B.P. SINGH, C.J.:---This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners in public interest challenging the validity of the permission given to respondents No. 5 and 6 herein for the development and construction on a plot of land located in the Worli Division, Off Dr. Annie Besant Road, said to be abutting the sea. The challenge to the construction of a high rise building over the plot in question is in the light of the provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the notification issued thereunder by the Government of India dated 19th February, 1991.

2. Petitioner No. 1 is the President of the Save Bombay Committee, vitally interested in espousing issues of public interest and environmental protection. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are also members of the said Committee and are also connected with various other public institutions. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra, while respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and the Municipal Commissioner, respectively. Respondent No. 4 is the Union of India through its Ministry of Environment and Forests. Respondent No. 5 are the lessees of the plot in question, while respondent No. 6 are the builders who, under a development agreement with the lessees, are constructing the building on the said plot. Respondent No. 7, the Bombay Environment Action Group, is an environment action group and a society registered under the Societies Registration Act.

3. The instant writ petition was filed on 27th February, 1997. At that time only the aforesaid notification dated 19th February, 1991 held the field. Subsequently two Clarifications have been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, dated 27th March, 1998 and 8th September, 1998, which are also relevant and which have to be considered while dealing with the issues raised in the instant writ petition.

4. It is averred in the writ petition that the Ministry of Environment Forests. Government of India, issued a notification on 19th February, 1991 under section 3(1) and 3(2)(v) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and Rule 5(3)(d) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, whereunder the Central Government 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 metres from the High Tide Line and the land between the Low Tide Line and the High Tide Line as Coastal Regulation Zone; and imposed with effect from the date of the notification certain restrictions on the setting up and expansion of industries, operations or processes, etc., in the Coastal Regulation Zone. Under the notification, certain activities were prohibited while some other activities were declared to be permissible. The notification requires that even for the activities permitted under the notification, which involve investment exceeding Rs. 5 crores, prior environmental clearance from the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests should be obtained. An obligation was coast on all coastal States and Union Territory Administrations to prepare, within one year, Coastal Zone Management Plans in accordance with the guidelines given in Annexures I and II of the notification. Till such time as the Coastal Zone Management Plans were not prepared and approved, all developments and activities within the Coastal Regulation Zone were not to violate the provisions of the said notification. The State Governments and Union Territory Administrations were directed to ensure adherence to these regulations and violations, if any, were made subject to the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The petitioners have referred to the various provisions of the notification and submitted that despite such a notification, several coastal States, including respondent No. 1, State of Maharashtra, failed to prepare the Coastal Zone Management Plan, and virtually ignored the said notification. Respondent No