Reliance Infrastructure Limited vs Union Of India And Ors

Reliance Infrastructure Limited has approached this Tribunal seeking permission to conduct survey and lay cables from MSETCL, Borivali Station to Aarey Colony as per map annexed marked Annexure-A-1. According to the Applicant, who is Project Proponent, the permission has to be granted by Respondent No.5 - Dairy Development Commissioner but it has declined to consider the request of the Applicant.

The Applicant has brought into party array Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change as 1st - 2nd Respondent, Chief Conservator of Forests - 3rd Respondent, Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department - 4th Respondent, Dairy Development Commissioner - 5th Respondent, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests - 6th Respondent, Municipal Commissioner - 7th Respondent, Vanashakti, A Public Trust - 8th Respondent.

All the Respondents are duly served and they are represented by respective Counsel today.

The material propositions in support of the reliefs sought are that the Applicant's EHV (Extra High Voltage) Station at Aarey Colony is centrally located within Mumbai City and there are several Residential, Commercial offices, Commercial buildings and Airport. All these residential and commercial institution are fed from Applicant's EHV Station. New infrastructure expansion projects like Metros is undertaken in or around area MMRDA. Several infrastructure and construction activities in the residential colonies and commercial projects are under progress in the areas like Andheri, Saki Naka, Jogeshwari, Goregaon.

The Applicant applied to the Maharashtra State Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) for grant of permission to conduct survey for laying of underground cables for connectivity of 220 KV to Aarey Colony. It had actually connected the said area with 220 KV EHV Station at Aarey Colony in the year 1995 which is now drawing current from R-Borivali/T-Borivali and R-Versova/R-Goregaon. Toward downstream it is feeding the area indicated in Paragraph 4.1 of the Application.

The grievance of the Applicant is that implementation of its project is very essential as the present load from the existing station is endangering life and creating risk factor.

The Respondent No.5 has declined permission on the ground that portion of Aarey Colony is on the forest land and therefore, permission from Forest Department is necessary and in terms of the Order passed by this Tribunal in the case of Vanashakti - Respondent No.8, it must apply to the Tribunal for permission.

Based on such refusal, the Applicant has approached this Tribunal.

Except Respondent No.2 other Respondents have not filed their Counter.

However, on considering the material propositions supporting the relief sought, we are of the opinion that the relief sought to grant permission for laying of underground cables from MSETCL could be considered only when there is proper survey of the area for determination as to whether forest land is also involved. In the circumstances we feel that the request for the relief is premature. However, we find no reason to deny the request of the Applicant to permit it to conduct survey of the area which will indicate location of the area involved for the project.

It is brought to our notice that the Applicant intends to dig the required extent of earth alongside the existing road which is owned by Respondent No.7 - Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. Thus, the learned Counsel of the Applicant did contend that as already the road is in existence and the laying of cable is just alongside the road which is the road margin, it will not violate any of the provisions of the Forest Act nor this project would be denied. He refers to an Order passed by this Tribunal in M.A. No.102/2016. By that decision this Tribunal has considered a similar request of L&T for installation of CCTV Camera Poles within Aarey Colony and the request so made was granted.

Learned Counsel for Respondent No.8 would contend that in that case there was no digging of the earth involved and therefore, permission was granted. Anyway that is not an issue at present for the reason we are inclined to grant relief only to permit conduct of survey and to determine whether this area comes within the mischief of the Forest Act or not. The Applicant is, therefore, required to first conduct survey to examine the factual position and then decide as to whether it has right to go ahead with the project without contravening the provisions of the Forest Act. Hence, this Application need not be kept pending for the reasons discussed above.

Thus, we are inclined to partly allow this Application and direct Respondent No.5 - Dairy Development Commissioner to permit the Applicant/Project Proponent to conduct survey of the area in Aarey Colony where it intends to lay the cable connect from MSETCL. After conducting survey copy shall be made available to all the Respondents by the Applicant and right to approach this Tribunal is reserved.

Withthisobservation,Application No.145/2016 stands disposed of with no order as to cost.