SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 15154

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, J
AJAY PETER – Appellant
Versus
KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 32639 OF 2015|WP(C) NO. 1078 OF 2009|WP(C) NO. 4659 OF 2010|WP(C) NO. 5252 OF 2010|WP(C) NO. 29 OF 2017|WP(C) NO. 6678 OF 2009|WP(C) NO. 6481 OF 2010|WP(C) NO. 11469 OF 2010|WP(C) NO. 13882 OF 2010|WP(C) NO. 8690 OF 2016|WP(C) NO. 14315 OF 2008|WP(C) NO. 14334 OF 2008|WP(C) NO. 12311 OF 2014|WP(C) NO. 18087 OF 2009|WP(C) NO. 14092 OF 2015|WP(C) NO. 18656 OF 2008|WP(C) NO. 19291 OF 2009|WP(C) NO. 19508 OF 2009|WP(C) NO. 20265 OF 2009|WP(C) NO. 21019 OF 2009|WP(C) NO. 21658 OF 2009|WP(C) NO. 15897 OF 2017|WP(C) NO. 22372 OF 2008|WP(C) NO. 24802 OF 2009|WP(C) NO. 27498 OF 2009|WP(C) NO. 28168 OF 2009|WP(C) NO. 28199 OF 2012|WP(C) NO. 28895 OF 2009|WP(C) NO. 30962 OF 2009|WP(C) NO. 30371 OF 2008|WP(C) NO. 36599 OF 2009|WP(C) NO. 32697 OF 2016|WP(C) NO. 35415 OF 2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN, SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR, SRI.K.JAGADEESH, SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN, SRI.M.B.NANUTHAMBI, SRI.T.V.GEORGE, SRI.JIMMY GEORGE THADATHIL, SRI.M.A.ASIF, SRI.T.A.SHAJI, SRI.PRAKASH C.VADAKKAN. J., SRI.K.M.VARGHESE, SRI.SUVIN R MENON, SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY, SRI.K.S.ROCKEY, SRI.MINI GOPINATH - CGC, SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED, SRI.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY, SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH, SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN THURAVOOR, SRI.ACHUTH KRISHNAN R., SRI.T.K VIPINDAS
For the Respondents: SRI.K.R.SUNIL, SRI.K.M.VARGHESE, SRI.T.A.SHAJI, SRI.PRAKASH C.VADAKKAN. J., SRI.T.K VIPINDAS

Court finds that coastal constructions tagged under outdated regulations must be reassessed under current environmental guidelines, ensuring compliance with local laws and sustainable practices.

Headnote:(A) Environment Protection Act, 1986 - Coastal Regulation Zone Notification - Challenges to the withdrawal of permits for construction in CRZ areas - Court examines the applicability of 1991 and 2011 Notifications, upholding the current provisions allowing for development - Court emphasizes the necessity for adherence to the Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMP) and the role of KCZMA in permitting construction - Court finds notifications issued to demolish constructions based on obsolete criteria as void and orders reconsideration of approval requests under updated regulations. (Paras 1-90)

(B) Jurisdiction of KCZMA - Establishes that actions by member secretaries without the entire committee's consent are jurisdictionally invalid - The authority's decisions must comply with prescribed norms for sustainability and local governance input. (Paras 47-60)

(C) Legal basis for construction permits - Emphasizes that compliance with environmental laws and zoning regulations is paramount in sustaining lawful developmental activities within sensitive coastal zones. (Paras 61-80)

Table of Content
1. writ petitions challenging construction permits and regulations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. claims of environmental violations based on various notifications. (Para 50 , 61)
3. court's analysis of regulations and jurisdiction of authorities. (Para 68 , 70)
4. final decision allowing writ petitions and quashing notices. (Para 90 , 91)

JUDGMENT

[WP(C) Nos.32639/2015, 1078/2009, 4659/2010, 5252/2010, 29/2017, 6678/2009, 6481/2010, 11469/2010, 13882/2010, 8690/2016, 14315/2008, 14334/2008, 12311/2014, 18087/2009, 14092/2015, 18656/2008, 19291/2009, 19508/2009, 20265/2009, 21019/2009, 21658/2009, 15897/2017, 22372/2008, 24802/2009, 27498/2009, 28168/2009, 28199/2012, 28895/2009, 30962/2009, 30371/2008, 36599/2009, 32697/2016, 35415/2017]

1. Litigation in the nature of various writ petitions laying challenge to the action taken by the Panchayat and various other Authorities for withdrawing the permits issued for the purpose of construction of residences, shops and other commercial establishments are pending in this Court.

2. Before dealing with the matters individually prelude of the controversy leading to promulgation of various notifications by the Central Government on the basis of the power vested in Environmental Law is required to be mentioned.

3. In 1982 working groups were set up by the Ministry of Environment and Forests with the aim to prepare ‘Environmental Guidelines’ for the development of beaches and coastal areas requiring the State Governments to prepare a status report for obtaining situation of the coastal areas, as a pre-requisite to environmental management of the area which was required to be followed by a ‘Master Plan’ identifying the areas required for conservation, preservation, development and other activities.

4. The Ministry of Environment and Forests after having invited objections and considering the objections, issued a notification dated 19th of February, 1991 in exercise of the powers conferred on it by clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986 .

5. The said notification declared the coastal stretches of seas, bays, estuaries, creeks, rivers and backwaters influenced by tidal action (in the landward side) upto 500 metres from the High Tide Line (hereinafter referred to as ‘HTL’) and land between Low Tide Line (hereinafter referred to as ‘LTL’) as Regulation Zones.

6. Various restrictions for setting up and expansion of industries, operation or processes were imposed and it was clarified that for the purpose of implementation of the notification HTL was required to be defined as the line up to which the highest high tide reaches at springtime.

7. The salient features of the Notification were as under:-

"(i) setting up of new industries and expansion of existing industries, except those directly related to waterfront or directly needing foreshore facilities;

(ii) manufacture or handling or storage or disposal of hazardous substances as specified in the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forests No. SO 594(E) dated 28-7- 1989, SO 966(E)

dated 27-11-1989 and GSR 1037(E) dated 5-12-1989:

(iii) setting up and expansion of fish processing units including warehousing (excluding hatchery and natural fish drying permitted areas);

(iv) setting up and expansion of units mechanisms for disposal of wastes and effluents, except facilities required for discharging treated effluents into the watercourse with approval under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 except for storm water drains;

(v) discharge of untreated wastes and effluents from industries, cities or towns and other human settlements; schemes shall be implemented by the authorities concerned for phasing out the existing practices, if any, within a reasonable time period not exceeding three years from the date of this notification;

(vi) dumping of city or town wastes for the purposes of landfilling or otherwise the existing practice, if any, shall be phased ou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top