Kiran Raj

The Bombay High Court has granted permission to proceed with the construction of a captive jetty and associated infrastructure in Raigad district, subject to strict compliance with environmental regulations. The division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre adjudicated that the petitioner, Adani Cementation Limited, must ensure compliance with all statutory conditions imposed by regulatory authorities, including the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEFCC) and the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA).

Adani Cementation Limited approached the court, contending that the proposed project aims to ease the transportation of cement and clinker to the Mumbai Metropolitan Region by utilizing inland waterways. The petitioner submitted that current cement transportation relies on road and rail networks, leading to increased vehicular congestion and emissions. The project proposes constructing a jetty along the Amba River, connected by a mechanized conveyor corridor to a cement grinding unit and backup storage facility in Shahapur and Shahabaz, Raigad district.

Also Read: Supreme Court Directs University to Grant Pension Benefits, Holds Non-Exercise of CPF Option Automatically Entitles Employee to General Provident Fund-Cum-Pension Scheme

The petitioner asserted that the Maharashtra Maritime Board’s 2016 policy encourages port and jetty development to promote maritime transport. According to the petitioner, the project site was selected based on its proximity to Mumbai and its potential to reduce the carbon footprint by shifting transportation from road to waterways. The total project area covers 6 hectares, including:

• CRZ IVB (waterfront area):2 hectares (for the jetty)

• CRZ IA (mangrove forest):6497 hectares (for the conveyor corridor)

• CRZ IB (intertidal area):5503 hectares

• CRZ III (agriculture land):6 hectares (for the cement plant and storage unit)

Senior Counsel Vikram Nankani, representing the petitioner, argued that the project is environmentally sustainable and aligns with government policies promoting maritime transportation. He emphasized that the project had received multiple clearances from regulatory bodies, including the MOEFCC and MCZMA, subject to specific conditions. The petitioner contended that it had undertaken extensive environmental impact assessments and proposed mitigation measures, including a commitment to replant ten times the number of mangrove trees affected by the project.

The Bombay Environmental Action Group (BEAG), appearing as respondent no.9, opposed the petition, arguing that the project would adversely impact ecologically sensitive mangrove areas. Advocate Aditya Mehta, representing BEAG, contended that the proposed development falls within CRZ IA and CRZ IB zones, which require strict environmental scrutiny. He further argued that the project serves primarily private interests rather than public benefit, as the jetty is designated for captive use by Adani Cementation, with only limited access to third parties.

The state authorities, including the Maharashtra Maritime Board and the MOEFCC, stated that the project had been approved subject to stringent environmental safeguards. The Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority, in its 149th meeting, recorded that transportation via waterways is a greener alternative to road and rail transport, provided adequate mitigation measures are implemented.

The court noted that the petitioner had obtained multiple statutory approvals, including environmental and CRZ clearances, in compliance with applicable regulations. The bench recorded, “The project’s environmental impact has been duly assessed, and approvals have been granted after careful evaluation of mitigation measures.” The court also took cognizance of the petitioner’s commitment to afforestation and environmental management plans, observing, “The petitioner has undertaken to compensate for the ecological impact by replanting mangroves and implementing measures to prevent sediment deposition in the mangrove habitat.”

The court further recorded that the Net Present Value (NPV) for forest diversion must be paid as per Supreme Court directives and that the petitioner is required to develop a mangrove nursery, raising 5,000 seedlings annually, with 50% planted in the vicinity and the remaining distributed to local residents. “The project results in minimum damage to the environment and natural resources while ensuring compliance with statutory conditions at every level,” the bench noted.

Regarding the objections raised by BEAG, the court observed that the project had undergone rigorous scrutiny by the relevant statutory authorities. “The competent authorities have examined the impact on the environment and have imposed conditions ensuring minimal ecological disruption.” The court also mandated that the petitioner conduct continuous environmental monitoring and submit periodic reports to the regulatory authorities.

The bench directed that the petitioner must comply with all environmental conditions stipulated by the MOEFCC, MCZMA, and other regulatory bodies. “The project shall proceed only upon strict adherence to the conditions imposed by the statutory authorities, ensuring protection of the mangrove ecosystem and adherence to CRZ norms,” the court stated.

Also Read: Delhi High Court Upholds Minister of State’s Authority in Disciplinary Matters, Rejects Claims of Unlawful Delegation

The court also mandated that all construction activities must be preceded by the necessary clearance from the Bombay High Court for the cutting of mangroves. “The project proponent shall conduct periodic assessments of the impact on the coastal environment and implement corrective measures as necessary,” the court directed. The petitioner was ordered to file an affidavit within two weeks confirming adherence to all environmental conditions stipulated in the judgment.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the petitioner:  Vikram Nankani Senior Advocate, along with Advocates Pranav Narsaria, Rohan Dakshini, Shweta Jaydev, and Feroza Bharucha, instructed by Rashmikant & Partners.

For Respondent No.1, UOI: Y.R. Mishra and Shailendra Mishra, Advocates.

For Respondent No.2, MCZMA:  Jaya Bagwe, Advocate.

For State of Maharashtra and other state authorities: Neha Bhide, Government Pleader along with Additional Government Pleader O.A. Chandurkar and Assistant Government Pleader G.R. Raghuwanshi.

Respondent No.7,The Maharashtra Maritime Board: Rakesh L. Singh, Advocate instructed by M.V. Kini & Co.

Respondent No.9, BEAG:  Aditya Mehta, Advocate along with Advocates Viloma Shah, Deepali Bagla, and Ativ Patel, instructed by AVP Partners.

Case Title: Adani Cementation Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:10387-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2674 of 2024
Bench: Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre

[Read/Download order]