High Court on Thursday cleared the cloud of doubts over the Futala Lake as it dismissed a challenge mounted on the ambitious project by environmental activists. While disposing off the petition, the division bench of Justice A S Chandurkar and Justice Vrushali Joshi directed Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) to ensure that there is no construction of permanent nature in the lake. HC observed that Futala Lake per se is not covered by definition of term ‘wet land’ and upheld official contention that it is man-made water body. At the same time however, the learned Judges directed the respondent, MMRCL, Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur Metropolitan Development Authority (NMRDA), Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC), and Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapeeth to ensure that lake should be kept clean and ensure that no harm comes to aqua life by any of the activities.

 

In the order, the HC further mentioned that the agencies tasked with erection of fountain and construction of viewers gallery, should not violate the Rules of 2017 and refrain for construction of permanent nature within Futala Lake. The interim direction in this regard would continue so as to protect and preserve Futala Lake in its pristine form. The contention of petitioner, Swaccha Association, was that Futala Lake was wetland and hence any construction herein is bound to violate the rules. They prayed for interim stay to stop installation of fountain in the lake and demolition of viewers gallery. That prayers however was not granted by the HC, it continued with hearing the case so as to decide the status and whether it is a wetland or otherwise. Adv S A Rajeshirke arguing for the petitioner, said though Futala Lake was not declared as a ‘wetland’ in terms of Rule 2(1)(g) of the Rules of 2017, still it was an identified wetland and referred to National Wetland Inventory and Assessment (NWIA). The said inventory was taken in the year 2006-07 and Futala Lake having been identified as a wetland, the provisions of the Rules of 2017 ought to be applied with full rigor. Therefore in such water body no permission can be granted for any type of construction and referred to Rule 4(2) of the Rules of 2017, it was urged that the activities undertaken by the respondents were prohibited for being so undertaken at a wetland. Such activities amounted to committing an encroachment on a water body.

 

He also referred to environmental status report of NEERI that contended that quality of lake water would deteriorate with use of lake for such activities. However the senior counsels for respondents stated on record that Futala Lake is not identified as wetland and submitted relevant documents. HC also took on record affidavit of MMRCL that they are not going for permanent construction of any nature at the lake. HC also directed respondents to ensure that the water body where the floating banquet hall, floating restaurant as well as Artificial Banyan Tree are proposed is kept clean and is properly maintained by taking all necessary precautions. Further, HC observed that though Futala Lake is not declared wetland, the duties and responsibilities imposed by the aforesaid provisions would have to be adhered to in true letter and spirit. S K Mishra, Senior Advocate, assisted by A S Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader, J B Kasat, Adv Anand Parchure, Adv S M Puranik, A R Patil, represented various respondents, including State Government. Deputy Solicitor General of India N S Deshpande represented the Centre.