1995 JTR(SC) 364
1995 AIR(SC) 2252 ; 1995 AIR(SCW) 1797 ; 1995 2 CurCC(SC) 262 ; 1997 10 JT 444 ; 1995 3 SCC 77 ; 1995 2 SCR 251 ; 1995 KHC 1410
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.
Indian Council for Enviro - Legal Action, petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Writ Petition (Civil) No.664 of 1993
Decided on 9-3-1995.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for strict adherence to restrictions and prohibitions within the Coastal Regulation Zone, as well as the consideration of constituting central and state authorities for environmental protection.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.32
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT : S.5(3)(d)
(A) The provisions of Article 32 of the Constitution empower the Supreme Court to issue directions or orders for the enforcement of fundamental rights, and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, read with rule 5(3)(d) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, provides for regulatory mechanisms to protect and improve the environment by prescribing restrictions and prohibitions on activities in sensitive zones such as coastal areas. In this case, the Court invoked these statutory powers to enforce compliance with the Coastal Regulation Zone notification of February 19, 1991, ensuring that all prohibitions and regulations on construction and industrial development within the coastal zone are strictly followed by the states.
(B) The key legal principles include the duty of the state to enforce environmental regulations, the necessity of compliance with statutory notifications, and the court's power to supervise and enforce environmental protection measures. The Court emphasized strict adherence to prescribed activities and prohibitions within the Coastal Regulation Zone and indicated the need for further consideration on constituting central and state-level authorities under the Environment (Protection) Act.
Facts of the case:
The Court reviewed a plea concerning alleged violations of environmental norms in coastal areas, specifically in Goa, based on an interim site visit report concerning resorts, hotels, and other constructions within the Coastal Regulation Zone. The report indicated non-compliance with prescribed guidelines for development activities.
Findings of Court:
The Court found merit in the enforcement of the Coastal Regulation Zone notification and noted that the committee constituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests had performed a useful inspection. It observed that the states and the Ministry must follow the restrictions and permissible activities as outlined in the notification and directed the filing of affidavits to demonstrate action taken.
Issues:
Whether the Court should constitute a central authority and additional state-level authorities under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and whether the states have complied with the directions issued regarding the Coastal Regulation Zone.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that the existing notification dated February 19, 1991, issued under clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules must be meticulously followed by all concerned states, and that the court retains the power to supervise enforcement through appropriate mechanisms, with further consideration on institutional arrangements pending.
Result:
The Court modified its earlier order and directed strict adherence to the Coastal Regulation Zone notification, instructed the Ministry of Environment and Forests and the state of Goa to file affidavits on action taken, and referred the matter of constituting authorities for further consideration.
(A) The provisions of Article 32 of the Constitution empower the Supreme Court to issue directions or orders for the enforcement of fundamental rights, and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, read with rule 5(3)(d) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, provides for regulatory mechanisms to protect and improve the environment by prescribing restrictions and prohibitions on activities in sensitive zones such as coastal areas. In this case, the Court invoked these statutory powers to enforce compliance with the Coastal Regulation Zone notification of February 19, 1991, ensuring that all prohibitions and regulations on construction and industrial development within the coastal zone are strictly followed by the states.
(B) The key legal principles include the duty of the state to enforce environmental regulations, the necessity of compliance with statutory notifications, and the court's power to supervise and enforce environmental protection measures. The Court emphasized strict adherence to prescribed activities and prohibitions within the Coastal Regulation Zone and indicated the need for further consideration on constituting central and state-level authorities under the Environment (Protection) Act.
Facts of the case:
The Court reviewed a plea concerning alleged violations of environmental norms in coastal areas, specifically in Goa, based on an interim site visit report concerning resorts, hotels, and other constructions within the Coastal Regulation Zone. The report indicated non-compliance with prescribed guidelines for development activities.
Findings of Court:
The Court found merit in the enforcement of the Coastal Regulation Zone notification and noted that the committee constituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests had performed a useful inspection. It observed that the states and the Ministry must follow the restrictions and permissible activities as outlined in the notification and directed the filing of affidavits to demonstrate action taken.
Issues:
Whether the Court should constitute a central authority and additional state-level authorities under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and whether the states have complied with the directions issued regarding the Coastal Regulation Zone.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that the existing notification dated February 19, 1991, issued under clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules must be meticulously followed by all concerned states, and that the court retains the power to supervise enforcement through appropriate mechanisms, with further consideration on institutional arrangements pending.
Result:
The Court modified its earlier order and directed strict adherence to the Coastal Regulation Zone notification, instructed the Ministry of Environment and Forests and the state of Goa to file affidavits on action taken, and referred the matter of constituting authorities for further consideration.
A.K.MYLSAMY, A.MARIAPUTHAM, A.S.BHASME, A.S.NAMBIYAR, AMAN VACHHER, ANAND, ANAND PARKASH, Anjani Aiyagiri, ARUNA MATHUR, Asha N.Nair, ASHOK DESAI, C.V.SUBBA RAO, D.N.Mishra, D.V.Sehgal, DILIP SINHA, G.L.SANGHI, H.VAHI, HARISH N.SLAVE, J.P.PATHAK, J.R.DAS, K.L.Taneja, K.R.NAMBIAR, K.R.R.PILLAI, K.RAM KUMAR, KAPIL SIBAL, KIRAN BHARDWAJ, M.C.MEHTA, M.KARANJAVALA, MINAKSHI ARORA, MIRA KAPUR, NINA GUPTA, P.K.MANOHARAN, P.K.MULLICK, P.N.PURI, PRAVIN SARNTANI, R.B.Masodkar, R.K.MEHTA, R.K.P.SHANKAR DAS, R.N.KARANJAWALA, R.SASIPRABHU, R.THIAGARAJAN, RAMASUBRAMANIAM, RUBY SINGH AHUJA, S.K.DHOLAKIA, S.K.MEHTA, S.M.JADHAV, SHANTI BHUSHAN, SHISHIR SHARMA, SHRAMAN SINHA, SIMA MIDHA, T.V.S.N.Chari, V.B.NADKARNI, V.BALACHANDRAN, V.KRISHNAMURTHY, VINIT KUMAR
ORDER
We have heard Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Ashok Desai, Mr. D. V. Sehgal and other learned counsel appearing in this case. We modify our order dated December 12, 1994 and direct that all the restrictions, prohibitions regarding construction and setting up of industries or for any other purpose contained in the notification dated February 19, 1991 issued by Ministry of Environment and Forest. Government of India under clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 shall be meticulously followed by all the concerned States. The activities which have been declared as prohibited within the Coastal Regulation Zone shall not be undertaken by any of the respondent States. The regulations of permissible activities shall also be meticulously followed. The restrictions imposed by the Coastal Areas Classification and Development Regulations contained in Annexure 1 to the above said notification shall also be strictly followed by the respondent State.
2. Mr. M. C.Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that this Court should constitute a central authority and also in addition an authority in each of the coastal States/union territories in terms of Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. He has given a list of eminent persons in environmental field who can be asked to be members of the said authority. This matter needs further consideration and final decision in this respect shall be taken after hearing Mr. Mehta and other learned counsel for the parties.
3. Mr. Mehta has also placed on record the interim site visit report dated October 18, 1994 of the committee constituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India for inspection of violation of norms and guidelines prescribed for development activities for beach/resorts/hotels, etc. in the Coastal Regulation Zone of the State of Goa. We have examined the report and we find that the committee has done a useful work. We issue notice to the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India through its Secretary and also to the State of Goa to file affidavits indicating the action taken in respect of the report of the committee. The Government of India shall furnish copy of the report to the State of Goa if it has not already been done. The affidavits shall be filed by the Government of India and State of Goa within two seeks of the receipt of this order.
Order accordingly.
For Citation: AIR 1995 SC 2252