has been
Applicant shall submitted by the
file a Completion applicant. Despite
Report in the that work still going
office of the on the site.
Collector.
v) The Applicant will Applicant violated
abide by the final the conditions of the
orders that may be order dated 22.3.2010
passed by the passed by the Hon.
Hon’ble Supreme Supreme Court in
Court in the SLP S.L.P.No.29031of
to Appeal No.29031 2009.
of 2009 in respect
of the user of the
land.

25. The issue has been agitated from time to time before
this Court and there have been various claims and counter
claims in respect of the activities of the appellants. This
Court vide order dated 24.11.2010 requested the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai to inspect the area
i.e. the bund in the lands i.e. SL. No.344 measuring 175
Hectares, situated in village Dahisar and submit a report to
this Court about the status and present position. It was
further requested that he would ascertain and report whether
any damage has been caused to mangroves/vegetation that existed on the said land.

26. In pursuance of the said order, the learned Principal
Judge, City Civil Court submitted the report dated 10.12.2010
along with a large number of photographs to substantiate the
contents of the report. Relevant part thereof reads as under:

“At the outset it may be briefly stated that
during the course of visit it was noticed that the
debris and boulders including big broken pieces of
RCC slabs were found lying at various places on the
bund. The debris and boulders were found used for
pitching or reinforcement of the bund because of
the dumping of debris and boulders on a large
scale….Apart from dumping of debris and boulders in
large quantities, what was noticed was that there
were about 12 to 13 places where big platforms were
found made of debris and boulders. The length of
those platforms was something between 25 to 35
metres each and width was on an average 16 to 20
metres each…..That debris was being dumped beyond
the area of the platform in property survey No.344
and there was an attempt to increase the width of
the platforms. In the process the mangroves
obviously were being destroyed.
….. the mangroves were destroyed at a
considerable length from the bund in survey
no.344….. the destruction was at considerably a
large scale.
….a large number of mangroves were found cut
manually. It was possible that the mangroves were
cut to increase width of the bund. The cut
mangroves were found to have been used in
increasing the height of the bund. Breathing roots
and branches of mangroves were found stuck in the
muddy area of the bund.
….. The said bund appeared to have been
erected after excavation of mud from both sides of
the bund….. Mangroves were found cut at many
places. The mangroves were found to have died because of removal of mud and stagnation of
water…..
…. There were 3-4 patches where mangroves
appeared to have been destroyed manually.”(Emphasis
added)

27. The CRZ Regulations define for regulating developmental
activities, coastal stretches within 500 metres of the
landward side of the High Tide Line into 4 categories.

Category I (CRZ-I) is defined as under:

“(i) Areas that are ecologically sensitive and important, such as, national parks/marine parks, sanctuaries, reserved forests, wildlife habitats, mangroves, corals/coral reefs, areas closed to breeding and spawning grounds of fish and other marine life, areas of outstanding natural beauty/historical/heritage areas, areas rich in genetic diversity, areas likely to be inundated due to rise in sea level consequent upon global warming
and other such areas as may be declared by the
Central Government or the concerned authorities at
the State/Union Territory level from time to time.”
(emphasis added)

28. The regulation of development or construction activities

in CRZ-I areas is to be in accordance with the following

norms:

“CRZ-I
x x x x x
Between LTL and HTL in areas which are not
ecologically sensitive and important, the following
may be permitted : (a) Exploration and extraction
of Natural Gas; (b) activities as specified under
proviso of sub-paragraph (i) and (ii) of paragraph
2; (c) Construction of dispensaries, schools,
public rain shelters, community toilets bridges,
roads, jetties, water supply, drainage, sewerage
which are required for traditional inhabitants of
the Sunderbans Biosphere Reserve area, West Bengal,
on a case to case basis, by the West Bengal State
Coastal Zone Management Authority; (d) salt
harvesting by solar evaporation of sea water; (e)
desalination plants; (f) storage of non-hazardous
cargo such as edible oil, fertilizers and food grain within notified ports; (g) construction of
trans-harbour sea links.”

(emphasis added)

29. From the above, it is evident that mangroves fall squarely within the ambit of CRZ-I. The regulations allow
for salt harvesting by solar evaporation of sea water in CRZ-I areas only where such area is not ecologically sensitive and important. In the instant case it has been established that mangrove forests are of great ecological importance and are also ecologically sensitive.Thus, salt harvesting by solar evaporation of sea water cannot be permitted in an area that is home to mangrove forests.

30. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we reach the following inescapable conclusions:

(1)The land in dispute has not been used for manufacturing of salt for more than two decades.

(2)The land in dispute stands notified as a reserve forest,though it may be a private land and requires to be protected.

(3)The direction issued by the High Court while disposing of the writ petition filed by the Action Group has issued several directions including the direction to identify mangrove area and declare/notify it as a forest.

(4)The Central Regulatory Zone Regulations 1991 imposes certain restrictions on the land in dispute.

(5)The District Collector while deciding the application of the applicants for according permission to repair the bund has explicitly incorporated the conditions that the appellants would only repair the old bund without raising its height and ensure full protection of mangroves.

(6)This Court while disposing of the appeal filed by the appellants has directed to ensure compliance of the order of the District Collector and in case of any kind of violation to bring the matter to the notice of the court.

(7)In respect of the repairing of the bund, a large number of complaints had been made to the authorities concerned, by the public, representatives of the people and various officials and statutory authorities alleging that the appellants have violated the conditional order passed by the District Collector for permitting the appellants to repair the bund.

(8)Various reports submitted to the authorities concerned make it clear that there have been flagrant violations of the conditional order and that included :

(i) Closing the natural flow of water which has adverse effect on existing mangroves;

(ii) A large number of mangroves had been cut/destroyed while repairing the bund and a large number of mangroves were
found cut manually;

(iii)Height and width of the bund had been increased to an unwarranted extent. The reports reveal that width of the
bund had been extended by 12 ft. to 15 ft. while the old bund was not beyond 6 ft width.

(iv) Instead of mud, big boulders, concrete, debris had been used. Several platforms of 25 to 30 mtrs with the width
of 16 to 20 mtrs. have been constructed;

(v) Debris was being dumped beyond the area of platform in the land in dispute making an attempt to increase the
width of the platform;

(vi) The cut mangroves have been used to increase the height of the bund;

(vii)Breathing roots and branches of mangroves were found stucking out of the muddy area of the bund; and

(viii)A large number of mangroves died because of removal of mud and stagnation of water.

31. In view of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellants are guilty of willful defiance of the orders
passed by this Court as well as by the District Collector and they have filed the contempt petitions using it as a legal
thumb screw to enforce their claims though, totally unwarranted and unfounded on facts. It is a crystal clear case of contumacious conduct, as the conduct of the appellants not explainable otherwise, for the reason that disobedience is deliberate. The appellants cannot be permitted to make allegations against the authorities and drag them to the court alleging disobedience of the orders of this court without realising that contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature. They have knowingly and purposely damaged the mangroves and other vegetation of the wet land of the CRZ-I area, which could not have been disturbed.
Under the garb of repairing the old bund, a sort of pukka bund using boulders, and debris has been constructed along with a huge platform, violating the norms of environmental law and in flagrant violation and utter disregard of orders passed by the courts and the District Collector. No court can validate an action which is not lawful at its inception.

It is often re-iterated that justice is only blind or blindfolded to the extent necessary to hold its scales evenly. It is not, and must never be allowed, to become blind to the reality of the situation, lamentable though that situation may be.

32. In view of the above, the contempt proceedings filed by the District Collector and the Action Group are allowed and
the contempt petition filed by the appellants i.e. Cont. Pet. 169/2010 is hereby dismissed with the following directions:

1) The appellants are directed to restore the height and width of the bund as it was existing prior to the order passed by the District Collector dated 27.1.2010 within a period of 60 days from today by removing all debris, grit, boulders etc., dismantling of platforms and reducing the height and width of the bund.

(2) All culverts, drains which existed prior to 27.1.2010 which could facilitate the natural flow of sea water into the land, shall be restored

(3) In case the appellants fail to carry out the aforesaid directions within the stipulated
period, the District Collector, Suburban District shall carry out the aforesaid directions and recover the cost from the appellants as arrears of land revenue and shall ensure in future that the appellants would not act in a manner detrimental to the ecology of the area and ensure the preservation of mangroves and other vegetation.

33. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we request the Bombay High Court to expedite the trial of the suit filed
by the appellants. In view of the above, the contempt petitions and interlocutory application stand disposed of.

……………………..J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)

……………………..J.
(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)
New Delhi,
January 31, 2011