Document Actions

Carlos Noronha and Antonio Rodriques vs. Union of India (UOI), Ministry of Environment and Forest And Ors.

by admin — last modified 2011-11-10 14:32

NLS/ENVIS/[10/12/2010]/Environment/ High Court Of Bombay At Goa

(Hon’ble Judges: A.S. Oka, J and F.M. Reis, J.)

NLS/ENVIS/[10/12/2010]/Environment/ High Court Of Bombay At Goa

This case came as a writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, before the Bombay High court, challenging the action of re-classifying certain properties as Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ)-II.

The petitioners in this case are both residents of La Oceana Colony, Dona Paula, Goa, who claim to be affected by the hotel project, which is happening pursuant to the re-classification of the properties from CRZ-III to CRZ-II. The respondents include the Union of India, Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, other administrative authorizes and also the company which plans to construct the hotel

The Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991, declared the coastal stretches of seas, bays, estuaries , creeks, rivers and backwaters which are influenced by tidal action (in the landward side ) up to 500 meters from the high tide line(HTL) and the land between the low tide line(LTL) and HTL as Coastal Regulation Zones which are divided into four categories CRZ-I, CRZ-II, CRZ-III and CRZ-IV with varying degree of permissible activities based on the sensitivity of the area. Pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Plan of Goa, 1996, Panaji and its environs are under CRZ-II and all other area which is outside municipal limits is under CRZ-III.

In 2001, the Government of India had issued communication regarding re-classification of certain areas from CRZ-III to CRZ-II, which also includes the Dona Paula area. This petition is against this re-classification claiming that this is done against larger public interests and is against the very object and purpose of the said Act of 1986 and the CRZ Regulations. The respondent claimed that the said area is under the municipal limits and was a legally designated urban area under the census.

Court observed that there is a complete non application of mind as without the subjective satisfaction that said area can be treated as legally designated urban area being a census town; a decision was taken to re-classify the area as CRZ-II. Further the Court observed that the entire decision making process shows non application of mind at all levels. Hence Court asked the Respondents to have to take a fresh decision regarding re-classification after giving an opportunity to the affected parties of raising objections and in case of conclusion that the re-classification could not have been allowed, the earlier decision of re-classification will have to be withdrawn or modified

While determining this case the Court relied upon in Rural Litigation Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. and Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B and emphasized upon the aspect that “ it is primarily for the governments concerned to consider the importance of public projects for the betterment of the conditions of living of the people on the one hand and the necessity for preservation of social and ecological balances, avoidance of deforestation and maintenance of purity of the atmosphere and water free from pollution on the other in the light of various factual, technical and other aspects that may be brought to its no-tice by various bodies of laymen, experts and public workers and strike a just balance between these two conflicting objectives. The court's role is restricted to examine whether the government has taken into account all relevant aspects and has neither ignored nor overlooked any material considerations nor been influenced by extraneous or immaterial considerations in arriving at its final decision.”