The judgment emphasizes the limitations of judicial review, the need to balance environmental preservation and tourism development, and the absence of mala fides in the decision-making process.

JUDGMENT - Dr. (Smt.) PRATIBHA UPASANI, J.:---This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 read with Articles 21, 48-A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India, is a public interest litigation filed by the petitioner, the Goa Foundation, which is non-Governmental organization. It is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The objects of the petitioner society amongst others, include appropriate action to halt the ecological degradation of the environment and to formulate and implement programmes for the rehabilitation and development of the Goan environment and to restore ecological balance. The petitioner Society has been pursuing the matter of protection of costal environment in Goa and in the rest of India, since it was set up in the year 1986. The petitioner has been monitoring the costal areas for several years and has approached the Court on numerous occasions for bringing to the notice of the Court violations of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, (hereinafter for brevity's sake referred to as the 'E.P. A.') in coastal areas and particularly by the Five-star Tourism Beach Resorts.

2. The respondent No. 1, the Goa State Coastal Zone Management Authority, (hereinafter for brevity's sake referred to as the 'G.S.C.Z.M.A.') is a body set up by the respondent No. 2 State of Goa, to clear projects within the Coastal Regulation Zone (hereinafter for brevity's sake referred to as 'CRZ') areas of Goa under the E.P.A. The respondent No. 2 is the State of Goa. The respondent No. 3, the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, is the Central authority for implementing the CRZ Notification dated 19th February 1991, issued under the E.P.A. throughout the country's coastal areas. The respondent No. 4 the Panchayat of Calangute, is the statutory body set up under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, which is responsible for construction activity within its jurisdiction. The respondent No. 5 Dy. Collector (North) is the authority which issues sanad for land conversion in accordance with law. Respondents No. 6, 7 and 8 are parties who were granted permissions to construct the vacation resort in CRZ of Baga, Calangute.

3. The petitioner is challenging, via this writ petition, the construction of a vacation ownership resort called "Sunset Dunes", at Baga beach by the respondent No. 6 Piva Resorts Pvt. Ltd. The contention of the petitioner is that the said construction is in violation of the CRZ Notification dated 19th February, 1991, issued under E.P.A. The petitioner is challenging permissions dated 27th November, 1995, granted by the respondent No. 1, G.S.C.Z.M.A. and the permission dated 11th April, 1996, issued by the respondent No. 4, Panchayat to the respondent No. 7, who has been granted the permissions on the basis of which respondent No. 6 is constructing the vacation resort. Initially, it appears that the application was made for construction of residential units, but subsequently, application was made for construction of vacation resort, which was granted by the relevant authorities. The contention of the petitioner is that the area falls within the CRZ and therefore, is covered by the CRZ Notification dated 19th February, 1991, issued under the E.P.A. The owners of the plot/respondent No. 8 are residing at Byculla, Bombay and respondent No. 7 is the lawfully constituted attorney of respondent No. 6, for the purpose of procuring the permissions and the permissions have all been granted in the name of respondent No. 7. Proposal was placed before the G.S.C.Z.M.A. and at its 10th meeting the project was approved and the same was communicated to the project promoters via letter dated 27th November, 1995. The application for Sanad was made on 9th November, 1996 and the Sanad was issued by the Dy. Collector on 26th February, 1996. Subsequently, by its order dated 11th April, 1996, the Village Panchayat of Calangute (respondent No. 4) granted approval and licence for the project.

4. It is the contention of the petit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document