Company Name : Generic Source : The Times Of India

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

MUMBAI: The ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) told the Bombay High Court on Wednesday that it accepted a March 3 recommendation by the expert appraising committee to permit completion of 257 buildings in Lavasa subject to several stringent conditions. 

Lavasa Corporation in turn said it wanted to withdraw its petition against the MoEF, questioning its jurisdiction. But things did not go Lavasa's way when the HC said the ministry's January 17 status quo order on Lavasa that had brought construction to a standstill should be maintained even if the company were to withdraw its petition. 

Lavasa, unwilling to contend with an adverse order, said it did not wish to withdraw its writ petition. As a result, the HC which had been inclined to allow Lavasa to withdraw its petition will now hear the matter in due course on merits. 

Along with a petition by Lavasa, the HC was hearing another by a public interest litigant and an intervener, both against Lavasa. Lavasa said environmental clearance was necessary for the hill station project and that it would pursue the issue with the ministry. It, therefore, wanted to withdraw its petition instead of pursuing the legal battle. 

Lavasa has already lost Rs 300 crore due to stoppage of work. Its losses may cross another Rs 500 crore soon, said its lawyer. But the PIL petitioner objected to the withdrawal on the grounds that the Environment Protection Act does not allow for any regularisation on payment of fees and claimed a withdrawal would lead to regularisation of violations in construction. 

The HC bench headed by Justice Ranjana Desai said the court could not prevent a petitioner from withdrawing their plea. It also said, "Withdrawal does not mean construction would be regularised as that decision would have to be taken independently by the MoEF on merit. 

The HC also said it would keep open all issues in the case including the points raised in the PIL against Lavasa.