# ) INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1996] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 507
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1996-04-18
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/indian-council-for-enviro-legal-action-v-union-of-india-and-ors-14100
- **Pages:** 26

## Headnote

j
)
INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
APRIL 18, 1996
IKULDIP SINGH, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND B.N. KIRPAL, .I.I.]
B
Environmental Protection Act/Rules, 1986 :
S.5(3)-Notification dated 19.2.91-Coastal Regulation Zone;~
Prohibiting cCltain activities therein-Implementation of the NotificationNot following guidelines-Notice to coastal States and Union Ter1ito1ies-Managenient Plans subn1itted by sonie States and not others-No
challenge niade to the n1ain notification-Continued infringe111ent of tlze law
c
and tolerance of such violations of law not only renders legal provisions
nugato1y-Such tolerance by Enforce111ent autlzo1ities also encourages la1vlessness and it cannot be tolerated in a civilized society-Vohra Conunittec D
Repo1t in this regard discussed--Central Govenunent's power under paragraph 7 sub-paragraph ( J) item (i)-Held arbitrGly wicanalized, unguided-Hence quashed-Implementation of the Notification-Duty of
Central Gove11unent, State Govenunents and Union Tcnito1ies-Directions
gi,ven.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,663 of 62,676. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39663 for what follows._

j
)
INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
APRIL 18, 1996
IKULDIP SINGH, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND B.N. KIRPAL, .I.I.]
B
Environmental Protection Act/Rules, 1986 :
S.5(3)-Notification dated 19.2.91-Coastal Regulation Zone;~
Prohibiting cCltain activities therein-Implementation of the NotificationNot following guidelines-Notice to coastal States and Union Ter1ito1ies-Managenient Plans subn1itted by sonie States and not others-No
challenge niade to the n1ain notification-Continued infringe111ent of tlze law
c
and tolerance of such violations of law not only renders legal provisions
nugato1y-Such tolerance by Enforce111ent autlzo1ities also encourages la1vlessness and it cannot be tolerated in a civilized society-Vohra Conunittec D
Repo1t in this regard discussed--Central Govenunent's power under paragraph 7 sub-paragraph ( J) item (i)-Held arbitrGly wicanalized, unguided-Hence quashed-Implementation of the Notification-Duty of
Central Gove11unent, State Govenunents and Union Tcnito1ies-Directions
gi,ven.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 664
of 1993.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Ms. Seema Midha for K.R. Rajesekaran for the Petitioner.
Ms. H. Wahi, P.K. Manohar, S.K. Sinha, R.K. Mehta, K.L. Teneja,
C.V.S. Rao, S.K. Mehta, A.S. Bhasme, Ms. M. Karanjawala, V. Krishnamurthy, Vineet Kr., K. Ram Kumar, A. Mariarputham, R. Sasiprabhu,
P.N. Puri K.H. Nobin Singh, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Meenakshi Arora,
Sanjay Parikh, Anip Sachthey, H.K. Puri S.K. Bhat, Ms. Ruby Ahuja for
the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
E
F
G
Concern for the protection of ecology and for preventing irreversible H
507
A
B
c
D
E
F
508
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
ecological damage of the coastal areas of the country has led to the filing
of the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India as a
public interest litigation.
The main grievance m this petition is that a Notification dated
19.2.1991 declaring coastal stretches as Coastal Regulation Zones
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulation Zones') which regulates the
activities in the said zones has not been implemented or enforced. This has
led to continued degradation of ecology in the said coastal areas. There is
also a challenge to the validity of the Notification dated 18.8. 1994 whereby
the first Notification dated 19.2.1991 has been amended, resulting in further
relaxations of the provisions of 1991 Notification and such relaxation, it is
alleged, will help in defeating the intent of the main Notification itself.
The petitioner is a registered voluntary organisation working for the
cause of environment protection in India. India has a coast line running
into 6000 K.Ms. which has abundance of natural endowments, geographic
attractions and natural beauty. According to the petitioner, these coastal
areas are highly complex and have dynamic eco-systems, sensitive to
development pressures. The stresses and pressure of high population
growth non-restrained development, lack of adequate infrastructure
facilities for the resident population are stated to be some of the factors
responsible for the decline in environ.mental quality in these areas. The
development short activities in the coastal areas are stated to caused-term
and long-term physical, chemical and biological changes that will and has
caused damage to flora and fauna, public health and environment. It is
further alleged that as a consequence of indiscriminate industrialisation
and urbanisation, without the requisite pollution control systems, the coastal waters are highly polluted.
It is futher the case of the petitioner that some of the costal areas
contained extensive ground-water resources and sometimes mineral
resources1 while in other areas, there are iron ore, oil and gas resources
G
and mangrove-forests. As a result of the impact of tidal waves and cyclones,
mangrove-forests are being increasingly destroyed, while some of the major
fishing areas in some of the coastal areas of the country are undergoing
serious damage consequent to ecologically unsound development. Overexploitation of ground-water in the coastal areas in places like Madras and
H Vishakapatnam is stated to have resulted in growing intrusion of salt water
"'
,.
INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENV!RO-LEGAL ACTION v. U.0.1.
509
fron1 the sea to inland areas and fresh \Valer acquifers previously used for
drinking, agriculture and horticulture are getting highly damaged. Unplanned urbanisation and industrialisation in the coastal belts is stated to
be causing fast disappearance of fertile agricultural lands, fruit gardens and
energy plantation like casurina trees, that serve as \Vind brakers and protect
inlanJ. habilations from the cyclonic dan1ages.
With a view to protect the ernlogical balance in the coastal areas,
the then Prime Minister is stated to have written a letter in November, 1981
to the Chief Ministers of coastal States in which she stated as under :
11The degradation and n1isutilization of beaches in the coastal States
is worrying as the beaches have aesthetic and enviromental value
as well as other values. They have to be kept clear of all activities
at least upto 500 metres from the water at the maximum high tide.
If the area is vulnerable to erosion, suitable trees and plants have
to be planted on the beaches without marring their beauty. Beaches
must be kept free from all kinds of artificial development. Pollution
from industrial and town wastes must also be avoided totally.
Working groups were set-up by the Ministry of Environmental and Forests
in 1982 to prepare environmental guidelines for development of beaches
and coastal areas. In July, 1983 environmental guidelines for beaches were
promulgated which, inter alia, stated :
11The traditional use of sea water as a dun1p site from our
land-derived wastes have increased the pollution loads of sea and
reduced its development potentials including the economic support it provides to people living nearby. Degradation and
misutilization of beaches are affecting the aesthetic and environmental loss. These could be avoided through prudent coastal
development and management based on assessment of ecological
values and potential damages from coastal developments."
These guidelines further stated that "adverse direct impact" of development
activities was possible within 500 metres from the high water mark or
beyond two kilomet,es from it. The example which was given was that the
sand dunes and vegetation, clearing, high density construction etc. along
the coast could alter the ecological system of the area.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
510
SUPREME CO\JRTRFPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
The cnvironnient guidelines for the development of beaches, inter
alia, rcquin . .:d the Slate (Jovcrnmcnts to prepare a status report on the
obtaining situatilHl of the coastal art.:as1 as a prc-rcquisitt.: to cnviron1nental
management of the area. Such a status report \Vas required to be follcnved
by a master plan idcntif)'ing the areas required for conservation, prescrvatinn and develop1ncnt an<l other <1ctivitie:--. A n1astcr plan so prepared
\Vnukl ensure a scientific assessment and development of the coastline and
this would ultimately ensure the preservation and enforcement of the
coastal eco-system.
The Ministry of Environment and Forests undertook an exercise with
C
regard to the protection and development of the coastal areas. It invited
objections against the declaration of the coastal stretches "' Regulation
Zones and in1posing restrictions on industries, operation and processes in
the Regulations Zones.
D
E
F
After considering all the objections, the Central Government issued
a Notification dated 19.2.1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the main
Notification') in exercise of the powers conferred on it by clause ( d) of
sub-rule 3 of Rule 5 of the Environmental Protection Rules, 1986. By this
Notification, it declared the coastal streches of seas, bays, estuaries, creeks,
rivers and backwaters which were influenced by tidal action (in the
landward side) upto 500 metres from the High Tide Linc (hereinafter
referred to as 'HTL') and the land between Low Tide Line (hereinafter
referred to as 'LTL') and HTL as Regulation Zones. With regard to this
area, it imposed, with effect from the date of the said Notification, various
restrictions on the setting up and expansion of industries, operation or
processes etc. in the said Regulation Zones. It was clarified that for the
purposes of the main Notification, HTL was defined as the line upto which
the highest high tide reaches at spring times.
The salient features of the main Notification are that a number of
activities were declared as prohibited in the Regulation Zones, which are
G
as follows :
H
"(i) setting up of new industries and expansion of eXJstmg industries, except those directly related to water front or directly
needing foreshore facilities:
(ii) manufacture or handling or storage or disposal of hazardous
INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVJRO-LEGALACTIONv. U.0.1.
511
substances as specified in the Notifications of the Government of A
India in the Ministry of Environment and Forests No. S.O. 594 (E)
dated 28.7.1989, S.O. 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 water course with approval under the
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 except for
storm water drains;
B
c
(v) discharge of untreated wastes and effluents from industries,
cities or towns and other human settlements. Schemes shall be
implemented by the concerned authorities for phasing out the
D
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 out within
a reasonable time not exceeding three years from the date of this
E
Notification;
(vii) dumping of ash or any wastes from thermal power stations;
(viii) land reclamation, bunding or disturbing the natural course
of sea water \Vith si1ni1ar obstructions, except those required for
control of coastal erosion and maintenance or clearing of water-
\vays, channels and ports and for prevention of sandbars and also
.except for tidal rcguh1tors, storn1 \Vatcr drains and structures for
prevention of salinity ingress and for sweet \I.later recharge;
(ix) mining of sands, rocks and other substrata materials, except
those rare minerals not available outside the CRZ areas;
F
G
(x) harvesting or drawal of ground water and construction of
mechanisms therefore, within 200 m of HTL; in the 200 m to 500 m
zone it shall be permitted only when done manually through ordinary H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
512
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
wells for drinking, horticulture, agriculture and fisheries;
(xi) construction activities in ecologically sensitive areas as
specified in Annexure-1 of this Notification;
(xii) any construction activity between the Low Tide Line and High
Tide Linc except facilities for carrying treated effluents and wastes
waler discharges into the sea, facilitties for carrying sea water for
cooling purposes, oil, gas and similar pipelines and facilities essential for activities permitted under this Notification; and
(xiii) dressing or altering of sand dunes, hills, natural features
including landscape changes 50 per cent of the plot size and the
total height of construction shall not exceed 9 metres."
Secondly, the main Notification provided for regulation or permissible
activities. Further more, the coastal States and Union Territory Administrations were required to prepare, within one year from the date of
the main Notification, Coastal Zone Management Plans (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Management Plans') identifying and clarifying the
Regulation Zones areas within their respective territtories in accordance
with the guidelines contained in the main Notification and those plans were
required to be approved with or without modification, by the Central
Government, Ministry of Environment and Forests. The main Notification
also stipulated that within the framework of the approved Management
Plans, all developments and activities \vithin the Regulation Zones, except
the prohibited activities and those which required environment clearance
from Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, were to
be regulated by the State Government, Union Territory Administration or
the local Authority, as the case may be, in accordance with the guidelines
contained in Annexures I and JI of the main Notification.
Anticipating that it will take time till the Management Plans are
prepared and approved, the main Notification provided that till the approval of the Management Plans, "all development and act:vities within
CRZ shall not violate the provisions of this Notification". The State
Governments and Union Territory Administrations were required to ensure adherance to the provisions of the main Notification and it was
provided that any violation thereof, shall be subject to the provisions of the
H Environment Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
-
INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGALACTION v. U.0.L
513
It was also provided in clause 4 of the main Notification that the
Ministry of Environment and Forests and the State Government or Union
Territory, and such, other authorities at the State or Union Territory levels,
as may be designated for the purpose, shall be respomible for the monitoring and enforcement of the main Notification \Vithin their respective jurisdictions.
As already noticed there are two Annexures namely; Annexure I and
Annexure II to the main Notification. While Annexurc I contains the
Coastal Area Classification and Development Regulations which are for
general application, Annexure II is the specific provision which contains
A
B
the guidelines for development of beach resorts/hotels in the designated
C
areas of CRZ llI for temporary occupation of tourists/visitors with prior
approval of the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
Anncxure I consists of clause 6(1) which relates to the classification
of coastal regulation zone. The norms for regulation activities in the said
zones are provided by clause 6(2) for regulating development activities. D
The Coastal stretches within 500 meters of HTL of the landward side are
classified under clause 6(1) into four categories, \Vhich are as under :
(a) Category I (CRZ-1) includes the areas that arc ecologically
sensitive and important, such as national parks/Jnarine parks,
sanctuaries etc., areas rich in genetic diversity, areas likely to be
inundated due to rise in sea level consequent upon global warming
and such other areas as have been declared by the Central Government or the concerned authorities at the State/Union Territory
level from time to time. In addition thereto, CRZ-1 also contains
the area between the LTL and the HTL.
(b) Category fl (CRZ-ll) contains the areas that have already been
developed upto or clu::-.e to the shore line. This; is the area \Vhlch
E
F
is within the municipal limits or in other legally designated urban
areas which is already substantially built up and which h3' been G
provided with drainage and approach roads and other infrastructural facilities, such as \Vater supply and sewerage n1ains.
(c) Category llI (CAZ-Ill) is the areas which was originally undisturbed and includes those areas which do not belong either to
category 1 or Category 11. CRZ-1!! includes coastal zone in the H
A
B
514
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996J SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
rural areas (developed and undeveloped) and also areas within the
municipal limits or in other legally designated urban areas which
are not substantially built up.
(d) Category IV (CRZ-IV) contains the coastal stretches in the
Andaman & Nicobar Lakshadweep and small islands except those
designated as CRZ-l, CRZ-II or CRZ-lll.
Clause 6(2) of Annexure I provides for norms for regulation of
activities in CRZ l, II, ITI and IV. With regard to CRZ I, the norms for
regulation of activities do not permit new construction within 500 metres
C
of the HTL. Further more, practically, no construction activity is allowed
between the LTL and HTL. The norms for regulation of activities in CRZ
ll relate to construction or reconstruction of the buildings within the said
zone.
D
E
With regard lo CRZ lll, the norms for regulation of activities, inler
alia, provides that the area upto 200 metres from the HTL is to be
earmarked as 'No Development Zone'. The only exception is that there can
be repairs of existing authorised structures but, the permissible activity in
this zone is for its use as agriculture, horticulture, gardens, pastures etc.
The norms further provide for development of vacant plots between 200
and 500 metres of HTL in designated areas of CRZ llJ \vith prior approval
of Ministry of Environn1ent and Forests for construction of hotels/beach
resorts for temporary occupation of tourists/visitors subject to the conditions as stipulated in the guidelines at Annexure II.
In CRZ IV also, detailed norms for regulation of activities are
F
provided in the said clause 6(2) of Annexure I.
G
H
As already noticed. Annexure II contains the guidelines for development of beach resorts/hotels in the desi1,,'11ated area of CRZ III for temporary occupation of tourists/visitors. The vacant area beyond 200 metres
in the landward side, even if it is within 500 metres of the HTL can be
used, after obtaining permission for construction of beach resorts for
tourists/visitors. There was no provision for allowing any fresh construction
within 200 metres of the HTL or within the LTL and HTL. Clause 7(1) of
the main Notification which comes under Annexurc II contains various
conditions which have lo be fulfilled before approval can be granted by the
Ministry of Environment and Forests for the construction of beach
INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGALACTION v. U.0.1.
515
resorts/hotels in the· designated area of CRZ III.
In the background of the aforesaid facts, we will now deal with the
main contentions raised, namely; the non-imp1ementation of the main
Notification and the validity of the Notification dated 18.8.1994 {hereinafter
referred to as 'the 1994 Notification').
RE: NON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MAIN NOTIFICATION
It is the ease of the petitioner that with a view to protect the
ecological balance in the coastal areas, the aforesaid Notification was
issued by the Central Government which contained various provisions for
regulation development in the coastal areas. It was contended that there
had been a blatant violation of this Notification and industries were illegally
being set-up, thereby causing serious damage to the environment and
ecology of the area. It was also submitted that the Ministry of Environment
and Forests except for issuing the main Notification, had taken no steps to
follow up its own directions contained in the main Notification. The main
prayer in the Writ Petition was that this Court should issue appropriate
writ, order or direction to the respondent so as to enforce the main
Notification.
In the Writ Petition, specific allegations were also contained to the
effect that Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India had
issued another Notification dated 20.6.1991 under clause (5) of sub-section
{2) of Section 3 of the Act declaring Dahanu Taluka, District Thane,
Maharashtra as an ecologically fragile area.
The main Notification was issued so as to ensure that the development activities are consistent with the enviromental guidelines for beaches
and coastal areas and to impose restrictions on the setting up of industries
which have deterimcntal effect on the coastal environment. This Notifieation also required the Government of Maharashtra to prepare a master
plan or regional plan for the Dahanu Taluka based on the existing land use
of Dahanu within a period of one year from the Notification and to get the
said plan approved by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The
master plan and the regional plan was to demarcate all the existing green
areas, orchards, tribal area and other environmentally sensitive areas in the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
said Dahanu Taluka. I:·dustries which were suing chemicals above the
limits/quantities prescribed by the Act or by Rules were to be considered H
516
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996} SUPP. l S.C.R.
A
hazardous industries. The hazardous waste was required to be disposed of
in the identified areas after taking prec"utionary measures. This Notification also required the Government of Maharashtra to constitute a monitoring committee to ensure the compliance or conditions mentioned in the
Notification in which local representatives may be included. According to
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
the petitioner, the Maharashtra Government has not implemented the
directions contained in the said Notification and has permitted development activities which have resulted in new polluting industries being established in the coastal area, thereby seriously endangering the ecology. The
industries which are operating in Dahanu are stated to be balloon manufac-
.turing units, buffing and chromium plating units and chemical units. There
has been a failure to make the master plan or the regional place for the
said Dahanu Taluka and indiscriminate licences have been issued and
consent given to new industries by the State Government and the
predominately agricultural area is slowly being converted into an industrial
area in complete disregard of environmental laws, guidelines and notifications. There are other instances stated to be in the Writ Petition with
relation to the Dahanu Taluka but, for the view we are taking, it is not
necessary to deal with the same in any great length.
Notices were issued by this Court on 3.10.1994 to the respondents
including the coastal States, namely, Maharashtra, Kerala, Karnataka, Orissa, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and the Union Territory of
Pondicherry. On 12.12.1994, while granting time to the respondents to file
their counter-affidavits, this Court directed that "the respondent states shall
not permit the setting up of any industry or the construction of any type
on the area at least upto 500 metres from the sea water at the maximum
high tide". Notice was also directed lo issue to the State of Goa, the Union
Territory of Daman and Diu and the islands of Andaman & Nicobar and
Lakshdweep, which were added as respondents. The aforesaid interim
order dated 12.12.1994 was slightly modified hy this Court by its order
dated 9.3.1995 in the following terms :
"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 19.2.1991 issued by the Ministry of Environment and
Forests, Government of India under clause (d) of Sub Rule (3) of
Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 shall be
•
INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGALACTION v. U.0.1.
517
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 Area Classification and Development Regulations contained in Annexure I to the
abovesaid Notification shall also be strictly followed by the respondent-States."
According to class 3(i) of the main Notification, the coastal States
A
B
and Union Territory Administrations were required to prepare the
Management Plans within one year from the date of the main Notification.
C
This was essential for the implementation of the said Notification. The lack
of commitment on the part of these States and Administrations, towards
the protection and regulation of the coastal stretches, is evident from their
inaction in complying with the aforesaid statutory directive requiring the
preparation of Management Plans within the specified period. In view of D
the fact that there had been a non-compliance with this provision, this
Court on 3.4.1995 directed all the coastal States and Union Territory
Administrations to frame their plans within a further period of six weeks
thereof.
A status report was filed in court by the Union of India which shows E
non-compliance of clause 3(i) by practically everyone concerned. While
some of the States and Union Territory Administrations submitted their
plans, though belatedly, except in the ca'e of Pondicherry, none of the
other plans were approved by the Central Government. It appears that
some modifications were suggested and those States and Union Territories
F
had to resubmit their plans. Direction will have to be issued to these States
and Union Territories to resubmit their plans and the Central Government
will also be required lo approve the re-submitted plans within a specified
time. The State of Orissa had only partly complied with this Court's order
dated 3.4.1995 inasmuch as the plans submitted by it were only for a small
part of a coast. The State of West Bengal only submitted a preliminary G
concept while States of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka and Kerala
did not care to submitted any plans at all. Therefore, these six States
namely, Orissa, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnalaka and
Kerala have to be answerable for non-compliance with the directions issued
by this Court on 3.4.1995.
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
518
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
Affidavits which have been filed by the respondent clearly show that
all the provisions of the main Notification have not been complied with.
Explanations for the delay in preparation of the Management Plans and
their approval have been offered, but they are far from satisfactory. If the
mere enactment of the laws relating to the protection of environment was
to ensure a clean and pollution free environment) then India would, perhaps, be the least polluted country in the world. But, this is not so. There
are stated to be over 200 Central and State Statutes which have at least
some concern with environment protection, either directly or indirectly.
The plethora of such enactment has, unfortunately, not resulted in preventing environmental degradation which, on the contrary, has increased over
the years. Enactment of a law, relating to protection of environment,
usually provides for what activity can or c~nnot be done by people. If the
people were to voluntarily respect such a law, and abide by it, then it would
result in law being able to achieve the object for which it was enacted.
Where however, there is a conflict between the provision of law and
personal interest, then it often happens that self-discipline and respect for
law disappear.
Enactment of a la\v1 but tolerating its infringement, is worse than not
enacting law all. The continued infringement of law, over a period of time,
is made possible by adoption of such means which arc best known to the
violators of law. Continued tolerance of such violations of law not only
renders legal provisions nugatory but such tolerance by the Enforcement
Authorities encourages lawlessness and adoption of means which cannot,
or ought not to, be tolerated in any civilized society. Law should not only
be meant for law abiding but is meant to be obeyed by all for whom it has
been enacted. A law is usually enacted because the Legislature feels that
it is necessary. It is with a view to protect and preserve the environment
and save it for the future generations and to ensure good quality of life
that the Parliament enacted the Anti-Pollution Laws1 namely, the Water
Act, Air Act and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. These Acts and
Rules framed and Notification issued thereunder contain provisions which
G
prohibit and/or regulate certain activities with a view to protect and
preserve the environment. When a law is enacted containing some
provisions which prohibit certain types of activities, then, it is of utmost
importance that such legal provisions are effectively enforced. If a law is
enacted but is not being voluntarily obeyed, then, it has to be enforced.
H
Otherwise, infringement of law, which is actively or passively condoned for
•
INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGALACTJON v. U.0.1.
519
personal gain, will be encouraged which will in turn lead to a lawless
society. Violation of anti-pollution laws not only adversely affects the
existing quality of life but the non-enforcement of the legal provisions often
results in ecological imbalance and degradation of environment, the adverse affect of which will have to be borne by the future generations.
The present case also shows that having issued the main Notification,
no follow-up action was taken either by the coastal States and Union
Territories or by the Central Government. The provisions of the main
Notification appear to have been ignored and, possibly, violated with
impunity. The coastal States and Union Territory Administrations were
required to prepare Management Plans within a period of one year from
the date of the Notification but this was not done. The Central Government
was to approve the plans which were to be prepared but :: did not appear
to have reminded any of the coastal States or the Union Territory Administrations that the plans had not been received by it. Clause 4 of the
main Notification required the Central Government and the State Governments as \Veil as Union Territory Administrations to monitor and enforce
the provisions of the main Notification, but no effective steps appear to
have been taken and this is what led to the filing of the present writ
petition.
A
B
c
D
There is no challenge to the validity of main Notification. Counsel
E
for all the parties are agreed that the main Notification is valid and has to
be enforced. Instances have been given by the petitioner as well as some
of the intervenors where in different States, infringement of the main
Notification is taking place but no action has been taken by the authorities
concerned. The courts are ill-equipped and it is not their function to see
F
day to day enforcement of law. This is an executive function which it is
bound to discharge. A public interest litigation like the present, would not
have been necessary if the authorities, as well as the people concerned, had
voluntarily obeyed and/or complied with the main Notification or if the
authorities who were entrusted with the responsibility, had enforced the
main Notification. It is only the failure of enforcement of this Notification G
which has led to the filing of the present petition. The effort of this Court
while dealing with public interest litigation relating to environmental issues,
is to see that the executive authorities take steps for implementation and
enforcement of law. As · such the Court has to pass orders and give
directions for the protection of the fundamental rights of the people.
H
520
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996j SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A
Passing of appropriate orders requiring the implementation of the law
cannot be regarded as the Court having usurped the functions of the
Legislature or the Executive. The orders arc passed and directions are
issued by the Court in discharge of its judicial function namely; to sec that
if there is a complaint by a petitioner regarding the infringement of any
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
Constitutional or other legal right, as a result of any \Vrong action or
inaction on the part of the State, then such wrong should not be permitted
to continue. It is by keeping the aforesaid principles in mind that one has
to consider as to what directions should be issued to ensure, in the best
possible manner, that the provision of the main Notification which has been
issued for preserving the coastal areas are not infringed.
VALIDITY OF NOTIFICATION OF 1994
The Notification datcd 18.8.1994 made six amendments in the main
Notification. These amendments were made after the receipt of the report
of a Committee, headed by Mr. B.B. Vohra, which had been set up by the
Central Government. The validity of amended Notification was also challenged in I.A. 19/1995 which was filed by three environment protection
groups, namely, the Goa Foundation, Nirmal Vishwa and Indian Heritage
Society (Goa Chapter). In the said application, the applicants gave a table
containing, the main points of the main Notification, the recommendations
made by the Vohra Committee and the amendments made by amended
Notification of 1994. The said particular are as follow :
"Main CRZ
Vohra Committee
Amending Notification
Notification dated
recommendations
dated 18.8.94.
19.2.1991 issues for
relaxation
1. 200 metres from
Relaxation allowed
Blanket relaxation for
HTL is. norocky and hilly
all areas upto HIL if
development zone
areas; no limit
Central Government
specified
so desires.
2. No-development
Clarification
No-development zone
zone for river, creeks demanded about
relaxed to 50 metres.
and backwaters 100
limits; no relaxation
metres
suggested.
INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVJRO-LEGAL ACTION v. U.0.1.
521
3. No levelling or
Allows destruction
No destruction of sand
digging of sand
of sand dunes
dunes allowed.
dunes or sand
However, goal posts,
net posts, lamp posts
allowed.
4
No-development
Recommends noRelevant section not
zone area cannot be
development zone
amended but
used for FSI
area be permitted
explanation added as
calculations.
for FSI calculations an afterthought in the
Notification permitting
no-development zone
area to be included
for FSI calculations.
5. No basements
Basements
Basements allowed.
allowed area not to
permitted
be included in FSJ
6. No fencing permitted Only green fencing
Allows green and
within 200 metre
permitted, no
barbed wire fencing.
11
zone from HTL
barbed wire
fencing allowed.
Contending that the 1994 Notification will adversly affect the environment
and would lead to unscientific and unsustainable development and ecological destruction, an application was filed by the petitioner being I.A.
16/1995, inter alia, praying for the quashing of the said Notification.
A reply was filed by the Union of India justifying the amendments
and giving reasons for the issuance of 1994 Notification.
While examining the validity of the 1994 Notification, it has to be
borne in mind that normally, such Notification are issued after a detailed
study and examination of all relevant issues. Jn matters relating to environment, it may not always be possible to lay down rigid or uniform standards
for the entire country. While issuing the notifications like the present, the
Government has to balance various interests including economic, ecologiA
B
c
D
E
F
G
cal, social and cultural. While economic development should not be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology or by causing wide spread
enyironment destruction and violation; at the same time, the necessity to
H
A
B
c
522
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996[ SUPP. lS.C.R.
preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other
developments. Both development and evironment must go hand in hand,
in other words, there should not be development at the cost of environment
and vice-versa, but there should be development while laking due care and
ensuring the protection of environment. This is sought lo be achieved by
issuing notifications like the present, relating lo developmental activities
being carried out in such a way so that unnecessary environmental degradation does not take place. In other words, in order lo prevent ecological
imbalance and degradation that developmental activity is sought lo be
regulated.
The main Notification was issued under Sections 3(1) and 3(2)(v) of
the Environment Protection Act, presumably after a lot of study had been
undertaken hy the Government. That such a study had taken place is
evident from the bare perusal of Notification itself which shows how coastal
areas have been classified into different zones and the activities which are
D prohibited or permitted to be carried out in certain areas with a view to
preserve and maintain the ecological balance.
According to the Union of India, while implementing the main
Notification, certain practical difficulties were faced by the concerned
authorities. There was a need for having sustainable· development of
E
tourism in coastal areas and that amendments were effected after giving
due consideration to all relevant issues pertaining to environment protection and balancing of the same with the requirement of development. It
has been specifically averred that a Committee headed by Mr. B.B. Vohra
was set-up by the Government in response to the need for examining the
F
issues relating to development of tourism and hotel industry in coastal
areas and to regulate the same keeping in view the requirements of
sustainable development and the fragile coastal ecology. According to the
Union of India, the committee also included three environmentalist Members who had expressed their views and that the Government had accepted
the recommendations of the Vohra Committee with slight modifications.
G According to it, there has been no blanket relaxation in any area as alleged
and adequate environmental safeguards have been provided in the 1994
Notification.
In this background, we now deal with each of these six amendments
H
separately :
!NDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGALACTIONv. U.0.1.
523
(i) According to the main Notification, distance of 200 metres from
the HTL was no-development zone (hereinafter referred to as 'NDZ'). The
representation of the Hotel and Tourism Industry was that the existing 200
metres depth of NDZ constituted a serious handicap in the said industry
competing with the beach hotels of other countries where there were no
seeh restrictions. It was represented that reduction of the NDZ would not
be ecologically harmful and there was no convincing scientific reason for
fixing 200 metres as the appropriate width for the NDZ. It was also stated
before the Committee that according to its projection, the Hotel Industry
in India would at the most require only about 20-30 K.Ms. of coastline for
the construction of sea-side resorts over the nexi 15 year or so. If this
requirement was viewed in the context of the fact that the total coastline
of the country was over 6,000 K.Ms. in length, the industry represented that
relaxation with regard to this limited area would not pose any big threat to
the country's ecology.
The Vohra Committee in its recommendations observed that certain
Members of the Committee had felt that a blanket provision of 200 metres
in the case of sandy beaches would lead to difficulties and there should be
provision for relaxation to be m~de in suitable cases, but the consensus that
emerged was that the present regulations should not be disturbed. The
Committee, ho\vever, recommended that relaxations in 200 metres rule may
A
B
c
D
be made in a case to case basis with regard to such stretches of the
E
coastline which were rocky or hilly, but the relaxations should be made
after carrying out necessary impact assessment studies. Further morP, this
relaxation should be made by the Ministry of Environment & Forests and
not by the State Governments concerned.
In the 1994 Notification, there is a clear departure from the recomF
mendations of the Vohra Committee.