IMPORTANT POINT
No construction activities can be undertaken in CRZ without prior concurrence or permission from Coastal Zone Management Authority.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. Applications for intervention are allowed.

3. The appeals have been filed by the Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.11.2016 passed by the High Court in Writ Appeal No.132 of 2013 and other connected appeals.

4. The appellant authority has been constituted by the Government of India in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India [(1996) 5 SCC 281] as well as in the exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The appellant authority is empowered to deal with the environmental issues relating to the notified Coastal Regulations Zones (in short, ‘CRZ’). Construction activities in the notified CRZ areas can be permitted only in consultation with and prior concurrence of the appellant authority. It is the binding duty of the local self-Government, the competent authority before issuing building permits to forward an application for building permission to the appellant authority along with the relevant record. The appellant authority has issued circulars to all Gram Panchayats, Municipalities, and Municipal Corporations directing them to follow the provisions of CRZ notifications and to act in accordance with the procedures provided in the notifications.

5. The decision of this Court in Piedade Filomena Gonsalves v. State of Goa [(2004) 3 SCC 445] has also been relied upon which explains the significance of CRZ notifications in the interest of protecting environment and ecology in the coastal area and the construction raised in violation of the regulations cannot be lightly condoned. The construction activities of the respondent builders are on the shores of the backwaters in Ernakulam in the State of Kerala which supports exceptionally large biological diversity and constitutes one of the largest wetlands in India.

6. The area in which the respondents have carried out construction activities is part of the tidally influenced water body and the construction activities in those areas are strictly restricted under the provisions of the CRZ Notifications. Uncontrolled construction activities in these areas would have devastating effects on the natural water flow that may ultimately result in severe natural calamities. The expert opinions suggest that the devastating floods faced by Uttarakhand in recent years and Tamil Nadu this year are the immediate result of uncontrolled construction activities on river shores and unscrupulous trespass into the natural path of backwaters. The Coastal Zone Management Plan (in short, ‘CZMP’) has been prepared to check these types of activities and construction activities of all types in the notified areas. The High Court has ignored the significance of approved CZMP.

7. As per the appellant, these constructions activities are taking place in critically vulnerable coastal areas which are notified as CRZ-III. The panchayats have issued these permissions in violation of relevant statutory provisions and CRZ notifications. The Vigilance Section of Local Self Government Department, Government of Kerala detected these violations and anomalies in the issue of building permits and hence directed the concerned bodies to revoke all the flawed building permits exercising its powers under Rules 16 and 23 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (in short, referred to as ‘the Rules of 1999’).

8. A show cause notice was issued under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1999, asking the builders to show cause why the building permit issued to them be not cancelled. Writ Petitions were filed questioning the same. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions. The Division Bench dismissed the appeals. The High Court has observed that the permit holders cannot be taken to task for the failure of local authorities in complying with the statutory provisions and notifications. Review petitions were also dismissed. Hence, the appeals b