Point of Law: Section 33 of the Act provides an overriding effect to the provisions of the Act over anything inconsistent contained in any other law or in any instrument having effect by virtue of law other than this Act.

ORDER :

Dipankar Datta, J.

1. The first petitioner is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The second petitioner is a Director of the first petitioner.

2. By instituting this writ petition dated March 25, 2021 - in the Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction of this Court - the petitioners have mounted a challenge to a notification bearing no. G.S.R 37 (E) dated January 18, 2019 (hereafter “the impugned notification”) issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (hereafter “the Ministry”) in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereafter “the Environment Act”). Such notification purports to supersede the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 2011 (hereafter “the 2011 Notification”) bearing no. S.O. 19(E) dated January 6, 2011.

3. Recitals in the impugned notification would reveal that the Ministry had received representations from various coastal States and Union Territories, besides other stakeholders, regarding certain provisions in the 2011 Notification related to management and conservation of marine and coastal ecosystems, development in coastal areas, eco-tourism, livelihood options and sustainable development of coastal communities, etc., together with requests to address the concerns related therewith. Pursuant thereto, the Ministry constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. Shailesh Nayak to examine various issues and concerns as indicated hereinabove and to recommend appropriate changes in the 2011 Notification. The report submitted by the Nayak Committee was examined by the Ministry in consultation with various stakeholders. This led to issuance of a draft Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 2018 which was hosted in the website of the Ministry on April 18, 2018 seeking comments and suggestions from all concerned. After considering the objections and suggestions, as received, the impugned notification was issued with a view to conserve and protect the unique environment of coastal stretches and marine areas, besides livelihood security to the fisher communities and other local communities in the coastal areas and to promote sustainable development based on scientific principles taking into account the dangers of natural hazards and sea level rise due to global warming, and the areas specified therein were declared as Coastal Regulation Zone (hereafter “the CRZ”).

4. The impugned notification is challenged on the ground that some of its provisions are manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as well as violates the right to live in a healthy environment, and consequently violates the right to life of citizens protected by Article 21. It is further claimed that the reasoning for enacting many of the changes leading to the CRZ have no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Also, the impugned notification contains provisions which are reenactment of provisions earlier struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court or have been read down by the Supreme Court in earlier judgments. The main prayer in the writ petition is for declaring the impugned notification illegal and ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and to declare that the 2011 Notification continues to be valid and binding. It has also been prayed that the respondents may be restrained from acting further on the basis of the impugned notification and for a direction on them to act in accordance with the 2011 Notification. There are alternative prayers. Reading such prayers, one gets the impression of the petitioners feeling aggrieved by bits and pieces of the impugned notification and have prayed that parts of certain provisions may be declared arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires. If the prayers are granted, the effect thereof would result in deletion of such bits and pieces from the impugned notification.

5. At the out-set, Mr. Dhond, learned senior advoca