The court ruled that challenges to environmental clearances necessitate factual inquiry beyond Article 226, allowing petitioners to seek remedies under the National Green Tribunal Act.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. The present petition in the nature of public interest litigation has been filed with the prayers as follows :-

"A. Issue a writ, setting aside the Environmental and CRZ Clearances that have been granted to Respondent No.3 on 19.12.2016 and 18.2.2020; At Annex A and B

B. Issue a writ, directing Respondent No.1 and 2 to consider the application of Respondent No.3 afresh, in light of the CRZ Notification, 2011 and other applicable laws and norms;

C. Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Honourable Court may be pleased to :

a. Direct the Respondents to maintain status quo with regard to the projects for whom the Environmental and CRZ Clearances have been granted on 19.12.2016 and 18.2.2020 till such time as the disposal of the Petition;

b. Direct the Respondent No.3 and/or its officers servants, agents, etc., to not cut any mangrove tree without specific leave of this Honourable Court.

D. Pass such other and further Order/s as may be deemed just and proper;"

2. The main challenge in the Writ petition is to the Environmental and CRZ clearances granted to two projects of respondent no.3, viz. Deendayal Port Authority on the ground that the projects of respondent no.3 are to be carried out on lands containing Mangrove forests. The contention is that the area falls within CRZ 1A category under the CRZ Notification of 2011. However, CRZ clearances illegally has been accorded to respondent no.3 under CRZ-1(B), CRZ-III and CRZ-IV categories. The details of environmental and CRZ clearance, subject matter of challenge herein, are appended as Annexures 'A' and 'B' to the Writ petition.

3. We may note that the CRZ clearance dated 19.12.2016 was for development of 7 integrated facilities (stage 1) within the existing Kandla Port Trust limit at district Kutch on the specific conditions mentioned therein. A perusal of the Environmental clearance dated 19.12.2016 indicates that after holding public hearing, the recommendation of Gujarat Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) was sent to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) under the provisions of the CRZ Notification, 2011. The clearance certificate records that as per CRZ map, demarcation of High Tide Line(HTL), CRZ boundary, etc., the proposed facility falls in CRZ - I (B), CRZ-III and CRZ - IV, the proposal was considered by the Expert Appraisal Committee and the project proponent and EIA Consultant had presented the report as per the Terms of Reference (TOR). The Committee recommended the proposal for Environmental and CRZ clearance.

4. A perusal of the CRZ recommendation letter issued by GCZMA for 7 integrated facilities appended at Annexure 'R2' to the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3 indicates that the authority deliberated on the proposal of Kandla Port Trust, the observations made by the technical committee, report submitted by the District level committee, satellite images submitted and assurance given by the Kandla Port Trust to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, with the conditions mentioned therein. The specific conditions mentioned in the said recommendation were to strictly adhere to the provisions of the CRZ Notification of 2011, which included 6 conditions, relevant for our purposes being extracted hereinunder:-

1) The provisions of the CRZ notification of 2011 shall be strictly adhered to by the KPT. No activity in contradiction to the provisions of the CRZ Notification shall be carried out by the KPT.

2) The KPT shall have to ensue that there shall not be any damage to the existing mangrove area.

3) The KPT shall prepare an emergency plan to protect existing mangrove in case of any eventuality/accident.

4) The KPT shall have to make a provision that mangrove areas get proper flushing water and free flow of water shall not be obstructed.

5) The KPT shall have to abide by whatever decision taken by