Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

Balancing Public Infrastructure with Ecological Preservation: High Court Dismisses PIL to Halt Metro Rail Construction Near Maidan

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the citizen action group, People United for Better Living in Calcutta (PUBLIC), which sought to halt the construction of a Metro Rail station near the Maidan area adjoining Victoria Memorial. The court emphasized the need to balance public infrastructure development with ecological preservation.

The PIL, WPA (P)/569/2023, filed under constitutional writ jurisdiction, challenged the proposed construction of a metro station that would necessitate the uprooting of approximately 700 trees. The petitioners argued that this would cause severe ecological damage and sought a review of the project by independent experts, proposing alternative solutions to mitigate environmental impact.

Credibility of Permissions and Regulatory Compliance

The bench, comprising Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, scrutinized the project’s compliance with environmental regulations. The court noted that the requisite permissions for tree transplantation and felling had been duly obtained from relevant authorities, including the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Forest, Government of West Bengal.

“The permissions obtained by Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (RVNL) for transplantation and felling of trees cannot be stated to be either arbitrary or unreasonable, as they are subject to stringent conditions,” the court stated in its judgment.

Balancing Development and Environmental Protection

The court extensively referenced judicial precedents that underscore the necessity of balancing developmental needs with environmental conservation. Citing the Supreme Court’s rulings in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and SLP © No. 25047 of 2018, the bench reiterated that while ecological preservation is crucial, infrastructure projects serving significant public interest should not be unduly hindered.

“In matters of public infrastructure, it is imperative to strike a delicate balance between development and ecological preservation. The court must ensure that the parameters adopted are prima facie safe and sound and serve the purpose sought to be achieved,” the bench observed.

The court found that the petitioners’ arguments were primarily based on newspaper reports and lacked substantial evidence. The detailed submissions by RVNL demonstrated compliance with environmental laws and justified the necessity of the project for public benefit.

“The project has been substantially modified to minimize environmental impact, shifting from elevated to underground construction. This change underscores the project’s commitment to preserving the Maidan area’s ecology and skyline,” the judgment noted.

Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam remarked, “The alignment and methodology of the Metro Rail construction have been meticulously planned to maintain the Maidan area’s ecological balance. The court must not entertain speculative objections that could undermine significant public infrastructure projects.”

ConclusionThe High Court’s dismissal of the PIL affirms the importance of balancing ecological preservation with public infrastructure development. By allowing the Metro Rail project to proceed, the judgment highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring sustainable development that meets both environmental and public needs.

 

Date of Decision: 20.06.2024

People United for Better Living in Calcutta (Public) v. State of West Bengal and Others

Latest Legal News