MUMBAI: Bombay high court on Wednesday said it was "clear that under secretary, state environment department filed an affidavit making an incorrect statement and misled the court as well as his advocate," in a matter regarding identification of wetlands. A bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and BP Colabawalla said, "we call on the under secretary of environment department to explain why action not be taken for making incorrect statements" which were relied on by court for action against collectors of Parbhani, Nandurbar and Nagpur "who it now appears are not at fault." Government pleader Bhushan Kakde on Wednesday submitted three new affidavits by the three collectors who said there was no wetland in these districts except one in a forest area in Nagpur.
The 'fault' or controversy was over whether there were any wetlands in three districts or none, as the district collectors mentioned. The HC had on January 29 seen the under secretary’s affidavit. That affidavit said that ‘wetland’ sites were 'verified' and set out the numbers in a table. The HC had noted that the official had said that "while in previous affidavits it was mentioned that there were no wetlands in Nandurbar, Nagpur and Parbhani Districts; this was based on the reports received from the respective District Collectors; however, after the ‘ground truthing’ was carried out, the actual number of wetlands observed" were set out. It is therefore, clear that collectors had filed incorrect reports based on which incorrect affidavits were filed and had summoned all three collectors to court on February 5 to explain themselves before passing any 'harsh order' against them for "not taking their duties seriously". The three collectors were present in court on Wednesday. All, in their affidavits apologised and said they hadn’t submitted any incorrect information intentionally.
The court, on Wednesday, also at one point said "if this is the standard of our under secretary, then God save the state." The bench observed, that even when it was dictating its order on January 29 in open court when it passed strictures against several collectors, "he did not try to give any explanation which he tried to give today."
The court is hearing two public interest litigation, one by an NGO Vanashakti filed in 2013 for preservation and identification of wetlands. The HC had earlier in October 2013 passed orders for identification of wetlands based on the 2010 rules. Last December, the state lawyer GW Mattos said the rules had changed in 2017 with a new definition of ‘wetlands’. Last December HC had also slammed the state for the "dragging its feet" for eight years, in preparing the 'Brief Document' to identify wetlands within the state and come up with a policy.
On Wednesday, Gayatri Singh counsel for Vanashakti said in Thane, "expert panel report found 114 wetlands out of 132 sites. However, in the Brief Document for Thane given in Court, only 8 wetlands have been identified or verified, rest excluded." She expressed fear that the collectors are "deleting or excluding wetlands". But GW Mattos counsel for state no experts panels were formed. He also said that any discrepancy in figures can be raised before the Wetlands authority's grievance redressal committee. To this Justice Kathawalla in a lighter vein said, "there is no better grievance redressal than us."
The Parbhani collector said all 80 wetlands mentioned in a site on February 1 "are not wetlands but made for irrigation and water conservation purpose." The Nandurbar collector said none of the 164 ‘wetlands’ mentioned on the government website fell under the definition of wetlands under the 2017 rules. The Nagpur collector said the same of the over 560 sites and asserted that theses were 'not wetlands' under the new rules.
The 'fault' or controversy was over whether there were any wetlands in three districts or none, as the district collectors mentioned. The HC had on January 29 seen the under secretary’s affidavit. That affidavit said that ‘wetland’ sites were 'verified' and set out the numbers in a table. The HC had noted that the official had said that "while in previous affidavits it was mentioned that there were no wetlands in Nandurbar, Nagpur and Parbhani Districts; this was based on the reports received from the respective District Collectors; however, after the ‘ground truthing’ was carried out, the actual number of wetlands observed" were set out. It is therefore, clear that collectors had filed incorrect reports based on which incorrect affidavits were filed and had summoned all three collectors to court on February 5 to explain themselves before passing any 'harsh order' against them for "not taking their duties seriously". The three collectors were present in court on Wednesday. All, in their affidavits apologised and said they hadn’t submitted any incorrect information intentionally.
The court, on Wednesday, also at one point said "if this is the standard of our under secretary, then God save the state." The bench observed, that even when it was dictating its order on January 29 in open court when it passed strictures against several collectors, "he did not try to give any explanation which he tried to give today."
The court is hearing two public interest litigation, one by an NGO Vanashakti filed in 2013 for preservation and identification of wetlands. The HC had earlier in October 2013 passed orders for identification of wetlands based on the 2010 rules. Last December, the state lawyer GW Mattos said the rules had changed in 2017 with a new definition of ‘wetlands’. Last December HC had also slammed the state for the "dragging its feet" for eight years, in preparing the 'Brief Document' to identify wetlands within the state and come up with a policy.
On Wednesday, Gayatri Singh counsel for Vanashakti said in Thane, "expert panel report found 114 wetlands out of 132 sites. However, in the Brief Document for Thane given in Court, only 8 wetlands have been identified or verified, rest excluded." She expressed fear that the collectors are "deleting or excluding wetlands". But GW Mattos counsel for state no experts panels were formed. He also said that any discrepancy in figures can be raised before the Wetlands authority's grievance redressal committee. To this Justice Kathawalla in a lighter vein said, "there is no better grievance redressal than us."
The Parbhani collector said all 80 wetlands mentioned in a site on February 1 "are not wetlands but made for irrigation and water conservation purpose." The Nandurbar collector said none of the 164 ‘wetlands’ mentioned on the government website fell under the definition of wetlands under the 2017 rules. The Nagpur collector said the same of the over 560 sites and asserted that theses were 'not wetlands' under the new rules.
Get the app