Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Against Construction Of Lokhandwala-Andheri Link Roads With Rs.2 Lakh Cost

first_imgNews UpdatesBombay High Court Dismisses Plea Against Construction Of Lokhandwala-Andheri Link Roads With Rs.2 Lakh Cost Nitish Kashyap7 Dec 2020 9:03 PMShare This – xThe Bombay High Court on Friday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by a group of residents from Versova questioning the construction of Lokhandwala Andheri link roads citing uprooting of mangroves as a cause for concern, observing that the petitioners appear to have private interest in the matter.Division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni were hearing a…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Bombay High Court on Friday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by a group of residents from Versova questioning the construction of Lokhandwala Andheri link roads citing uprooting of mangroves as a cause for concern, observing that the petitioners appear to have private interest in the matter.Division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni were hearing a PIL filed by residents of Versova area, many of whom belong to the Jai Bharat Housing Society which is also one of the petitioners in the case. Court imposed a cost of Rs. 2 lakh to be deposited with the Maharashtra State Legal Service Authority within 4 weeks. The bench observed-“The petitioners appear to be those persons who have some private interest of whatsoever nature to prevent such public works. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners are espousing a genuine public interest and/or have absolutely no private interest. This public interest litigation is hence, an abuse of the process of law.”Case BackgroundThe said PIL was filed in 2019 questioning the project undertaken by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai alongwith the State Government and the Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority to connect the areas of Versova and Lokhandwala. The petitioners contend that execution of the project work would involve uprooting of mangroves. They alleged in the PIL that the project plan portrays an unwarranted development as according to them, it would not, in any manner resolve the prevailing traffic situation in the area. On the contrary, the MCGM’s plan would increase traffic and bottlenecks and add to the citizens woes, the PIL states.Moreover, the petitioners contend that during 2014-2015, the aforesaid co-operative society again issued various letters to the concerned authorities raising their concern on the proposed link road/bridges passing through mangroves and the possible encroachment in and around the mangroves. They also pointed out that the plan had too many defects which were elaborated in these letters issued to the authorities. However again no reply was received to these letters. The petitioners also averred that Bombay Environmental Action Group (BEAG) had approached the High Court in a public interest petition against the State of Maharashtra and others which was filed seeking protection of the mangrove areas. In the said PIL, High Court had passed an interim order dated October 6, 2005 directing total freeze on the destruction and cutting of mangroves in the entire State of Maharashtra. A co-ordinate Bench of the High Court had delivered a judgment on September 17, 2018, interalia directing that irrespective of ownership of land on which the mangroves were situated, such land shall be deemed to be a forest and would come under the definition of Forest (Conservation) Act 1980. Petitioners relied upon the said judgment.On the other hand, in an order dated April 25, 2019 a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court told MCGM that no tree shall be cut to lay down link road connecting Versova to Lokhandwala in an interim order. Thereafter, petition was moved at the behest of the MCGM contending that the interim order in the facts of the case ought not to be continued as it would withhold the project and more particularly the installation of a vehicular bridge, except for which, construction of the roads on both the sides is already completed.In an affidavit dated May 31, 2019 filed by Sanjay Sandanshiv, Under Secretary, Environment Department on behalf of the MCZMA, to state that a proposal dated August 14, 2013 was received by the MCZMA from the MCGM for construction of vehicular bridge at the junction of Yari road and Lokhandwala back Road, near Amarnath Tower building, Andheri (West) Mumbai. The proposal of MCGM was deliberated in the 90th meeting of the MCZMA held on July 19, 2014 wherein after a detailed deliberation, the MCZMA called upon the MCGM to submit a Rapid Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and an ‘Environment Management Plan’. These requirements were fulfilled by the MCGM by submitting such plans on 27 July 2015 which were prepared by the National Institute Oceanology (NIO) and the National Environment Engineering Research Institute (NEERI).An affidavit filed by MCGM stated that the installation of the bridge and the completion of the project is essential for the public need, as the proposed road would be a shortcut for the movement of traffic connecting Lokhandwala Complex and Versova areas which would reduce the travel time from 35 minutes to 5 minutes. The MCGM’s Notice of Motion filed in the petition came to be granted by the High Court by an order dated March 7, 2017.JudgmentAdvocate Vikramaditya Deshmukh appeared for the petitioner. AGP Kedar Dighe for the State. Mr.Y.R.Mishra, Advocate Atul Singh for Union of India. Advocate Rajesh Patil, Advocate a/w for MCGM and Advocate Sharmila U.Deshmukh for MCZMA and MPCB. At the outset, the bench noted-“The primary concern of the petitioners is not only that the mangroves would be adversely affected by the public road project being undertaken by MCGM to the point of destruction, but also the project plan of the MCGM being defective and faulty. We may observe that the second contention appears to be totally untenable. From the frame of the petition, it appears that the petitioners are not in a position to contend that they are super experts in the field of planning and thus are in a position to either displace the planning of the road project in question by the MCGM and/or are in a position to sit in appeal over the project planning, as undertaken by the MCGM with the help of experts in the field of planning the public need and utilities. There is no material to sustain such an argument. Hence, the petitioners contention of the project plan being faulty is required to be outrightly rejected.”Moreover, the bench pointed out that the petitioners had tried to suppress the order dated March 7, 2017 wherein permission to restart the project was granted by the Court. Court noted-“We may observe that the above order passed by this Court is specific to the project in question as undertaken by the MCGM. However, what is disturbing is that although the petitioners referred to the final orders passed on the BEAG’s PIL in seeking the reliefs in the present petition, they have suppressed the order dated March 7, 2017 passed by this Court on the MCGM’s Notice of Motion. We may note that all the orders passed by this Court are available in the public domain namely on the official Website. When the present PIL was filed the said order dated 7 March 2017 was certainly available in the public domain and to the petitioners. The petitioners however chose to suppress the said order from this Court, significantly when they sought a stay on the public project and intended to be the beneficiaries of the interim order dated 25 April 2019, which operated as an injunction on the MCGM to proceed with the project. This more particularly when the order dated 7 March 2017 was passed by this Court permitting the MCGM to proceed with the project by undertaking construction of the road including installation of the bridge joining Versova and Lokhandwala areas. In the said order this Court categorically recorded that it is a public utility project which was required to be permitted as all permissions were obtained by MCGM.”Finally, dismissing the said PIL the bench expressed “grave doubt as to whether this is a genuine public interest litigation.”Click Here To Download Judgment[Read Judgment]Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

Trump: Look, Obamacare is ‘Dead’ and I’m ‘100 Percent’ Behind Our Replacement Plan

first_imgTrump: Look, Obamacare is ‘Dead’ and I’m ‘100 Percent’ Behind Our Replacement PlanGuy Benson Guy Benson Up first, a key nugget of news: Now that the Trump/Ryan healthcare bill narrowly cleared another hurdle in the budget committee this week (more on that in a moment), it has been sent over to the rules committee — the final stage before a full floor vote. House leadership is apparently sufficiently confident that this final committee obstacle will be overcome that they’ve slated a floor vote for late next week. As it approaches, expect a furious debate with the Democrats, and an intense whip count effort within the GOP conference to round up the requisite votes for ultimate passage. Here we go:Will Paul Ryan have the votes? He and his team have repeatedly insisted that this “repeal and replace” roadmap has been charted with major buy-in from the House GOP rank-and-file, who’ve been kept in the loop every step of the way. But in recent weeks, the party’s right flank has blanched at the framework of the legislation (dubbing it “Obamacare-lite” and too generous), while centrists have sounded the alarm over the Congressional Budget Office’s score of the bill. Are these differences reconcilable? We’ll likely find out in a matter of days. It’s worth noting that in this week’s budget committee squeaker (19-17 passage), three members of the House Freedom Caucus joined Democrats in voting no, nearly waylaying the process. One additional lost vote, and the American Health Care Act would have been tied up in committee.As the “repeal and replace” push began in earnest earlier this month, may political observers said that a key factors in the process would be presidential leadership. Despite the problematic (but likely overstated) CBO challenge and other intense pressure points — and despite theorizing that certain elements within the White House were setting up the House to fail — President Trump’s steadfast support for GOPCare has remained unwavering. Having recently hosted Obamacare victims at the White House, Trump made an additional statement in the Oval Office today, flanked by members who were leaning ‘no.’ He explained that the failing status quo demonstrates that the current law is “dead,” (the latest enrollment numbers are poor, a consequence of unaffordable costs) voicing “100 percent support” for the Republican alternative designed by his HHS Secretary and House leaders. This is a full-throated endorsement:Trump again repeats the smart talking point that Obamacare is collapsing on its own, but that sitting back and allowing that to happen would be irresponsible governance because people are suffering. This framing reinforces the public’s belief that the current law is failing, a reality that even a majority of respondents in this week’s brutal Fox News poll agreed with. As for vote-gathering, according to Politico’s Tim Alberta, there’s a specific strategy afoot:What this suggests to me is that the plan is to muscle the bill through and get it over to the Senate in its current form, at which point amendments will probably make some significant alterations. Trump’s campaign posture was vowing as much coverage for as many people as possible, so it would follow that he’d be likely to support changes that make the bill more generous (and expensive) when push comes to shove. As it stands, moderates would likely kill this iteration of the bill, so stand by for changes in the upper chamber. But it also looks like Trump is willing to do the political work of launching a private charm offensive with reluctant conservatives (adopting previously-discussed policy changes in the opposite direction, too, which led to the photo op embedded above), then taking his show on the road — with a goal of keeping the heat up on Republican members who may be tempted to torpedo his bill. I’ll leave you with a clip from Ryan chatting with National Review’s Rich Lowry about this process, as well as a surreal quote from Nancy Pelosi attacking Republicans for forcing their members to “walk the plank” in support of a harmful healthcare bill. This coming from a woman who did precisely that, without a public mandate developed over four election cycles, and who proceeded to lose 63 seats in the next election:FacebookTwitterCopy LinkEmailSharelast_img read more

Shumlin names Christine Oliver to be Commissioner of Mental Health

first_imgGovernor-elect Peter Shumlin today announced that Christine M. Oliver will serve as Commissioner of Mental Health.”Christine has broad experience with mental health issues and services, and with health care issues broadly,” said Shumlin. “Her professional background makes her a strong addition to our human services team.”Oliver has served as Deputy Commissioner of the Division of Health Care Administration, through the Vermont Department of Banking, Insurance, Securities and Health Care Administration, since her appointment in 2006. In that post, she was the managerial head of the state division responsible for regulating health insurance (including rates and forms), quality of health care services, and related consumer education and protection. The division also has statutory responsibility for reviewing hospital budgets and issuing “certificates of need” for hospital expenditures.”We are very fortunate to have Christine join the Human Services team,” said Human Services Secretary Designee Doug Racine. “She understands the connections between mental and physical health. Those skills will help us as we proceed with health care reform and closing the Vermont State Hospital as soon as possible.”Prior to her Vermont tenure, Oliver was Executive Assistant for Health and Human Services to Ohio Governor Bob Taft, focusing on Mental Health, Health, Job and Family Services (including Medicaid), Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, Aging, Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services issues.She also served as General Counsel for the Ohio Department of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, an agency that serves 60,000 individuals through 12 state-operated developmental centers, 88 county boards of mental retardation and developmental disabilities, and 1,300 private providers regulated by the State. In addition, she previously was an associate with the Ohio law firm of Delligatti, Hollenbaugh & Briscoe Co., L.P.A., with a focus on business and health care litigation.Oliver obtained her law degree from the Ohio State University, College of Law and Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, magna cum laude, from Youngstown State University.Her salary will be $99,000. Source: Shumlin’s office. 12.23.2010last_img read more

Martin Keown questions whether Matteo Guendouzi is good enough to play for Arsenal amid exit talk

first_img Metro Sport ReporterTuesday 7 Jul 2020 5:28 pmShare this article via facebookShare this article via twitterShare this article via messengerShare this with Share this article via emailShare this article via flipboardCopy link1kShares The youngster grabbed Maupay by his neck after the Brighton loss (Picture: Getty Images)‘I think if you do have misdemeanours and you play well on the pitch that seems to get you back in and that may be the problem for him.‘[Lucas] Torreira now is back from injury, [Granit] Xhaka is playing better in that position, [Dani] Ceballos is controlling games for Arsenal.‘It’s going to be difficult for the young man to get back in but everybody deserves a second opportunity, but it starts from the training pitch.More: Arsenal FCArsenal flop Denis Suarez delivers verdict on Thomas Partey and Lucas Torreira movesThomas Partey debut? Ian Wright picks his Arsenal starting XI vs Manchester CityArsene Wenger explains why Mikel Arteta is ‘lucky’ to be managing Arsenal‘They may want to use him though in terms of selling players, we talk about the financial difficulties, probably Arsenal need to sell before they can buy in the summer.‘It may be that he takes the opportunity to offload him in the summer but we’ll have to wait and see what Arteta intends to do.’MORE: Michael Owen’s Premier League predictions, including Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal clashesMORE: Emiliano Martinez praises Arsenal boss Mikel Arteta’s ruthlessness amid Matteo Guendouzi sagaFollow Metro Sport across our social channels, on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.For more stories like this, check our sport page. Martin Keown questions whether Matteo Guendouzi is good enough to play for Arsenal amid exit talk Advertisement Advertisement Guendouzi has not featured in a match day squad since the Brighton game (Picture: Getty Images)Martin Keown is unsure if Matteo Guendouzi is good enough to play for Arsenal, but insists that the youngster deserves a shot at redemption.The 21-year-old has been exiled from the squad and reportedly forced to train alone after he grabbed Neal Maupay by the neck in the 2-1 loss to Brighton two weeks ago.When asked if the Frenchman could return for Arsenal’s clash against Leicester City on Tuesday night, Mikel Arteta admitted that ‘the situation has not changed’, suggesting that Guendouzi’s attitude is yet to improve.The highly-rated youngster has consequently been linked with a move away from the Emirates, with teams such as Barcelona and Real Madrid rumoured to be monitoring his situation.AdvertisementAdvertisementADVERTISEMENTBut, despite showing promising flashes during his first two seasons in north London, Gunners legend Keown isn’t convinced about his ability and believes the midfielder will struggle to get back into Arteta’s side.‘His biggest quality is his personality, I’m not sure he’s really good enough if I’m absolutely honest,’ Keown told talkSPORT. Commentlast_img read more