IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1720 OF 2014

Similar documents
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL (WESTERN ZONE) BENCH, PUNE APPEAL NO.26 OF 2014 HON BLE SHRI JUSTICE V.R. KINGAONKAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL (WESTERN ZONE) BENCH, PUNE APPEAL No. 72/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO OF 2015

Piramal Fund Management Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. DATED : 17 th MARCH, 2016.

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI APPEAL NO. 35 OF Versus

Khandelwal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 6(3)(2), Mumbai & Ors... Respondents. DATED : 17 th MARCH, 2016.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO.360 of 2016 (Arising from the SLP(Civil) No.

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 Date of decision: 1st May, 2012 CO.APP. No.24/2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD : PRESENT : THE HON BLE MR. VIKRAMAJIT SEN, CHIEF JUSTICE

CASE No. 113 of Coram. Shri. Azeez M. Khan, Member Shri. Deepak Lad, Member

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

To, Deputy Project Manager (PJ), Mis Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Vill. Jhimani, Paradip, Dist. Jagatsinghpur, Orissa

No.2-3/2010-IA-III Government of India Ministry of Environment and Forests (IA-III Division) ORDER

Indian Employees [ Judgment - 68 ] NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI. M.A. No. 18 of 2018 In Original Application No. 676 of 2017 (Earlier O.A. No.

Commissioner of Income Tax 24

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.91 of 2017

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Mr.D.A. Dubey with Mr.Y.R. Mishra i/b G.C. Mishra

Public Interest Litigation Petitions filed by AIFTP & Associate Members

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Judgment Reserved On: Judgment Pronounced On: CO.PET. 991/2016 IN THE MATTER OF:-

$~R 66, 67 & 68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of Decision : 15 th May, 2012.

challenging the order dated passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. 2. The appellant had approached the Central

In the matter of Retrospective Recovery regarding IT/ITES Consumer

ASN 1/18 WP-2632.doc. vs. 1. The Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) 11, having his office at Scindia House, Mumbai.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 830 OF 2018 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS.

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 485 of 2018

Commissioner of Income Tax 2. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant Mr. Niraj Sheth i/b Atul Jasani for the respondent. DATED : 4 th JUNE, 2018.

5TH NLIU JURIS CORP NATIONAL CORPORATE LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2014 MOOT PROBLEM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI. Tuesday, 09th April 2013 APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2012

HIGH COURT, BOMBAY AND COMPANY SCHEME PETITION NO. 707 OF 2016 CONNECTED WITH COMPANY SUMMONS FOR DIRECTION NO. 533 OF And

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS OF Versus. The State of Bihar & Ors. Etc...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT Judgment delivered on W.P.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2007 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS.

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CUSAA 4/2013. Versus

Case No. 129 of Shri V.P. Raja, Chairman Shri Vijay L. Sonavane, Member

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH AT CHANDIMANDIR -.- OA 1989 of 2012

DATED: 9th January, 2009

CASE No. 103 of CASE No. 104 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3 OF 2013 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION No OF 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS OF 2009 D. SAROJAKUMARI APPELLANT(S) Versus

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No of 2018) VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8732/2015

Moot Court Problem THE BACKGROUND

VERSUS M/S. BHAGAT CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD... Respondent. VERSUS M/S. M.R.G. PLASTIC TECHNOLOGIES AND ORS... Respondent

A very simple but ticklish issue arises in this writ. petition. The issue is whether a person retiring from a higher grade

MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1601 OF Commissioner of Income Tax 16. Vs.

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: versus

it has been received or not. We have heard Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant herein. She has brought t

$~23. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7131/2015 % Judgment dated 29 th July, versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PIL NO. 17 OF 2011 AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY BADLAPUR CETP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO OF 2016

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) No. 421 of M/s. Manila Resorts Pvt. Ltd.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL

The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Kolkata.

CASE NO. 55 of Coram. Shri Azeez M. Khan, Member Shri Deepak Lad, Member. M/s Shah Promoters and Developers

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income-tax) (Original Side) I.T.A. No.219 of 2003

Order Under Section 29A of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 in respect of M/s Kerala Housing Finance Limited

OF AUDITED STANDALONE FINANCIAL RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER AND YEAR ENDED MARCH

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON: versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER. Order Reserved on: Date of Decision: November 28, 2006

Decided on: 08 th October, 2010

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment Reserved on: 09 th October, 2015 Judgment Delivered on: 16 th February, 2016

[ADJUDICATION ORDER NO. PKB/AO 37/2011]

BEFORE THE COMPANY LAW BOARD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.683 OF 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.2530 OF Birla Institute of Technology.Appellant(s) VERSUS

ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER. Date of decision : November 28, 2007 ITA 348/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGNAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1017 OF 2011

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW. Original Application No. 06 of 2018

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Advocate. Versus

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2018 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION AHALYA A. SAMTANEY.APPELLANT. Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Case No. 47 of In the matter of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO OF 2013

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision : 14 th August, W.P.(C) 7727/2015 and C.M.No /2015.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, LPA No.399/2007

Commissioner of Income Tax 19(2) Vs. CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 04, Tax Appeal No.4225/Mum/2012.

, , Other income Profit from ordinary activities before finance costs and

CASE NO. 142 of Suo moto proceeding in the matter of Show-Cause Notice issued in Order dated 8 February, 2017 in Case No. 89 of 2015.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Date of decision : 26 th November, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. Through Mr.P.K.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER. ITA No.798 /2007. Judgment reserved on: 27th March, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: 20 th January, 2010

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

Grievance No. K/E/953/1159/ ID No

Devilal Modi, Proprietor, M/S... vs Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam And... on 7 October, 1964

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT Date of decision: 9th July, 2013 ITA 131/2010

[Published in 406 ITR (Journ.) p.73 (Part-3)]

Additional Pension on the basis of Contribution over and above Wage Limit of either Rs.5,000/- or Rs.6,500/- per Month.

The Commissioner of Income Tax 2. Knight Frank (India) Pvt. Ltd. DATED : 16 th AUGUST, 2016.

Transcription:

1 of 10 WP.1720.2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1720 OF 2014 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others.. Petitioners The National Green Tribunal and others.. Respondents PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.131 OF 2012 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.116 OF 2013 Vanshakti and another.. Petitioners Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others.. Respondents WRIT PETITION NO.311 OF 2012 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.81 OF 2014 M/s Sunstream City Pvt. Ltd... Petitioner Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others.. Respondents PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.1 OF 2013 Mangesh Eknath Sangle.. Petitioners Union of India and others.. Respondents

2 of 10 WP.1720.2014 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.20 OF 2013 Vanshakti.. Petitioner Union of India and others.. Respondents WRIT PETITION NO.3836 OF 2014 Anthony Lara Environment Solutions Pvt.Ltd... Petitioner Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others.. Respondents Ms Gayatri Singh for Petitioner in PIL No.131 of 2012 & for Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.1720 of 2014. Ms Sharmila Deshmukh for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr Parag Vyas for Respondent No.5. Mr Ahmed Abdi i/b M/s Abdi and Co. for Petitioner in PIL No.1 of 2013. Mr Saket Mone with Ms Tejaswini Bhakare i/b M/s Vidhi Partners for Petitioners in W.P. No.3836 of 2014. Mr V.B. Thadani, AGP for Respondent State in W.P. No.3836 of 2014. Mr S.U. Kamdar, Sr. Counsel with Ms T.H. Puranik for Petitioner in W.P. No.1720 of 2014. Mr Anil Singh, ASG with Mr Mohamedali M. Chunawala for Respondent No.7 in W.P. No.1720 of 2014. Mr Anil Singh, ASG with Mr Rui Rodriques and Ms Nita Masurtkar for Respondent No.7 in W.P. No.3836 of 2014. Mr Anil Singh, ASG with Mr G.R. Sharma and Mr D.P. Singh for Respondent No.1 in PIL No.1 of 2013. Mr R.D. Soni i/b M/s Ram and Co. for Petitioner in W.P. No.311 of 2012.

P.C.: 3 of 10 WP.1720.2014 CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND B.P. COLABAWALLA, J. DATE : 01 NOVEMBER 2014 By order dated 21 November 2003 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18717 of 2001, the Supreme Court directed that the Dumping Ground at Chincholi Bunder area, Malad should be discontinued and should be shifted to a land admeasuring 141.77 hectares at Kanjurmarg subject to compliance with the law relating to Pollution. Since the said order was not implemented, in the sense that the Government did not handover the land to the Municipal Corporation, by order dated 24 April 2006 passed in Writ Petition No.3246 of 2004 filed by the Bombay Environmental Action Group, a Division Bench of this Court observed that it would not grant any prohibitory injunction against use of the Kanjurmarg site. It appears that the State Government and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai made applications to the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, New Delhi (MOEF) seeking prior environmental clearance for the purpose of development of Sanitary Landfill and Waste Composting Unit at Kanjurmarg. In the course of consideration of the said applications, the Municipal Corporation submitted its Environment Impact Assessment Report. The Report, inter alia, indicated that for making optimum use of the site and for

4 of 10 WP.1720.2014 proper implementation of the project, it was necessary to have the following project components within the CRZ area : (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) Right of way through CRZ I (out side the sites) to build a 20 m. wide elevated Approach Road on pillars connecting the site to Eastern Express Way; Widening of existing approach road passing through CRZ I are to a width of 18 m. to provide access to the site for construction vehicles until the construction of Approach Road is completed and thereafter as second access to the site; Formation of embankment, road thereupon and boundary wall by widening the existing bund along the periphery of the site by extending the same inside the site; Infrastructure for diversion of rain water and leachate collection ponds; Green belt to provide visual screen to the site; Covered sheds to house the waste processing units, leachate collection drains, internal roads and side slopes of sanitary landfill. (emphasis supplied) 2. The MOEF thereafter granted environmental clearance dated 17 March 2009 to the Municipal Corporation for development of a Waste Composting Unit at Kanjurmarg. It was however mentioned in the clearance that though the total land area proposed for the project was 141.77 hectares, an area admeasuring 86.72 hectares was free from CRZ and after deducting a further area admeasuring 20.76 hectares, which was affected by mangroves, balance area admeasuring 65.96

5 of 10 WP.1720.2014 hectares was available for the purpose of project development. The cost of the project was estimated at Rs.174/ crores. The State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) recommended for grant of environmental clearance on an area of 65.96 Hectares for the project to be developed in two phases. In Phase I the proposed Composting would be carried out while in Phase II the Govt of Maharashtra would also explore the possibility of utilizing the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) for generating energy. Ultimately, the environmental clearance was granted subject to certain specific conditions and general conditions. Some of the specific conditions are as under : (i) (ii) (iii) The composting plant / Landfill facility shall be located outside the Coastal Regulation Zone area. The other allied facilities such as roads, conveying systems etc. can be located on the Coastal Regulation Zone area. It shall be ensured that no mangroves are destroyed during construction and operation of. (iv) The project proponent shall ensure the alternative options such as RDF manufacturing, incineration etc., for obtaining energy and a detailed proposal in this regard shall be drawn up and submitted to the Ministry within 2 years. (emphasis supplied) 3. The aforesaid environmental clearance dated 17 March 2009 was challenged in an appeal before the National Environment Appellate Authority but the Appeal came to be

6 of 10 WP.1720.2014 dismissed by order dated 12 February 2010 and the environmental clearance dated 17 March 2009 was confirmed. Considering the above clearance, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai entered into a Concession Agreement with Respondent No.8 Antony Lara Enviro Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 4. However, on 24 October 2012, Respondent No.2 filed Public Interest Litigation No.131 of 2012 contending that the Municipal Corporation and the contractor were not complying with the conditions stipulated in the environmental clearance dated 17 March 2009 and on that ground the Public Interest Litigation sought revocation of the environmental clearance. On 6 November 2012, the Court passed an adinterim order restraining the Municipal Corporation and other parties from dumping waste and debris at the landfill site. Thereafter, the Municipal Corporation filed an application for vacating the said ad interim order and this Court, by an order dated 22.11.2012 vacated the ad interim order dated 6.11.2012 in view of the order passed by the Supreme Court dated 21 st November, 2003 under which the Municipal Corporation was permitted to use the land admeasuring 141.71 hectares at Kanjurmarg subject to compliance with the law relating to Pollution. 5. Thereafter, the Municipal Corporation made an application to MOEF for permission to change the technology

7 of 10 WP.1720.2014 from composting technology to bioreactor technology contending that bioreactor technology is more effective and requires less space. That application was made on 18 March 2013. MOEF sent the said application to the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and the said Authority sent it to the State Expert Appraisal Committee 1 (SEAC 1). The matter is pending with the said Committee since 10 June 2013. 6. It appears that the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) was reconstituted on 30 January 2014 and composition of the seven member committee is as under : 1. Shri T.C. Benjamin, IAS (Retired) Chairman Pune 2. Prof. Shri Bhaskar N. Thorat, Member Professor in Chemical Engineering, Institute of Chemical Technoogy, Matunga, Mumbai. 3. Shri Balbir Singh H.S. Sehgal (Retired) Member Chembur, Mumbai. 4. Shri Chandrakant Iranna Sambhutwad Member Aurangabad 5. Shri D.A. Hiremath Member Dharwad 580004 6. Prof (Dr) Ramesh D. Dod Member Pune

8 of 10 WP.1720.2014 7. Shri Madan M. Kulkarni Member Director, National Safety Council, Belapur, Navi Mumbai 8. Deputy Secretary (Technical) Secretary Environment Department, Government of Maharashtra 7. We are informed at the hearing that the Committee inspected the site on 11 October 2014 and the matter was to be considered at the meeting of the Committee earlier scheduled on 28 and 29 October 2014. We are further informed that the meeting of the Committee is now fixed on 14 and 15 November 2014. 8. Mr Kamdar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation submits that in the City of Mumbai, daily waste generated is 8,000 MT of solid waste and 2,000 MT of debris aggregating to about 10,000 MT. At present, only two dumping sites are available with the Municipal Corporation, one being the site at Mulund which has reached its dumping capacity. Similarly, the second Dumping site at Deonar is receiving waste of approx 6,000 MT per day and is also about to reach its capacity. The two other Dumping sites, namely the site at Malad came to be closed down under the aforesaid orders of the Supreme Court and the site at Gorai has also been closed down pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. It is therefore submitted that at present the Municipal Corporation

9 of 10 WP.1720.2014 does not have any other site except the Kanjurmarg site which is required to be developed as a landfill site pursuant to the Supreme Court order passed as far back as on 21 November 2003. The application made by the Municipal Corporation for permission to change the technology from composting to bioreactor is pending for last one and half years. 9. In view of the above, the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) shall peremptorily consider the application filed by the Municipal Corporation for permission to change the technology from composting to bioreactor, during its next meeting on 14 and 15 November 2014, without fail. The Committee shall, before forming its view, take into consideration the representation, if any, of Respondent No.2 Vanshakti Public Trust already made till the last scheduled meeting i.e. till 28 October 2014. Once the Committee forms its opinion in the matter, its recommendation shall be sent to the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) by 22 November 2014 and the said Authority shall consider such recommendations at the next meeting of the Authority. 10. It is made clear that having regard to the urgency of the matter and the fact that the project proponent is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, SEAC, SEIAA and MOEF shall consider the application for change of technology on its merits without going into any question of alleged

10 of 10 WP.1720.2014 violations of any terms and conditions of environmental clearance dated 17 March 2009 or any other alleged violations. 11. It will be open to the parties to raise any such question of alleged violations before this Court at the next hearing. Stand over to 19 November 2014. (CHIEF JUSTICE) (B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.)