SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI & M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.
Gulf Goans Hotels Co. Ltd. & Another – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3434-3435 of 2001 With Civil Appeal No. 3438 of 2001 With Civil Appeal Nos. 3436-3437 of 2001 With Civil Apeal No.3439 of 2001
Decided On : 22-09-2014
2009 (3) SCC 571; (1972) 2 SCC 788—Relied.
(B) Statute Law—Publication of legislation—Such mode must be as prescribed by statute—In the event statute does not contain any prescription and even under subordinate legislation there is silence in the matter, legislation will take effect only when it is published through customarily recognized official channel, namely, official gazette. (Para 20)
(1987) 1 SCC 658—Relied.
(C) Environment Protection Act, 1986—Sections 3 and 6—Constitution of India—Article 21—Protection of environment—Proposed demolition of Hotels, Beach Resorts and Beach Bungalows in Goa—Genesis of Executive’s decision to restrict construction activity within 500 meters of High Tide Line can be traced to Stockholm Conference—Constructions raised by appellants are not per se illegal in the conventional sense—They are not without permission and sanction of competent authority—What has been alleged by State and has been approved by High Court is that such constructions are in derogation of environmental guidelines in force warranting demolition of the same as a step to safeguard the environment of beaches in Goa— Violation of Article 21 on account of alleged environmental violation cannot be subjectively and individually determined when parameters of permissible/impermissible conduct are required to be legislatively or statutorily determined under Sections 3 and 6 of Environment Protection Act, 1986 which has been so done by bringing into force Coastal Regulation Zone Notification w.e.f. 19th February, 1991—Orders impugned in writ petitions filed by appellants cannot be sustained. (Paras 14, 21, 22 and 23)
(2003) 6 SCC 277—Distinguished.
Facts of case—Appellants are owners of Hotels, Beach Resorts and Beach Bungalows in Goa. Respondent-Goa Foundation had filed parallel writ petitions before High Court for demolition of allegedly illegal constructions raised by appellants. High Court, by separate impugned orders had upheld orders passed by authorities requiring appellants to demolish existing structures. It is against such orders passed by High Court that present group of appeals have been filed
Findings of Court—Violation of Article 21 on account of alleged environmental violation cannot be subjectively and individually determined when parameters of permissible/impermissible conduct are required to be legislatively or statutorily determined under Sections 3 and 6 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 which has been so done by bringing into force Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification w.e.f. 19th February, 1991.
Judgment :-
Ranjan Gogoi, J.
1. The appellants are the owners of Hotels, Beach Resorts and Beach Bungalows in Goa who have been facing the prospect of demolition of their properties for the last several decades. The respondent-Goa Foundation is a non- Governmental body who claims to be dedicated to the cause of environmental and ecological well being of the State of Goa. The respondent-Goa Foundation had filed parallel writ petitions before the High Court for demolition of the allegedly illegal constructions raised by the appellants. Both sets of writ petitions i.e. those filed by the appellants against the orders of demolition by the State Authorities and the writ petitions filed by the Goa Foundation seeking demolition of constructions raised by each of the appellants were heard together by the Bombay High Court. The High Court, by separate impugned orders dated 13th July, 2000, had upheld the orders passed by the authorities requiring the appellants to demolish the existing structures. It is against the aforesaid orders passed by the High Court that the present group of appeals have been filed upon grant of leave by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
2. The constructions raised by the appellants are not per se illegal in the conventional sense. They are not without permission and sanction of the competent authority. What has been alleged by the State and has been approved by the High Court is that such constructions are in derogation of the environmental guidelines in force warranting demolition of the same as a step to safeguard the environment of the beaches in Goa. Specifically, it is the case of the State that the constructions in question are between 90 to 200 meters from the High Tide Line (HTL) despite the fact that under the guidelines in force, which partake the character of law, constructions within 500 meters of the HTL are prohibited except in rare situations where construction activity between 200 to 500 meters from the HTL are permitted subject to observance of strict conditions. Admittedly, all constructions, though completed on different dates and in different phases, were so completed before the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) were enacted (w.e.f.19th February, 1991) in exercise of the powers under the Environment Protection Act, 1986.
3. The above basis on which the impugned action of the State is founded has been sought to be answered by the appellants by contending that at the relevant point of time when building permissions and sanctions were granted in respect of the constructions undertaken, the prohibition was with regard to construction within 90 meters from the HTL. Admittedly, none of the constructions are within the said divide. The guidelines, detailed reference to which are made in the succeeding paragraphs of the present order, are not ‘law’ so as to constitute activities contrary thereto as acts of infringement of the law and hence illegal. Such guidelines do not confer the power of enforcement and lack the authority to bring about any penal consequences.
4. Having very broadly noticed the contours of the adjudication that the present case would require, we may now proceed to consider the stand of the rival parties with some elaboration. The Stockholm declaration of 1972 to which India was the party is the foundation of the State’s claim that the guidelines in question, being in implementation of India’s international commitments, engraft a legal framework by executive action under Article 73 of the Constitution. The said guidelines are in conformity with the Nation’s commitment to international values in the matter of preservation of the pristine purity of sea beaches and to prevent its ecological degradation. Such commitment to an established feature of International Law stands engrafted in the Municipal Laws of the country by incorporation. The guidelines commencing with the instructions conveyed by the Prime Minister of India in a letter dated 27th November, 1981 addresse
Goan Real Estate and Construction Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India through Secretary
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1996) 5 SCC 647—Relied. [Para 6]
Vishaka & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Vineet Narain & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. [1998 (1) SCC 226] —Referred. [Para 8]
Bennett Coleman & Co. vs. Union of India (1972) 2 SCC 788—Relied. [Para 11]
Air India Cabin Crew Association vs. Yeshaswinee Merchant
State of Uttaranchal vs. S.K. Vaish [(2011) 8 SCC 670] —Relied. [Para 17]
Harla vs. State of Rajasthan [[AIR 1951 SC 467]] —Relied. [Para 18]
gazette (B.K. Srivastava vs. State of Karnataka) (1987) 1 SCC 658—Relied. [Para 20]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.