The central legal point established in the judgment is the statutory duty of authorities to enforce the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Coastal Zone Regulations to prevent ecological degradation and illegal constructions within the Coastal Regulation Zone.

Per Mrs. F.I. REBELLO, J.:---The petitioners are a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The aims and objects of the society amongst others are to take steps to halt the ecological degradation of the environment and to formulate and implement programmes for the rehabilitation and development of the Goa Environment and to restore ecological balance. The petitioners had averred that its members as citizens of India like other citizens have the fundamental duties enshrined under Article 51(g). The petitioners are all Nationals and Citizens of India. The petitioners had been involved in measures directed towards protection of the costal areas of Goa for about 10 years previous to filing of the petition.

By the present petition, the petitioners complained that on the Cadolim-Baga Beach, a large number of constructions have been coming up within 200 metres of the High Tide Line. The situation has become so alarming that the authorities responsible for taking steps have failed to exercise their duties or have been turning a blind eye to such development. Apart from licences given by the Panchayats for construction which could not have been given, there are other cases where constructions are coming up even without necessary permission. It is the case of the petitioners that the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 along with the rules has come into force from 19th November, 1986. It is contended that before the Act came into force, there were guidelines for constructions upto 500 metres of High Tide Line. Based on these guidelines, no constructions were approved within the 200 metres of the High Tide Line. The Government of India thereafter issued what are known as the Costal Zone Regulations. The first is dated 19th February, 1991 which has been amended from time to time on 16th August, 1994, 18th April, 1996, 31st January, 1997 and 9th July, 1997. It is, therefore, contended that there is a blanket ban to make any construction within the 200 metres of High Tide Line.

2.The petitioners specifically complain that respondent Nos. 2 and 8 who are the local authorities namely the Village Panchayat of Calangute and the Village Panchayat of Candolim have taken no steps to remove the constructions that have come up within the 200 metres of High Tide Line. It is contended that respondent No. 6 has put a construction within 60 metres of the High Tide Line in Cobravaddo, Calangute next to the crematorium near Villa Goensa. Apart from the said construction a well has been dug which violates, the CRZ notification. It is also contended that respondent No. 7 has also put up a construction in violation of CRZ Notification.

3.An affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 by Shri R.N. Ray. Chief Town Planner. In para 2, dealing with the construction of respondent No. 6 it is pointed out that on 23rd March, 1996, his office carried out a site inspection. On inspection, it was found that there were two structures and a well within 200 metres. No permission had been obtained from the Goa State Committee for Coastal Environment. It is also contended that the construction appeared to be very recent. The matter was reported to the Department of Science Technology and Environment vide letter dated 21st June, 1996 giving the necessary details. It was found that the respondent No. 6 had obtained licence from the Village Panchayat of Calangute for the repairs and renovation of the structures. There are some averments in so far as respondent No. 6 is concerned. In so far as respondent No. 7 is concerned, it is pointed out that respondent No. 7 had carried out construction within 200 metres of High Tide Line without any permission from the authorities under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or Goa State Committee for Coastal Environment. I need not dwell further as learned Counsel for respondent No. 7 who appears in this Court points out that the constructions which are shown at Exhibit 'B' to the petition have since been removed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document