Nagpur: In a significant development, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has issued directives to government agencies regarding the conservation and management of Futala Lake. The court has prohibited permanent constructions at the lake, citing compliance with the Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules 4.2.
However, it has not imposed a stay on new constructions proposed under the Futala Lake Musical Fountain Show Project, such as a floating restaurant and parking plaza. The Swachh Association, an environmental conservation organization, has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) opposing the project.
Wenesday Rate
Wed 25 Dec. 2024
A division bench of Justice Vrushali V Joshi and Justice A S Chandurkar observed that by the present proceedings filed in public interest, the petitioner Swacch Association, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as well as under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, seeks to raise a challenge to the installation of musical fountain and associated machinery in the body of Futala Lake by urging that the said tank is a ‘wetland’ and the activities sought to be undertaken by the respondent No.4 Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRC) therein as well as in the adjoining parking plaza and viewers’ gallery is concerned, has progressed to a great extent and the situation in that regard at this stage has become irreversible.
It is also to be noted that insofar as the conduct of the laser show is concerned, the same has been dropped in view of the apprehensions expressed by the Air Force Authorities. In these facts therefore we do not find that the petitioner would be entitled to grant of any interim relief in the form of restraining the MMRCL from undertaking the activities with regard to placing of the artificial banyan tree and the activities with regard to the floating banquet and floating restaurant.
The Bench further said, “We are mindful of the fact that presently we are only considering the interim prayer for prohibition. To ensure that Futala Lake is protected from any permanent construction being undertaken therein, the spirit behind the prohibitions prescribed by Rule 4(2)(vi) of the Rules of 2017 would have to be strictly observed. Thus no construction of a permanent nature except as provided in Rule 4(2)(vi) could be undertaken. It would thus be the responsibility of the respondents and especially of the MMRCL to ensure that there is no breach of the restrictions imposed by Rule 4(2) of the Rules of 2017 in view of Office Memorandum dated 08-03-2022. Such restrictions would ensure safeguarding the Tank as a whole and preventing any permanent construction being made in the Tank itself,” the High Court said..
The Bench further said that for the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any case made out to grant interim relief as prayed for. At the same time, the respondents shall ensure that the Rules of 2017 and especially Rule 4(2) (vi) thereof is not violated by undertaking any construction of a permanent nature within Futala Lake. MMRCL along with the NMC are directed to ensure that the activities undertaken by MMRCL do not result in causing any damage to the Tank. They shall also ensure that the water-body where the floating banquet hall, floating restaurant as well as the artificial banyan tree are proposed is kept clean and is properly maintained by taking all necessary precautions/steps in that regard.
