HC slaps Rs 1-L fine on NGO for ‘frivolous’ PIL on Kharghar plot

NGO had approached the HC contending that the plot, situated between Sector 18 and Sector 19 of Kharghar, was a water body connected to Panvel creek.

The Bombay high court (HC) on Monday imposed a penalty of Rs 1 lakh on NGO Abhivyakti. After state authorities submitted evidence that showed Abhivyakti’s claim that a six-hectare (ha) plot in Kharghar was a wetland, to be false, the court dismissed the petition as “frivolous”.

Bombay high court (HC) on Monday imposed a penalty of Rs 1 lakh on NGO Abhivyakti. (Ht FILE)

The NGO had approached the HC contending that the plot, situated between Sector 18 and Sector 19 of Kharghar, was a water body connected to Panvel creek. The petitioner claimed that as water from the creek flowed back into the land, it had led to the formation of a pond there. Complaining that 90% of the land was encroached upon by debris-dumping, the NGO sought protection of the area as a wetland under provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010.

The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra (Cidco), however, opposed the plea and contended that the plot was agricultural land and was under cultivation before it was acquired by it. It added that there was a slight depression in the land owing to which water accumulates there every monsoon. Cidco said the land was not connected to Panvel creek. Sub-divisional officer of Panvel responded to the PIL stating that the Maharashtra Remote Sensing Application Centre, which had done satellite mapping of wetlands in 2005, had not showed any water body between Sector 18 and Sector 19 of Kharghar node. The revenue authorities also submitted a November 2018 letter from the Space Applications Centre of ISRO, stating that it had not detected any wetland in the area.

Irked to note factually incorrect statements in the PIL, the bench of chief justice Pradeep Nandrajog and justice Bharati Dangre termed it frivolous and imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the petitioner.