Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 3465

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (SOUTHERN ZONE BENCH)
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member, Satyagopal Korlapati, Expert Member
Jesu Rethinam – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority – Respondent
Original Application No.101 of 2023 (SZ)

Advocates:
For Applicant(s): Mr. A. Yogeshwaran
For Respondent(s): Mr. P.S. Raman, Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith, Dr. D. Shanmuganathan, Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, Mr. S. Janarthanam

Draft CZMP maps must include all mandated features via satellite imagery and ground truthing for specific areas; authorities to incorporate stakeholder inputs before public consultation to ensure near-final completeness.

Headnote:(A) Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019 - Annexure IV - Preparation of Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) - Draft CZMP maps challenged for incompleteness, lacking fishing zones, village boundaries, breeding grounds, common properties, long-term housing plans, ecologically sensitive areas, erosion zones, and land use planning between HTL and hazard line - Maps at 1:25000 scale uploaded for public consultation without ground truthing and incorporation of stakeholder inputs - Authorities directed to conduct ground truthing for specifically notified ecologically sensitive areas, incorporate district collectors' suggestions, ensure compliance with notification requirements including satellite imagery and ground truthing, and publish revised draft maps before public hearings. (Paras 16-42)

(B) Environmental Law - Public Consultation - Draft CZMP must be near-final, leaving minimal room for complaints on omissions; genuine public concerns require ground truthing by authorities; applicants/public must provide evidence-based specific objections, not general delays. (Paras 40-41)

Facts of the case:
Fishermen community challenged draft CZMP maps for 12 coastal districts uploaded by coastal zone authority, alleging omissions of key components like fishing zones, breeding grounds, ecologically sensitive features, erosion zones, and long-term housing plans, non-compliance with prior judicial orders, inadequate scale, absent written plans, and improper public consultation process.

Findings of Court:
Draft maps incomplete despite responses; ground truthing essential beyond satellite data for revisions; authorities must rectify specific omissions via stakeholder inputs before finalizing and conducting hearings.

Issues: Whether draft CZMP maps comply with CRZ Notification 2019, including marking of required features, ground truthing, scale, public accessibility, and prior judicial directions; adequacy of public consultation.

Ratio Decidendi: CZMP preparation mandates comprehensive features per Annexure IV, ground truthing for notified areas, incorporation of verified data; draft must be substantially complete for effective consultation; authorities bound to address specific, evidenced concerns ecocentrically and anthropocentrically.

Result: Original Application disposed with directions for ground truthing, incorporation of inputs, revised publication of draft CZMP, and subsequent public hearings.

Table of Content
1. applicants challenge incomplete czmp maps lacking key features. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 14)
2. history of crz notifications and prior judicial challenges. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. draft maps include key components; dynamic revisions allowed. (Para 17 , 24)
4. ecologically sensitive areas marked in crz-ia maps. (Para 18)
5. compliance with prior judicial orders on map preparation. (Para 19 , 27 , 28 , 29)
6. maps serve as detailed written plan with summaries. (Para 20)
7. 1:25000 scale sufficient for draft; 1:4000 post-approval. (Para 21)
8. public consultation followed 45-day period and notices. (Para 22)
9. prior and draft maps accessible for comparison. (Para 23)
10. ground truthing required for specific esa omissions. (Para 25 , 26 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
11. direct ground truthing, incorporate inputs before hearings. (Para 42)
12. application disposed with compliance directions. (Para 43)

JUDGEMENT

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member

1. The fishermen community represented by the first applicant and the second applicant himself being a member of the fishermen community have challenged the draft Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) Maps uploaded by the respondent authority on the website of the Department of Environment. 2. It is alleged that the 105 Maps uploaded for the districts of Chengalpattu, Cuddalore, Kanyakumari, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam, Pudukkottai, Ramanathapuram, Thanjavur, Thiruvaur, Thoothukudi, Tirunelveli and Villupuram are incomplete, as they do not even have all the necessary components marked in the maps.

3. It is alleged further that the fundamental components like fishing zone in the water bodies and fishing village boundaries, breeding and spawning grounds of fish, common properties of the fishermen community, and detailed plans for long-term housing needs of coastal fishing community are not earmarked on any of the 105 CZMP map sheets uploaded. The map also had not marked the existing authorized developments on the seaward side which would result in frustrating the identification of future violations. The ecologically sensitive features like sand dunes, turtle nesting grounds, seagrass beds, sanctuaries, and reserve forests have also not been marked.

4. It is further alleged that no written plan has been published and only a generic document stating the contents of the CRZ Notification is published. There is also no specific long- term housing plan for coastal fishermen which is an essential component considering the threat of climate change induced sea level rise. The difference between the previous map and the present map is not distinctly marked for easy understanding. Though 1:4000 scale maps have to be uploaded for scrutiny, only 1:25000 scale maps have been prepared and uploaded for comments. Finally, erosion zones have not been marked despite directions from this Tribunal in O.A. No.04 of 2013 (SZ).

5. This is not the first occasion or litigation relating to the preparation of the CZMP. There were challenges earlier before this Tribunal as well as before the Hon’ble High Court. 6. The Central Government, with a view to ensure the livelihood, and security of the fishermen communities and other local communities living in the coastal areas, to conserve and protect the coastal stretches, its unique environment and its marine area and to promote development through sustainable manner based on the scientific principle taking into account the dangerous of the natural hazards in the coastal area, sea level rise due to global warming, issued the CRZ Notification, 1991 vide S.O. 114 (E) dated 19.02.1991. These regulations are issued to strike a balance between economic growth and environmental conservation.

7. By implementing these regulations, the countries can safeguard fragile ecosystems. The first CZMP was prepared based on the 1991 Notification in the year 1996 and the same was approved on 27.09.1996. Subsequently, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 3465

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (SOUTHERN ZONE BENCH)Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member, Satyagopal Korlapati, Expert MemberJesu Rethinam – AppellantVersusTamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority – RespondentOriginal Application No.101 of 2023 (SZ)

Draft CZMP maps must include all mandated features via satellite imagery and ground truthing for specific areas; authorities to incorporate stakeholder inputs before public consultation to ensure near-final completeness.

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (SOUTHERN ZONE BENCH)
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member, Satyagopal Korlapati, Expert Member
Jesu Rethinam – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority – Respondent
Original Application No.101 of 2023 (SZ)