Coastal Regulation Zone Notification- Its implementation- Preparation of Coastal Zone Management Plans. Violations to be considered by the concerned High courts. [Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action   vs. Union of India and others. 1996(4) Judgements Today 263=1996(5) SCC 281 KULDIP SINGH, S.SAGIR AHAMED AND B.N.KIRPAL.{J&J}]

 Acquaculture –  Not an industry depending on the sea water – Not an industry “directly related to water front” or “directly needing foreshore facilities” – Shrimp culture industry, therefore cannot be allowed to be set up anywhere in CRZ areas. .[Jagannath vs Union of India .1997(I)JT SC 160 = 1996(9) SCALE 167 = 199791) KLT SN. 32.Page 24.  Kuldip Singh & S.Sagir Ahmad (JJ)]

 Constitution of Coastal Zone Management Authority – Directions issued .Central Government is directed to take steps to constitute State Coastal Zone Management Authority in accordance with the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Rule 5 of the Act. [ Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs Union of India. 1998 (7) JT SC 31]

 Construction of hotel – Sanction given by Ministry of Environment and Forest – No violation of CRZ – Reports of NIO obtained subsequently not relevant. [Goa Foundation vs Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 2001 (2) SCC = 2001 AIRSCW 4065. G.B.Patnaik & U.C.Banerjee (JJ)]

Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority - Not functioning properly - Complaints received in regard to the matters that has already been decided by the State Committee can be considered by the new COZMA. Directions issued. Principles of natural justice.   [ C.I.Gopinath vs Union of India .O.P.No. 22723 of 2001 , dated 4th February, 2002..G.Sivarajan & M.Ramachandran (JJ).]  

 Coastal Zone Management Plan to be published and should be made available in all places .State cannot refuse the right of the citizen to have access to the Coastal Zone Management Plan. Right of a citizen is the right to know protected by the Constitution of India. State cannot refuse to make available the plan in the offices of the Local Authorities and the Public Libraries.  [Kaloor Joseph vs State of Kerala. O.P.No. 20278 of 1997, dated 2^nd June, 1998. P.K.Balasubramanyan (J)]

CRZ Notification – Applicable to rivers, estuaries and backwaters –Validity upheld Draft notification  dated 15^th December, 1990 does not contain “estuaries, rivers and backwaters” . Final notification dated 20^th February, 1991 contains it. State has conceded before Supreme Court that the notification is valid and has to be enforced . No opportunity to every individual is required . No violation of the principle of natural justice . Need for protecting estuaries stressed . Strict implementation of CRZ notification stressed. [Paul Thomas Mampilly vs Union of India. O.P.No. 3243 of 1997. Dated 12^th October, 2001. P.K.Balasubramanyan & M.Ramachandran (JJ)]

CRZ-II area – No construction on the landward side of the existing road or structures – Decision by the management committee without considering relevant aspects – not correct- set aside – Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority directed to decide.  -Putting up a new road - No road in the Management Plan - No road shown in the plan submitted to the Municipality - No road or structure on the landward side seen by anybody- Management Committee taking decision without considering relevant aspects -Sanction order set aside -  High Court directed the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority to take a decision afresh after considering all the aspects - Till such modification of the building restrained. [ BijuV.G. vs Thalassery Municipality and others. O.P.No. 29807 of 2000. Dated 124th October, 2001.P.K.Balasubramanyan & M.Ramachandran (JJ

Swimming Pool Complex in the place of Port Buildings – National Coastal Zone Management Authority is directed to re-consider the issue. Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority felt that it will be better to have the swimming pool elsewhere than at beach. National Authority without considering the same and without hearing the port authorities taking a decision. . Non-speaking order. . [Society for the Protection of Environment vs Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs. O.P.No. 13341 of 2001. 8^th August, 2001. P.K.Balasubramanyan (ActgCJ)  & M.Ramachandran (J)]

CRZ – Dredging of rare minerals – Expansion of existing beach mining operations No material has been produced to show that installation of the  proposed unit is by way of expansion of the existing industry . Minerals are available outside the State are not having the quality and the placer deposits in the coastal regions in Kerala are unique. Company is directed to take steps to get a comprehensive environmental impact assessment of the area in question done by a national institute of repute in consultation with the State Government. Company is directed to mitigate adverse environmental impact. [ Lurdes D.Costa vs Neendakara Grama Panchayath . O.P.No. 2507 of 1997. Dated 20^th July, 1998. G.Sivarajan (J)]

 CRZ – Land Reclamation – Only such land reclamation that would disturb the natural course of sea water would fall within the area of prohibition – Goshree – I -Sea water in the Arbian Sea is different from brackish water in the backwaters.. Only such land reclamation as would disturb the natural course of sea water sold fall within the area of prohibition. If the aforesaid interpretation is not accepted, it may lead to the mischief that any obstruction other than land reclamation, bunding, etc. would be permissible even if it would disturb the flow of brackish water in the Coastal Regulation Zone. The prohibition relating to land reclamation is intended to cover only such land reclamation as would disturb the natural course of sea water. [Institute of Social Welfare vs State. 1996 (1) KLT 718. K.T.Thomas & S.Sankarasubban (Actg.CJ & J)] [Correctness of the dictum laid down in this decision was referred to DB in OP.No. 18097 of 1995 and the DB referred the matter to Full Bench in OP.No. 10185 of 1996. But when the Full Bench without answering the question disposed of the matter]

 Coastal  Area - Protection of ecology - Goshree Project - Construction of bridges - No irreparable loss and damages to the ecology - Land proposed to be reclaimed does not come within the CRZ area - Reclamation cannot be prohibited- Duty of Government to provide infrastructural facility – Alternate proposals to be examined before reclamation. New Goshree project will involve a reclamation of 25 hectares near Marine Drive and the entire water front abutting it, where reclamation is to  be made, is retained by a rubble wall, as a result of which when tide recedes no land is exposed. High Tide and Low Tide Lines coincide as the water level against the rubble wall will merely go down to lower level without touching the bed of the backwaters and therefore land to be reclaimed would outside the CRZ. Serious impairment  to aquatic resources , ecology and environment are unlikely to result by reclamation of the small strip of land along the existing marine drive, that would not also involve violation of CRZ regulations. Having regard to the public purpose the Project will sub-serve  Islanders to  be provided with bridges. On account of Goshree financial and other constrains and for no other external reasons that it decided that the project be implemented with resources of its own. Concept of self financing is accepted. Even though reclamation is permitted, the court put a caveat that it should be resorted to only after all attempts to implement the project otherwise than by reclamation have failed to materialize. Directions issued to consider alternate projects  . [Jacob Vadakkancherry v. State of Kerala. AIR 1998 Ker 114. B.M.Tulsidas, S.Krishnan Unni & C.S.Rajan (JJ)]

 CRZ- II – Pathway between waterbody and property – Shown as proposed road in the Coastal Zone Management Plan – Can be treated as road.-Coastal Zone Management Plan shows that there is road of 12 meters in width between the sea wall and the buildings. It is used as a public road, though for the sake of convenience of the general public vehicular traffic is forbidden on that road. The dispute with regard to the width of the pathway cannot be enquired into in this proceeding. Statements made by the State about the road cannot be rejected merely because it is disputed [Institute of Social Welfare vs. State of Kerala 1997 (2)KLJ 153 K.G.Balakrishnan & B.N.Patnaik (JJ) ]    

 Coastal Regulation Zone notification – Backbay reclamation scheme – CRZ-II no construction on the landward side of -  Meaning of “existing authorized buildings”  “building” explained – Construction of helipad  requires sanction – Change of user from garden/play ground to Government Housing/residence  [ Sneha Mandal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd vs. Union of India . AIR 2000 Bom 121. Y.K.Sbharwal (CJ) & S.H.Kapadia (J).]

Toilets constructed on the foot path, i.e., on the existing road. No CRZ –II violation. Area being developed and completely building up.  In this context, if CRZ-I is read, it would mean that if the area is covered by CRZ-II to the said area,  then there is no question of applicability of CRZ-I to the said area. CRZ-I would not be applicable to an area which has been fully developed and is close to the shore line. [P.Navin Kumar vs Bombay Municipal Corportion. AIR 1997 BOMBAY 342. M.B.Shah (CJ) & J.N.Patel (J)]

 CRZ- II - Once the area is developed no violation of CRZ-II- Meaning of the expressions , viz, “area” and “developed” Norms laid down in the CRZ notification referred to developed areas is applicable once it is found that the area in question is a developed area then it is not open to the contend that the construction violates CRZ notification on the ground that there is no existing structure or road between the impugned construction violates CRZ notification. [Ramanathan vs State of Tamil Nadu, Appeal No. 1287 of 1995. Dated 24^th January, 1996] [This decision was challenged in SLP.No. and it was disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India expressly leaving open the question of law in appropriate case – see Para 6 Page 125 of AIR 2000 Bomb 121 . Moreover the decision was rendered prior to the preparation of Management Plan]

PAGE MAINTAINED BY P.B.SAHASRANAMAN.