A restrictive proviso inserted immediately after a specific sub-clause in a notification applies only to that specific sub-clause and not to subsequent independent clauses, unless the text explicitly extends its application to the entire section.

JUDGMENT

1. We are passing this order in continuation of our previous Order dated 2nd February, 2025, whereby we had directed the Respondent No.1-MoEF&CC to clarify whether amendment to CRZ Notification, 1991 brought about in 2002 which inserted Sub-Clause (ia) in Item (i) of Paragraph No.3 Sub-Paragraph 2 of CRZ Notification 1991, would be applicable in the case in hand or not. In response to that, the Respondent No.1-MoEF&CC has filed their additional reply affidavit on 11.04.2025 in which it is submitted that Impugned Order dated 02.01.2024 has been issued by the answering respondent based upon legal opinion of the Ministry of Law and Justice (MoLJ) as well as recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee. The project of the appellant i.e. “Proposed construction of a hotel project in Survey No,71/1 of Velsao village, Salcete Taluka”, was accorded Environmental Clearance vide letter dated 08.05.2006 as per the provisions of CRZ Notification, 1991 .

2. As per the provisions of the said notification and its subsequent amendment dated 19.10.2002, an insertion was made of sub-clause (ia) in item (i) of Paragraph No.3 sub-paragraph 2 of CRZ Notification, 1991 , „the clearance granted shall be valid for a period of five years for the commencement of the construction or operation‟. Further, it is mentioned that Paragraph No.3 deals with regulation of permissible activities. Sub-paragraph 2 of Paragraph No.3, enumerates the activities which would require environmental clearance from the Ministry and are mentioned from sub-clause (i) to (iv) with amendments from time to time. The insertion of sub-clause (ia) in the paragraph deals with the validity of environmental clearance granted to all permissible projects and not only to activities that fall under sub-clause (i) of sub-paragraph 2 of Paragraph No.3 of CRZ Notification, 1991 . Therefore, the project of the appellant attracts validity of 5 years for commencement or operation of the project from the date of grant of Environmental Clearance. Considering that the date of CRZ Clearance was issued on 08.05.2006 the same expired on 07.05.2011, hence, it is orally submitted also by the learned counsel for the MoEF&CC that since the Environmental Clearance has expired on 07.05.2011, there was no possibility of the same to be revalidated as there was no provision for the same under the Law.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant states that Clause 3 of the CRZ Notification, 1991 provides as under:

“ 3. Regulation of Permissible Activities:
All other activities, except those prohibited in para 2 above, will be regulated as under:
(1) Clearance shall be given for any activity within the Coastal Regulation Zone only if it required water front and foreshore facilities.
(2) The following activities will require environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India, namely :
(i) Construction activities related to Defence requirements for which foreshore facilities are essential (e.g. slipways, jetties etc.); except for classified operational component of defence projects for which a separate procedure shall be followed. (Residential buildings, office buildings, hospital complexes, workshops shall not come within the definition of operational requirements except in very special cases and hence shall not normally be permitted in the CRZ);
(ia) The clearance granted shall be valid for a period of five years for the commencement of the construction or operation.
(ii) Operational constructions for ports and harbours and light houses r