Religious Institution" includes a Samadhi.

Per P.K. MISRA, J.

W.P. No. 10937 of 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 of 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 25.6.2003 was passed by the learned single Judge by order, dated 27.5.2003. The learned single Judge also directed that such W.P. No. 15518 of 2003 should be listed along with the other pending writ petitions, namely, W.P. Nos. 10937 of 2003 and W.P. No. 11076 of 2003. Thereafter such W.P. No. 15518 of 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 of2003 was raised by the respondents in view of Article 131 of the Constitution of India. In the meantime, the Union of India had filed W. A. No. 2079 of 2003 against the interlocutory order, dated 27.5.2003, in W.P. No. 15518of 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 Advocate General has not attained finality in the Supreme Court, the said legal point is very much alive for adjudication. In view of this, we are of the considered view that the matter should be adjudicated by a Full Bench of three Judges. All other points raised are also kept alive to be dealt with by the Full Bench.”

5. A perusal of the order of refer