National Green Tribunal
Mr. Kashinath Jairam Shetye vs Union Of India Secretary Ministry Of ... on 5 September, 2022
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Item No. 03 Court No. 1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SPECIAL BENCH
(By Video Conferencing)
Original Application No. 74/2017(WZ)
Kashinath Shetye & Ors. Applicant(s)
Versus
Union of India & Ors Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 05.09.2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE PROF. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant: Mr. Kashinath Shetye, Applicant No.1 in person
Respondent(s): Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for R-1 & 3
ORDER
1. Challenge in this application is to Notification dated 03.05.2017 issued by the MoEF&CC to the extent of prohibiting removal and dismantling of illegal structures in violation of CRZ Regulations during June to August. The Notification amends the parent Notification dated 06.01.2011 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for regulating construction activities in certain sensitive areas of Coastal Zones, including restriction on constructions in 'No Development Zone'. Relevant part of the Notification under challenge is reproduced below:-
"(ii) in clause 3 relating to CRZ of Goa, after item (iii), the following item shall be inserted, namely:-
"(iiia) such structures shall not be removed and dismantled during the month of June to August:
1
Provided that the facilities available in these structures shall remain non-operational during the month of June to August"
2. Stand of the respondents- MoEF&CC is that due process has been followed in issuing the impugned Notification which is not, in any manner, derogatory to the main Notification.
3. While the applicant in person has reiterated the grievance against the impugned Notification, learned Counsel for the MoEF&CC submits that there is no inconsistency. While due to heavy rains, dismantling is not viable during June to August, prohibited activity have to remain non- operational, which serves the object of law.
4. On consideration of rival submissions, we do not find any merit in the challenge. There is no real conflict. As explained on behalf of the MoEF&CC, demolition activities are not found viable during some period due to heavy rains but prohibited activities have to remain suspended. Thus, the main notification is not in any manner defeated.
The application is dismissed.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP Sudhir Agarwal, JM Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Prof. A. Senthil Vel, EM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM September 05, 2022 Original Application No. 74/2017(WZ) SN 2