Or. 6 Rule 17 CPC | A Suit Cannot be Converted into a Fresh Litigation – Amendment Cannot Introduce a New Cause of Action: Andhra Pradesh High Court Government Cannot Withhold Retirement Without Formal Rejection Before Notice Period Expires: Delhi High Court Drug Offences Threaten Society, Courts Must Show Zero Tolerance : Meghalaya High Court Refuses Bail Under Section 37 NDPS Act Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Serious Allegations, Unless Justified by Law: Kerala High Court When Law Prescribes a Limitation, Courts Cannot Ignore It: Supreme Court Quashes Time-Barred Prosecution Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act Issuing Notices to a Non-Existent Entity is a Substantive Illegality, Not a Mere Procedural Lapse: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Notices Termination Without Verifying Evidence is Legally Unsustainable: Allahabad High Court Reinstates Government Counsel Luxury for One Cannot Mean Struggle for the Other - Husband’s True Income Cannot Be Suppressed to Deny Fair Maintenance: Calcutta High Court Penalty Proceedings Must Be Initiated and Concluded Within The Prescribed Timeline Under Section 275(1)(C): Karnataka High Court Upholds ITAT Order" Landlord Entitled to Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent, and Damages for Unauthorized Occupation: Madras High Court Supreme Court Slams Punjab and Haryana High Court for Illegally Reversing Acquittal in Murder Case, Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation for Wrongful Conviction Mere Absence of Wholesale License Does Not Make a Transaction Unlawful:  Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against INOX Air Products Stigmatic Dismissal Without Inquiry Violates Fair Process, Rules High Court in Employment Case Recruiting Authorities Have Discretion to Fix Cut-Off Marks – No Arbitrariness Found: Orissa High Court Charge-Sheet Is Not a Punishment, Courts Should Not Interfere: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Writ Against Departmental Inquiry Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Identifiable Property or Evidence of Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Fairness Demands Compensation Under the 2013 Act; Bureaucratic Delays Cannot Defeat Justice: Supreme Court Competition Commission Must Issue Notice to Both Parties in a Combination Approval: Supreme Court Physical Possession and Settled Possession Are Prerequisites for Section 6 Relief: Delhi High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Decision Granting Possession Hyper-Technical Approach Must Be Avoided in Pre-Trial Amendments: Punjab & Haryana High Court FIR Lodged After Restitution of Conjugal Rights Suit Appears Retaliatory: Calcutta High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Case Two-Year Immunity from No-Confidence Motion Applies to Every Elected Sarpanch, Not Just the First in Office: Bombay High Court Enforcing The Terms Of  Agreement Does Not Amount To Contempt Of Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Contempt Order Against Power Company Officers Consent of a minor is immaterial under law: Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Man Accused of Enticing Minor Sister-in-Law and Dowry Harassment False Promise of Marriage Does Not Automatically Amount to Rape: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 376 IPC Dowry Harassment Cannot Be Ignored, But Justice Must Be Fair: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 498A IPC, Modifies Sentence to Time Served with Compensation of ₹3 Lakh Mere Presence in a Crime Scene Insufficient to Prove Common Intention – Presence Not Automatically Establish Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Supreme Court: Compensation Must Ensure Financial Stability—Not Be Subject to Arbitrary Reductions: Supreme Court Slams Arbitrary Reduction of Motor Accident Compensation by High Court

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

Similar News