Back
2006 Supreme(Mad) 2343
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. MOHAN RAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN
The Union of India rep. by its Secretary to Government & Another - Appellant
Versus
Member Secretary & Others - Respondents
Writ Appeal No.2079 of 2003 & Writ Petition Nos.10937 of 2003, 11076 of 2003 & 15518 of 2003
Decided On : 08 September 2006
The main legal point established in the judgment is the wide interpretation of the Environmental Protection Act to include all activities, not just industrial ones, for the purpose of preventing environmental degradation.
Headnote:
Environmental Protection Act - Coastal Regulatory Zone Classification - Section 3, Section 5, Section 6, Section 25 - The judgment discusses the applicability of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 and the Rules made thereunder for regulating activities not related to industrial activity. It also addresses the validity of a statutory notification issued by the Central Government, the maintainability of a writ petition in the High Court, and the interpretation of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification. The court emphasizes the wide interpretation of the Act to prevent environmental degradation and concludes that the Act's provisions are applicable to all activities, including construction for residential purposes.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved writ petitions filed for the review of Coastal Regulatory Zone Classification and challenging a notification issued by the Central Government. The court also considered the decision to demolish a college building and construct a secretariat on the same land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decision to demolish the college building had been abandoned, rendering the question academic. It also expressed strong doubts about the maintainability of the writ petition filed by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority.
Issues: The issues included the applicability of the Environmental Protection Act, the validity of the statutory notification, and the right to file a writ petition in the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the wide interpretation of the Environmental Protection Act to include all activities, not just industrial ones, and concluded that the Act's provisions are applicable to construction activities for residential purposes.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn and the writ appeal as infructuous, and disposed of the other writ petitions.
(Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge in WPMP.No.19488 of 2003 in W.P.No.15518 of 2003 dated 27.5.2003.
Writ Petition Nos.10937, 11076 and 15518 of 2003 have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of mandamus / writ of certiorari as stated therein.)
Common Judgment: P.K. Misra, J.
W.P.No.10937/2003 and W.P.No.11076 of 2003 have been filed for issuing writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to undertake an immediate and wholesome review of the present Coastal Regulatory Zone Classification relating to Chennai City and to declare ecologically and architecturally significant areas including the stretch on the Marina from the Santhome Church to the High Court, Madras as Coastal regulation Zone-I (CRZ-I).
2. During pendency of such writ petitions, the Government took a decision not to demolish the college building and to construct the secretariat at a different place.
3. While the writ petitions were pending, the Central Government amended the earlier notification relating to Coastal Regulatory Zone. Such amendment was challenged in W.P.No.15518/2003, which was filed by the Member-Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. Such writ petition was entertained by a learned Single Judge and an order of interim stay of such notification till 25.06.2003 was passed by the learned single Judge by order, dated 27.05.2003. The learned Single Judge also directed that such writ petition No.15518/2003 should be listed along with the other pending writ petitions, namely, W.P.Nos.10937/2003 and W.P.No.11076/2003. Thereafter such W.P.No.15518/2003 was placed before the Division Bench and the Division Bench extended such interim order from time to time. The question of maintainability of W.P.No.15518/2003 was raised by the respondents in view of Article 131 of the Constitution of India. In the meantime, the Union of India had filed Writ Appeal No.2079/2003 against the interlocutory order, dated 27.05.2003, in W.P.No.15518/2003 and all the matters were placed before the Division Bench.
4. In the above background, the Division Bench has referred the matters to the Full Bench by observing as follows:-
"4. The main point which is raised is the applicability of the impugned notification for construction activities, which is not related to industries. The contention of the learned Advocate General is that the impugned notification which is issued under a rule, which has been framed in exercise of the rule making power under Environmental Protection Act, 1986, cannot be invoked for any activity, which is not concerned with the industrial activity. The rival contention is Environmental Protection Act is applicable to all kinds of construction and developmental activities and is all pervasive. Incidentally a question is also raised as to whether the CMDA can file the writ petition in view of Article 131 of the Constitution of India. Several other points including the validity of dispensing with the requirement of issuing the draft notification and providing opportunity of raising objections have also been raised.
5. A co-ordinate Bench of two judges by judgment dated 14.12.1995 in W.A.No.1287 of 1995 and W.P.No.5971 of 1995 held that CRZ Regulations are applicable only to particular kind of construction activity and not for all activities. The learned Advocate General very much relies upon Paragraph 14 of the above judgment. Against the said judgment, SLP (Civil) No.13463 & 13464 of 1996 was filed. But the said petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 12.2.1998 with an observation that the questions of law decided by the High Court are left open to be decided in an appropriate case by the Supreme Court, thus giving a finality to the verdict of the High Court only on the facts of that case. As the findings on law by the Division Bench referred to above, and which is relied upon by the learned A
