1. Should the buildings - A 350 bed hospital and the show room, be ordered to be demolished? Have respondent No. 7 and 8 raised construction in violation of the notification, dated February 19, 1991 issued by the Central Government under S. 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986? This is the primary issue that arises for consideration in the three petitions, viz., O.P. 34936 and 38089 of 2001 and 22314 of 2002. The other three petitions have been filed by respondent Nos. 7 to 9 apparently as a counter-blast. They challenge the validity of National Coastal Zone Management Plan issued by the State of Kerala. Counsel for the parties have referred to the facts as averred in O.P. No. 38089 of 2001. These may be briefly noticed.

2. The petitioner claims to be a resident of Village Nettoor in District Ernakulam. He claims to be interested in the environment and its protection. He asserts that the ecological balance in the coastal area has to be maintained. The authorities are not performing their duties. The building have been constructed in violation of law. Thus, he has approached this Court in public interest and in the discharge of his duties under Art. 48A of the Constitution of India.

3. The petitioner alleges that respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have illegally raised construction in Kundannoor area, which falls in the jurisdiction of the Maradu Grama Panchayat. He points out that "the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification was issued in exercise of powers conferred under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986". By this notification, the Central Government had declared that the coastal stretches of sea, bays, estuaries creeks, rivers and backwaters" which are influenced by tidal action up to 500 meters from the High Tide Line (H.T.L.) shall fall within the Coastal Regulation Zone. Even the land between Low Tide Line (L.T.L.) and High Tide Line was also included in the prohibited area. Thus, with effect from February 19, 1991, restrictions were imposed on the setting up or expansion of industries, operations or process in the Coastal Regulation Zone. According to the petitioner, Kundannoor area is included in C.R.Z. I category. It is described in the Coastal Zone Management Plan of Kerala as Map No. 33A. Relevant extracts have been produced as Exts. P-1 and P-2. In Ext. P2, the construction raised by respondent No. 7 has been shown in blue and that by the 8th respondent in red colours. The land reclaimed by the 9th respondent has been identified in green. The petitioner further alleges that in the C.R.Z. I, no construction is permitted within 500 meters of the High Tide Line. Despite that the two respondents have raised construction. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 have failed to check it. The petitioner points out that in response to a complaint, the 4th respondent had issued directions to the 5th respondent, vide letter dated October 22, 2001. A copy of the letter has been produced as Ext. P-3. Despite that, no action has been taken. On these premises, the petitioner prays that the construction raised by respondent Nos. 7 and 8 be declared illegal and respondent Nos.1 to 6 be directed to demolish it. The Counsel are agreed that the pleas raised in the two other petitions, viz., O.P. Nos. 34936/2001 and 22314/2002 are identical. Thus, these need not be separately noticed.

4. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of some of the respondents.

5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, viz., the Union of India, it has been inter alia averred that the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991 "prohibits certain activities and regulates those activities which require water front and foreshore facilities within the Coastal Regulation Zone (C.R.Z.) area. This ministry is not aware of the averments made with regard to illegal reclamation and construction activities being carried out in violation of C.R.Z. Notification, 1991". The permissible developmental activities can be undertaken after obtaining necessar