Bombay HC Slams Suburban Collector Over Charkop Lake Encroachments
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday pulled up the Mumbai suburban collector for failing to act against illegal encroachments around a natural lake at Charkop in Kandivali (West), questioning the lack of ground action in the 21 days since its directions. A bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad warned that it could ask the state government to transfer the officer if court orders were not implemented.
The court was hearing a petition filed by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) seeking permission to undertake conservation and beautification work at the lake, located in Charkop Sector 7. The civic body requested permission to construct a gabion wall to protect the water body, which falls within a 50-metre buffer zone of mangroves.
On July 21, the court had issued directions to the authorities to remove all encroachments around the lake. It noted at the time that illegal structures and indiscriminate garbage dumping were causing severe damage to the water body and nearby mangrove patches.
During Tuesday's hearing, the BMC presented photographs showing that it had cleaned the lake. Observing an "amazing improvement" in the area, the bench commended the civic body's efforts, while noting that some remaining work still needed completion.
In contrast, the court expressed strong displeasure over the performance of the collector's office, observing that it had hardly moved beyond issuing internal letters to the additional collector, tehsildar, and city survey officer. Rejecting the government pleader's submission that the administration was awaiting a report on removal efforts, the bench stated it did not want further paperwork.
"We want to see deeds and not letters," the bench remarked, adding that encroachers had destroyed mangroves directly under the administration's supervision. The court questioned why its detailed July 21 order had failed to produce concrete results on the ground.
Tensions escalated during the afternoon session after the court had previously directed the collector to appear later in the day. When the bench reconvened at 3 pm, it was informed that the collector was attending a pre-scheduled meeting and had sent a deputy collector instead.
Irked by the absence, the court noted that reluctance by the state to implement High Court orders raised serious concerns for the future. The bench formally directed the Mumbai suburban collector to appear in person before the court on August 14 to explain the steps taken to comply with the directions.
