Aksa Beach seawall case: NGT accepts plea against MMB

After hearing the applicants, the bench observed, “Prima facie, we find that substantial questions relating to adverse impact on the environment are made out” and accepted the application

Navi Mumbai: The Western Zonal Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has accepted an environmentalists’ plea against the ongoing construction of a seawall at Aksa Beach in Malad by the Maharashtra Maritime Board (MMB), stating that the structure violated the CRZ norms.

During the hearing on Monday, the applicants’ advocate Bhattacharya argued that the CRZ clearance on which the MMB relied was itself conditional. The MCZMA, which has the nod, specifically mentioned that the project work should be limited to the landward side of the beach and that there should be no construction in the intertidal area. (HT PHOTO)

After hearing the applicants, the bench observed, “Prima facie, we find that substantial questions relating to adverse impact on the environment are made out” and accepted the application.

NatConnect Foundation director B N Kumar and activist Zoru Bathena filed the application at the NGT’s Bench, complaining that the MMB violated the conditional clearance given by the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) for the beautification of the beach. “The MCZMA clearly mentioned that there should be no construction in the CRZ1 area of the beach, whereas the wall is coming up “right in the middle of the beach”, the applicants said, producing photographs.

The bench, comprising justice Dinesh Kumar Singh as a judicial member and Dr Vijay Kulkarni as an expert member, examined the evidence and then issued notices to MCZMA, the state environment department as well as the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEFCC) to file their responses within four weeks.

During the hearing on Monday, the applicants’ advocate Bhattacharya argued that the CRZ clearance on which the MMB relied was itself conditional. The MCZMA, which has the nod, specifically mentioned that the project work should be limited to the landward side of the beach and that there should be no construction in the intertidal area.

The bench also directed the applicants to file their detailed responses to the MMB affidavit. The next hearing will be on September 4.

The applicants’ case is that while the MMB submitted a series of proposals for the wall under the pretext of beautification and anti-erosion measures, the MCZMA noted that the sea walls and the bunds are widely considered to be “antithetical to the preservation of beaches and protection against flooding”. The solid construction itself could erode the beach, the Authority observed.

Kumar and Bathena mentioned that around 600-metre x 4-metre wall was already built despite their objections to the environment ministry and the MOEFCC.

The MOEFCC, on its part, asked the MCZMA to look into the complaint and report. Yet, the applicants said, the work was continued, with no reports from the state to the MOEFCC.

The application also pointed out that a special bench of the NGT, in a Puducherry beach-related case, ruled against any sea walls at beaches across the country.