National Green Tribunal
Anthony Raj Williams vs The Ministry Of Environment Forest And ... on 11 July, 2022
Author: Satyagopal Korlapati
Bench: Satyagopal Korlapati
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Appeal No. 55 of 2021 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
A. Anthony Raj Williams,
S/o Anthony,
No. 7, 8th Cross Street,
Anna Nagar,
Chennai- 600040.
...Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Ministry of Enviornment, Forests and Climate Change,
Rep by its Secretary,
Indira Paryavaran Bhavan,
Jorbagh Road,
New Delhi-110003
2. The District Collector,
Collector Office Rd, Noovendar Ngar,
Viluppuram,
Tamil Nadu 605602
3. The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority,
Panagal Building G.H. Road,
Villupuram,
Tamil Nadu- 605 602
4. The Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning,
Villupuram Region,
TADCO Building G.H. Road,
Villupuram- 605 602
5. The Managing Director,
D.S. Properties,
AP 2261, H- Block,
10th Street, Kathiravan Colony,
Annanagar West,
Chennai- 600040
6. The Managing Director,
Indira Projects and Developments (T) Pvt. Ltd,
No.116/1, Anna Salai (Behind IDBI Bank),
Saidapet, Chennai- 600015
...Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): Mr. Jayaprakash
For Respondent(s): Ms. Me. Saraswathy for R1,
Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R2 to R4
Mr. Abdul Saleem, Mr. S. Saravanan and Mr. Vijaya
Mehanath for R5
1
Judgment Reserved on: 6th May, 2022
Judgment Pronounced on: 11th July, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
JUDGMENT
Delivered by Justice Smt. Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member
1. Plato said, "Sea cures all ailments of man". The fifth respondent„s project named as Doctor‟s Beach, which is claimed to be built for housing the Curers of ailments, i.e., Doctors, by seaside, is the subject matter of this appeal.
2. The appellant questioned the legality of the order passed by the third respondent in proceedings in Proc.No.P1/1721/2019 (Annexure-1) dated 31.07.2019, by means of which, the fifth respondent was given "Clearance" under Para 8(i) II, CRZ II(i), (ii) and (iii) of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2011 for the Project named as "Doctor‟s Beach".
3. According to the appellant, a self-styled Social Worker, the fifth and sixth respondents joined together to promote the lands in S.Nos.106/2, 106/3, 106/4, 106/5, 106/6, 108/1, 108/2A(p), 108/2B, 108/2C1(p), 108/2C2, 109/1, 109/2, 109/3(p), 109/4, 110/1(p), 110/2(p), 110/3, 110/4, 110/5, 111/1, 111/2, 111/3, 111/4 at Marakannam North Village (Thalangadu Village), Marrakkanam Taluk, Villupuram District, as layout and resorts and to develop 545 numbers of housing plots for residential purpose and obtained necessary clearance from the third respondent. However, since the said lands are located within 500 meters from the sea, they are classified as CRZ-II area, as per the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2011 (in short, "CRZ Notification"), which governs the said lands. The clauses contained in the said notification permit the buildings only on the landward side of the existing road, or on the landward side of existing authorized structures, and the same is subject to the existing local town and country planning regulations, which include Floor Space Index or Floor Area Ratio. Alleging that the clearance was obtained by fraudulent means by the said private respondents and 2 permitting the project within CRZ-II would damage the sea environment, the appellant is before this Tribunal in this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the clearance for the project was obtained by the fifth and sixth respondents by wrongly projecting a mud path used by villagers as an existing road and the third respondent without conducting any proper physical inspection, without noticing the fact that the subject site is located in High Tide Line (HTL) and without application of mind, issued the impugned Clearance and based on the same, the fifth respondent applied before the fourth respondent under Regularization Scheme of the Government of Tamil Nadu and the subject layout was approved with certain conditions in Na.Ka.No.1646/2019/VM, dated 19.09.2019. According to him, both these orders pose serious danger of damage to the fragile coastal zone, which are surrounded by eco-sensitive areas. It is submitted that since the official respondents failed to follow CRZ Notification and also EIA Notification, 2006, the learned counsel for the appellant sought to quash the impugned Clearance order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the third respondent. It is also his submission that the third respondent is only a recommending authority and it has no authority to issue clearance. Learned counsel for the appellant raised a serious ground that though the area is classified as CRZ II, sand dunes were in existence in the site, which is evident on a plain comparison of adjacent sites, but they were destructed before preparation of present CZMP. The fifth respondent had taken advantage of the same to damage the environment of the area. In such backdrop, he sought to allow the prayer.
5. The first respondent contended that the CRZ Notification, 2011 was issued with the objective to conserve and protect the coastal stretches by regulation of developmental activities along with the coastal stretches and to ensure security to the livelihood of fishermen and other people living in the coastal areas. It is submitted that the third respondent is vested with the power to implement and enforce the CRZ Notification in accordance with the approved CZMPs of the State of Tamil Nadu. It is also stated by the first respondent that the construction activities in CRZ- II area involving built-up area of more than 20,000 sq.m. shall attract the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006 and requires prior composite EC as well as CRZ clearance from the concerned State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (in short, "SEIAA") along with the recommendation 3 of the concerned State Coastal Zone Management Authority ("SCZMA", for the sake of brevity), which is the base for clearance, subject to other regulations, by the concerned Town Planning Authority.
6. Learned counsel for the State sought to sustain the impugned order on the pretext that the mandates of the Environment Protect laws, including the 2011 Notification, have been duly complied with and followed by the instrumentalities of the State in issuing the impugned order.
7. Learned counsel for the fifth respondent submitted that the Clearance of the third respondent was issued in accordance with law, after following the guidelines mentioned in the CRZ Notification and the same needs no interference from this Tribunal and this appeal, which was filed beyond the period of limitation, but without showing any sufficient and reasonable cause for such delay, is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The primordial submission of the learned counsel for the fifth respondent is that the fifth respondent was approached by the appellant for extraneous consideration, but since they refused to oblige, the appellant filed this appeal, after wrongly filing an application before this Tribunal, and there is no public interest on the part of the appellant. It is also contended that the revenue authorities, after field inspection and enquiry and satisfying themselves the existing road leading to the grave yard, recommended the case to the third respondent which culminated to the impugned order and as such, there is no illegality in passing of the impugned order of Clearance. The learned counsel sought to dismiss the appeal on the ground of delay and laches as well.
8. The Learned Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent has also claimed that VAO, Zonal Deputy Tahsildar and Tahsildar of the area have reported that there is an existing mud road of 15 feet abutting the compound wall of the Layout and that the compound wall is located at a distance of 60 meters from the tidal line and that the layout is located between 202 meters and 800 metres from tidal line and that the order of the 3rd respondent according approval for the layout in the CRZ II area is as per the regulations in force and appeal is devoid of merits.
9. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed before us.
410. The questions that arise for consideration are:
a) whether the impugned location is CRZ II?
b) Whether the impugned Clearance issued by the 3rd respondent is based on proper application of mind and in accordance with law or not?
11. Before deciding whether the impugned layout falls in CRZ II area, the classification of CRZ needs examination. As per the CRZ notification dated 18.01.2019 following areas fall under CRZII category:
j"CRZ-II:
CRZ-II shall constitute the developed land areas up to or close to the shoreline, within the existing municipal limits or in other existing legally designated urban areas, which are substantially built-up with a ratio of built-up plots to that total plots being more than 50 per cent and have been provided with drainage and approach roads and other infrastructural facilities, such as water supply, sewerage mains, etc."
12. From the above it is clear that an area to be classified as CRZ-II, the area should be:
i) Substantially built up with a ratio of built-up plots to that total plots being more than 50% and
ii) Have been provided with drainage and approach roads and
iii) Other infrastructural facilities such as water supply, sewerage mains etc.
13. A perusal of the records, Form1, Environmental Managemental Plan, reports as well as the claims made by the Project Proponent reveal that the area is an undeveloped area and does not have the above facilities and the above issues were not examined by the authorities. An examination of the above issues is essential to arrive at whether the area falls in CRZ II category or in CRZ III.
14. The fifth respondent became the owner of the properties in survey numbers referred to supra, having purchased the same in the year 2013. However, the title deeds were not produced before this Tribunal and the above fact could be seen from the perusal of the Gift Deed dated 10.01.2019. The said Gift Deed claimed to have been executed by the fifth respondent favouring the Executive Officer of Marakkanam Town Panchayat, on the request made by the people of Vasavankuppam Village, Marakkanam (North) to gift the approach road for graveyard which was in use by the public for long time. A perusal of the schedule of property shown therein makes it clear that East side of the property is 5 the Tidal line and for a piece of land in the given survey numbers, North boundary lies on Graveyard, while the lands in all the other boundaries held by the fifth respondent. From this, we wonder as to how the fifth respondent can claim that there was an existing road, which could be suited within the meaning of the CRZ Notification. If the road which is claimed to have been in existence, is located in the private party, it cannot be termed as a Road, but can be stated that people have been using the private land to avoid walking miles to perform final rites to the departed souls. Merely because it was permitted, it cannot be termed as an "existing road" in terms of CRZ Notification.
15. Be that as it may, the Village Administrative Officer, 42, Marakkanam North, Marakkanam Taluk, (VAO) issued a certificate dated 18.01.2019, wherein, it is stated that patta No.2569 was given for Survey Nos.108/8, 9, 10, 109/1A5C4, 1B2, 2B1C4, 4A1A4 and 115/1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, in the name of Executive Officer (Town Panchayat) and the lands in those survey numbers are comprised of a mud path from Vasavankuppam and the graveyard, which is being used by the village people. It is also stated therein that the said certificate was issued on enquiry and revenue records. The Tahilsaildar, Marakkanam, and the said VAO along with the Zonal Deputy Inspector, Taluk Office, Marakkanam, conducted field inspection on 22.02.2019 and the VAO and the Zonal Deputy Inspector submitted inspection reports of even date, wherein, the graveyard is stated to be located in Survey No.108/1C2. A similar report was given by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Marakkanam. The Tahsildar, Marakkanam, sent his inspection report dated 23.02.2019 in Na.Ka.No.A3/007/2019 to the District Collector, Villupuram, based on these reports, wherein also the graveyard is stated to be located in Survey No. 108/1C2. Surprisingly, in "A" Register, it is stated to be located in Survey No.107/2. These reports further show that the compound wall of the fifth respondent was situated at a distance of 60 meters from the Tidal Line and the said layout was located between 202 meters and 871 meters from the Tidal Line. Contrarily, a 15 feet mud road is situated at a distance of 60 meters from the compound wall and the Tidal Line. It is to be stated that the mud road is located in the remaining land gifted by the fifth respondent. We do not know as to how all these reports reached the fifth respondent, who produced it in their documents. On the other hand, these materials raise a doubt that only to claim the existence of a road, a 6 mud path, which was in use by the villagers in the said lands, was gifted by the fifth respondent.
16. In the meanwhile, on 21.02.2019 the meeting of the District Coastal Zone Management Authority, Villupuram District, (DCZMA) was held and the request of the fifth respondent dated 15.02.2019, was considered. The decisions arrived at in the meeting are:
"The Committee has decided to recommend the proposed project to the State Level Coastal Zone Management Authority for issue of clearance under Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019 subject to the following condition :
1. The project proponent shall obtain Layout Plan approval from DTCP after getting CRZ clearance from State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, Chennai.
2. The unit shall provide adequate common sewage treatment plant along with conveyance arrangements to transport sewage from residence to sewage treatment plant for the treatment and disposal of sewage generated from the residential houses and the treated sewage is utilized for gardening purposes.
3. The unit shall provide waste management disposal facility for the collection, transportation, treatment and disposal of Municipal solid waste generated from the Residential Houses in scientific manner.
4. The unit shall ensure that there shall not be any discharge of treated/untreated sewage and municipal solid waste into outside of the premises and nearby sea."
17. Pursuant to the said minutes, the meetings of the Tamil Nadu State Coastal Zone Management Authority (in short, "TNSCZMA") was held on 27.02.2019 and 21.05.2019 and a letter was addressed to the fifth respondent in R.C.No.P1/466/2019, dated 03.06.2019, wherein, NOC was given in respect of plots, which are falling in Non-CRZ areas so as to approach the DTCP. It was also resolved to request the fifth respondent to furnish the details of plots falling in the CRZ-II areas and outside CRZ areas duly superimposing in the HTL demarcation map, so as to take further action and to request them to apply for the clearance for the plots in CRZ-II area separately, if required, along with ownership land documents. Subsequently, acting on the request of the fifth respondent to issue clearance for the layout which is falling in CRZ areas, the meeting of the TNSCZMA was held on 25.07.2019 and the impugned order dated 31.07.2019 was passed.
18. However, as stated supra, a perusal of the reports and documents produced reveal that there was a deliberate attempt to create records/reports to claim that the layout area falls in CRZ II category and that the layout proposal fulfils the requirements in force. The above can be adduced from the following:
7A) The Village Administrative Officer, 42, Marakkanam North, Marakkanam Taluk, (VAO) issued a certificate dated 18.01.2019 it is stated that patta No. 2569 was given for Survey Nos.108/8, 9, 10, 109/1A5C4, 1B2, 2B1C4, 4A1A4 and 115/1B, 2B, 3B, 4B in the name of Executive Officer (Town Panchayat) and the lands in those survey numbers are comprised of a mud path from Vasavankuppam and the graveyard, which is being used by the village people. It is also claimed that the mud path (mann padai) abuts the compound wall of the layout.
B) The statement of the VAO and Zonal Deputy Tahsildar issued before the Tahsildar claims that there is a 15 feet mud road abutting the compound wall, whereas the report of the Tashildar claims that there is 15 feet mud path abutting the compound wall. C) The statements of VAO and Zonal Deputy Tahsildar also claimed on the one hand that the distance between the compound wall and tidal line is 60 meters and on the other the statements/reports also claim that the layout is located beyond the tidal line between 202 meters and 871 meters from the tidal line. The same has been reiterated in the Tahsildar‟s report. Whereas a perusal of the Environmental Management Plan, the gift deed executed by the 5 th respondent in favour of the Town Panchayat and the Schedule of property shown therein makes it clear the east side of the property is the tidal line.
D) The report of Institute of Remote Sensing, Anna University (one of the authorised agency to prepare CRZ map demarcating HTL and LTL) which carried out GPS survey for the proposed project concluded after super imposition of the survey out puts in the approved CZMP as per CRZ, 2011 notification and concluded that the project site falls under CRZ-II. Their survey team that has visited the site on 10.11.2017 should have noted the lack of developments in the area to qualify the area as CRZ-II and should have submitted a report to the Director Coastal Zone Management Authority to rectify the CZMP and designate the area as CRZ-III.
The report of the Institute of Remote Sensing, Anna University also does not include CRZ map covering 7 km radius around the project site and the CRZ map indicating the CRZ-I, II, III and IV areas including other notified ecologically sensitive areas. The report fails to report the sand dunes in the area on either side of the project site within the 500 metres line as well as beyond the 500 metres.
8E) It is evident from the map that the area surrounding the project site does not have urban character and the project site lies between the sea on eastern side and a brackish water lake- Yeddayan thittu lake on the western side.
19. The District Level and State Level CZM Authorities have not scrutinised the documents critically and without application of mind considered the area to be CRZ-II based on the approved CZMP as per 2011 notification and sanctioned the clearances. It is also surprising to note that the SCZMA sanctioned the clearances. It is also surprising to note that the SCZMA authorities have not ascertained the extent of built-up area proposed in the layout area which will determine the need for obtaining prior Environmental Clearance or otherwise.
20. The Tribunal has constituted a Joint Committee which inspected the area and reported as follows:
JOINT COMMITTEE REPORT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON‟BLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI WITH REFERENCE TO ITS ORDER DATED 13.08.2021 IN APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2021(SZ) The Joint Committee nominated by the Hon‟ble Green Tribunal, Southern Zone visited the residential layout site in Marakkanam North Village, Marakkanam Taluk, Viluppuram District developed by M/s D.S. Propertiei, Chennai in terms of the order dated 13.08.2021 in Appeal No. 55 of 2021 (SZ).
The direction of the Hon‟ble Tribunal for the Committee is to go into the following three issues framed by it with reference to the CRZ clearance given by the Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority, Chennai.
i) Whether there is any violation of Coastal Regulation Zone Notification.
ii) Whether there is any suppression of material fact or misrepresentation made regarding a non-existence road as existing road for the purpose of getting the clearance, as alleged by the appellant and
iii) If there is any violation what is the action taken by the authorities in this regard.
The Joint Committee visited the residential layout site on 19.10.2021. it is found it lying within the CRZ-II Zone. Though the plots have been marked on the layout, there has been no construction on any of them. They are all lying vacant. The Committee has also perused the papers pertaining to the recommendations made by the District Coastal Zone Management Authority, Viluppuram District. The recommendation made by this Authority was based on the information that there was a mud road connecting Vasavankuppam village to the burial ground located beyond the northern boundary of the lay out site under reference as reported by the authority concerned. The committee did not notice any apparent violation of Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, in so far as the recommendation for clearance in the case, as seen from the relevant records.
The Committee inspected the stretch abutting the fenced eastern boundary of the layout. As regards the road claimed to be running on the eastern side of the layout separating it from High Tide Line, the Committee found no such road existing from the sea front up to the fenced eastern boundary of the layout, it is a seamless sandy stretch.
9However, the villagers of Vasavankuppam while being enquired, told the Committee that they carry the dead bodies to the burial ground along the eastern boundary of the layout.
In the absence of a road abutting the eastern boundary of the layout, it cannot be claimed that it has come up on the landward side of an existing road. The most crucial condition that buildings shall be permitted only on the landward side of an existing road as per CRZ Notification, 2011 is not fulfilled in the case.
21. Though, the Joint Committee appointed by this Tribunal has categorically stated, based on site inspection, that there is no existing road on the seaward side they erred in considering that the area falls under CRZ-II category in the absence of stipulated existing developments as per the CRZ notification, 2011. Therefore, the report of the Joint Committee is accepted only to the limited extent of their observations regarding lack of road and other required infrastructure.
22. As observed above, from the reports and statements of the revenue officials and the documents produced by the project proponent himself, it is evident that the competent authorities have erred in relying on documents with contradictions and false claims are arrived that the area falls in CRZ-II and the impugned proposal was approved without detailed scrutiny. It could be concluded that the impugned area does not fall in the CRZ-II area and the project proposal of the 5th respondent cannot be brought within the scope of CRZ-II. The natural corollary of this would be the impugned clearance order is liable to be set aside.
23. It is to be stated that the objection of the learned counsel for the fifth respondent that the appellant approached the fifth respondent for extraneous consideration and when the same proved futile, he filed this appeal and as such, there is no public interest on the part of the appellant cannot be gone into by this Tribunal. Even if something beyond law was sought to be done, it is for the individual/entity to act in accordance with law and report the same to the law enforcement agencies. When there is no such action, this submission is too big of a pill to swallow.
24. The ground of delay and laches raised by the learned counsel for the fifth respondent also has no merit for the simple reason that Section 16(h) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 has no application to the instant case and the same cannot be placed against the appellant. This is because of the fact that the clause "thirty days from the date on which the order or decision or direction or determination is communicated to him" for preferring an appeal is not useful to the fifth respondent to be 10 relied upon against the appellant. The Hon‟ble Principal Bench of this Tribunal has considered "what amounts to communication" in SaveMon Region Federation & Another Vs. Union of India and Others in M.A. No. 104/2012, Principal Bench, Nation Green Tribunal, Delhi and Padmabati Mohaptra Vs. Union of India in Appeal No. 29/2012, National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench. However, we are of the view that given the present scenario, the ground of delay and laches is not available to the fifth respondent and we are not inclined to delve into it. Further, in view of the Covid pandemic the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous application no. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No. 3/2020 vide order dated 27.04.2021 had extended the limitation from 15 th March till further orders.
25. The other legal issue raised is as to whether SCZMA has independent power to grant clearance under CRZ Notification or they are only recommending authority.
25.1. Before going into the issue, it is necessary to go through certain clauses in CRZ Notification 2011. Clause 3 of the Notification defines "Prohibited activities within CRZ". Clause 4 regulates permissible activities in CRZ area, except those prohibited in Clause 3. Since Clause 4(ii) deals with the activities that require clearance from Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF), let us confine with Clause 4(i), which reads thus:
4(i) (a) clearance shall be given for any activity within the CRZ only if it requires waterfront and foreshore facilities;
(b) for those projects which are listed under this notification and also attract EIA notification, 2006 (S.O.1533 (E), dated the 14th September, 2006), for such projects clearance under EIA notification only shall be required subject to being recommended by the concerned State or Union territory Coastal Zone Management Authority (hereinafter referred to as the CZMA).
(c) Housing schemes in CRZ as specified in paragraph 8 of this notification;
(d) Construction involving more than 20,000sq mts built-up area in CRZ-II shall be considered [for approval] in accordance with EIA notification, 2006 and in case of projects less than 20,000sq mts built-
up area shall be approved by the concerned State or Union territory Planning authorities in accordance with this notification after obtaining recommendations from the concerned CZMA and prior recommendations of the concern CZMA shall be essential for considering the grant of environmental clearance under EIA notification, 2006 or grant of approval by the relevant planning authority.
(e) MoEF may under a specific or general order specify projects which require prior public hearing of project affected people.
(f) construction and operation for ports and harbours, jetties, wharves, quays, slipways, ship construction yards, breakwaters, groynes, erosion control measures;
g. Construction of road by way of reclamation in CRZ area shall be only in exceptional cases, to be recommended by the concerned Coastal Zone Management Authority and approved by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change; and in case the construction of such road is passing through mangroves or likely to damage the mangroves, three 11 times the number of mangroves destroyed or cut during the construction process shall be replanted.
A reading of Clause 4(i)(d) makes it amply clear that the construction involving more than 20,000 sq mts. built-up area in CRZ-II has to be considered in accordance with EIA Notification, 2006 and in case of projects less than 20,000 sq. mts. built up area alone approval can be considered by the concerned State or UT Planning Authorities in accordance with the said notification, and that too after obtaining recommendation from the concerned CZMA. It was made crystal clear therein that prior recommendation of the concern CZMA is essential for considering the grant of environmental clearance under EIA notification, 2006 or grant of approval by the relevant planning authority. Clause 4.2. of the CRZ Notification prescribes the Procedure for clearance of permissible activities in CRZ area and sub-clause (i) mandates the project proponent to apply to the concerned State or UT CZMA along with the documents stated under clauses (a) to (h) seeking prior clearance under CRZ notification. Sub-clause (h)(ii) mandates the concerned CZMA to examine the documents as per law and make recommendations to the MoEF or SEIAA for the project attracting EIA notification, 2006 which reads as follows:
"(h)(ii). The Concerned CZMA shall examine the above documents in accordance with the approval of CZMP and in compliance with CRZ notification and make recommendations within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of complete application."
Sub-clause h(iii) permits only MoEF or SEIAA to consider those of such projects for clearance based on the recommendation of the concerned CZMA within a specified period.
25.2. A reading of the above provisions would go to show that the role of the CZMA in clearance is recommendatory and such clearance is subject to the final decision of the SEIAA or the concerned planning authority, given the volume of development undertaken by the project proponent. In the instant case no examination was made either by the District level or State level Coastal Zone Management Authorities on the likely built-up area in the proposed 540 plots proposed for building. In case the built-up area exceeds 20,000 sqm the project requires prior Environmental Clearance which would have necessitated examination either by SEIAA or by MoEF&CC. Absence of such examination in violation of CRZ notification is also a ground for allowing the appeal. Since the clauses of the CRZ Notification and the EIA notification, 2006 are 12 clear in this regard, nothing requires to be decided further in this issue. and on this ground also the appeal deserves to be allowed.
26. From the maps produced, it is evident that there is truth in the allegation made by the appellant who raised a serious ground that the area is wrongly classified as CRZ-II. It was also alleged that sand dunes were in existence in the site, but they were destructed before preparation of present CZMP. There appears to be truth even in this allegation as evidenced by the fact that there are sand dunes on either side of the project site extending even beyond 500 meters. Therefore, we deem it necessary to direct the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India and the State Government, before it is too late and goes beyond repair, to conduct necessary technical study to revise the Coastal Zone Management Plan approved as per 2011 notification and refix the CRZ areas not only in the impugned area but also in other Urban and legally designated Urban areas. Pending revision of the CZMPs the District and State CZMAs are also directed to examine all the pending proposals in so called CRZ-II areas not merely relying on the approved CZMP as per 2011 notification but by getting the area physically inspected and satisfy about the fulfilment of the stipulated conditions to classify the area as CRZ-II. The DCZMA may depute a team comprising of the jurisdictional Sub-Collector/RDO and the District Environmental Engineer, the member secretary of the DCZMA for inspection. The State CZMA should also send a two member team or a Senior Officer from the State Headquarters to inspect the area in case the DCZMA recommends a proposal claiming the area to be CRZ-II.
27. We are of the view that it is within the purview of the State Government to revise the CZMPs and place it before MoEF&CC in terms of Clause 5 of the CRZ Notification and it is the bounden duty of the authorities to preserve the sea environment including Dunal ecosystems. The Additional Chief Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Government of Tamil Nadu shall supervise the revision of the CZMP and ensure that the work is completed at the earliest but not later than six months fromt he date of receipt of the order. The Additional Chief Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Government of Tamil Nadu shall issue necessary directions to her subordinates enlightening the clauses contained in CRZ Notification, 2011, more particularly, the one that mandates to place the papers of projects like this before the SEIAA, after making their recommendations for clearance.
1328. In the result, this appeal deserves to be allowed and accordingly, Appeal No.55 of 2021 stands allowed and the impugned order of the 3rd respondent dated 31.07.2019 is set aside.
29. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Government of Tamil Nadu for necessary suitable further action in implementing the above directions.
30. In the facts and circumstances of this appeal, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
............................................................J.M. (Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana) .......................................E.M. (Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati) Internet - Yes/No All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No Appeal No. 55/2021(SZ) 11th July, 2022. (AM) 14 Before the National Green Tribunal Southern Zone (Chennai) Appeal No. 55 of 2021 A. Anthony Raj Williams Vs. MoEF&CC, New Delhi and Ors.
Appeal No. 55/2021(SZ) 11th July, 2022. (AM) 15