The judgment establishes the importance of interpreting environmental protection laws, particularly the prohibition of land reclamation in coastal areas, and emphasizes the court's limited jurisdiction in deciding factual disputes under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Headnote:
GIDA - Environmental Protection - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Coastal Regulation Zone - Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - The judgment discusses the proposed scheme for linking Cochin with islands, involving construction of bridges and reclamation of an area in the Vembanad lake. It addresses the restrictions imposed by the Central Government under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, particularly regarding land reclamation in the Coastal Regulation Zone. The court interprets the prohibition of land reclamation and its applicability to the proposed project, emphasizing the distinction between sea water and brackish water and the impact on the natural flow of sea water. The judgment also considers the expert body's sanction for the project and the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:

The case involves a proposed scheme for linking Cochin with islands, including construction of bridges and reclamation of an area in the Vembanad lake. The project faced opposition due to concerns about environmental damage from the reclamation.
Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the Writ Appeal, ruling that the proposed land reclamation would not interfere with the natural flow of sea water and that the court cannot decide on factual disputes under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues: The key issues include the applicability of the prohibition of land reclamation in the Coastal Regulation Zone, the distinction between sea water and brackish water, and the expert body's sanction for the project.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the prohibition of land reclamation, emphasizing its impact on the natural flow of sea water and the distinction between sea water and brackish water. The court also recognized its limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed by the court.

Judgment :-

Thomas, Ag. C.J.

A scheme has been formulated for linking the main 1 and of Cochin with a few of the Islands in the archipelago situated beyond the western backwaters. A body has been constituted for its implementation. The name of the said body is "Goshree Island Development Authority" (its acronym is 'GIDA'). The scheme involves construction of bridges connecting those islands with the main land - Ernakulam. It also envisages reclamation of an area of 362 hectares in the Vembanad lake abutting the Arabian sea, The cost estimated for this major scheme is roughly 328 crores of rupees. Propounders of GIDA were initially-enthusiastic in implementation of the scheme. But such/ activities had to be slow pedaled when the public interest litigation was launched at the instance of a society registered claiming itself to be interested in the social welfare of general public. The Original Petition filed by them for a writ of prohibition restraining the authorities to stop the project for reclamation and construction of bridges was dismissed by a learned single judge of this Court against which the Institute ill ed this Writ Appeal.

A Division Bench which heard the Writ Appeal earlier and dismissed it when the State Government informed the court that the implementation of the scheme would be confined to construction of bridges after obtaining requisite sanction wherever it is required. Government Pleader further pointed out that "the reclamation work is limited to the construction of the bridge and for the purpose of putting up necessary posts for supporting the bridge." Hence the Division Bench expressed mat i t is not clear from the averments in the Original Petition as to how the construction of the bridges would cause environmental damage. So the Writ Appeal was dismissed on 30-8-1994. State Government has filed a review petition for apprising the court that reclamation work cannot be limited to the construction bridges. When the review petition was heard, it was agreed by both sides that Writ Appeal can be disposed of afresh in view of this changed stand of the State Government. We then allowed the review petition and heard the Writ Appeal afresh.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated at the Bar that they are not opposing the construction of bridges for linking Ernakulam with Vilene and other islands, but they seriously oppose the proposed reclamation of a vast area in the Vembanad lake towards implementation of the scheme. The proposal regarding use of the reclaimed area is to locate various commercial activities thereon.

3. Government of India have issued a notification under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 on 19-2-1991 declaring the Coastal Stretches of sea etc., including backwaters "which are influenced by tidal action (in the landward side) upto 500 meters from the High Tide Line (HTL) and the land between the Low Tide Line (LTL) and the HTL as Costal Regulation Zone (CRZ)". Certain restrictions have been imposed by the Central Government as per the same notification regarding the activities in the said Zone (CRZ). One of the restrictions is "land reclamation" in the said zone.

4. It is admitted that the said prohibition regarding land reclamation in the zone will have the effect of legally in junking the authorities from, reclaiming the area at the proposed site. This was further re-enforced when the Supreme Court has issued an injunction order on 12-12-1994 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.664/93 directing the State not to permit the setting up of any industry or construction of any type "on the area upto 500 meters from the sea water at the maximum High Tide Level. 'But learned Advocate General has invited our attention to a subsequent order of the Supreme Court dated 9-3-1995 which modified the aforesaid earlier order. However, the said modification has not granted any relaxation of the earlier injunction order. Learned Advocate General now contends that as the said injunction order is base

Click Here to Read the rest of this document