Item No.8 (Pune Bench)

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)

Appeal No.26/2023(WZ)

M/s Costeiro Azul Resorts …..Appellant Versus GCZMA ….Respondent Date of hearing: 19.03.2024 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER Appellant : Mr. Aniruoodh Sadesai, Advocate along-with Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan, Advocate Respondent : Ms. Supriya Dangare, Advocate

ORDER

1. This appeal has been preferred to get the order dated 19.01.2023 set aside, which was passed against the appellant by the Respondent - Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read-with Rule 4 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, whereby the appellant was directed to pay an amount of Rs.12,30,550/- towards environmental compensation, on following grounds:-

“d) Appellant submits that considering the fact that the Appellant has removed the allegedly illegal structures by themselves, the question of imposing any compensation does not arise. Be that as it may, the same ought to have been considered before imposing penalty and in any case a prior hearing ought to have been given to the Appellant.

e) Appellant further submits that the Impugned Order is dated 19/01/2023 wherein the direction is given to make the payment on or before 31/01/2023. The said period is much lesser than the statutory period of preferring an Appeal. On this count as well the Impugned Order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

f) Appellant submits that the even otherwise the computation of environmental compensation is done arbitrarily and unilaterally and the same is de hors the law.

h) Appellant submits that the amount of Rs. 2590/-per sq.mts. which is taken as a multiplier is without any basis and the same is erroneous and de hors the law.

i) Appellant further states that the area of 1140 sq.mts. is calculated without any basis. The same is therefore erroneous and dehors the law. Assuming without admitting that the said formula is applicable, the said figure should be restricted to the area of violation. The Respondent has erroneously taken the area as 1140 whilst computing the amount payable by the Appellant and some other grounds, which appear to be repetition of the same but worded differently.

2. The main emphasis has been led by the learned counsel for applicant that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the appellant by the Respondent- Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) while passing the impugned order, which fact has been admitted by the learned counsel for Respondent- GCZMA. But the learned counsel for Respondent- GCZMA has tried to justify the same on the ground of the contents of the impugned order, which she read out before us, is as follows:-

“AND WHEREAS, the Hon’ble NGT vide order dated 26/10/2021 and 08/12/2021, had observed that compared to the large volume of violations the recovery of the environmental compensation appears to be pittance for want of expert so as to assure the environmental damage caused and appropriate compensation to be recovered from the violators. Hence the GCZMA made a request to the Hon’ble NGT for forming a Committee inorder to assess environmental compensat]

on.

AND WHEREAS, the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA), in its 289th GCZMA meeting held on 8.2.2022 formed a committee to work out the formula for calculation of Environmental Compensation to be recovered from the violators, The Committee consists of ShriSujeet Kumar Dongre (Expert Member GCZMA), Shri.

PranoyBaidya (Scientific Consultant), and Shri. Sav o J F Correia (Expert Member GCZMA).

AND WHEREAS the committee arrived at a compensation amount by performing standard meta-analysis, that combines results of multiple scientific studies from the coastal regions of the Indian Sub-continent w ierever possible and in some cases similar eco system types globally. Damage incurred through disruption of eco