Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

28. Mr. Khambata then raises a preliminary issue by submitting that the writ petition is not maintainable as the WP-442-2020-J.odt Project is not a permissible activity under paragraph 8 of the CRZ Notifcation, 2011.

29. This, Mr. Khambata submits, in view of law laid down in PIL Petition No.87 of 2006. He refers to paragraph 55 of the said decision and submits that it has been held therein that destruction of mangroves and failure of the State to take steps for restoration amounts to violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the said decision acknowledged a complete ban on the State Government or any other authority except with the prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act on using any forest land or any portion thereof for non-forest purposes. He submits that the said decision imposes an obligation upon public authorities to protect and preserve mangroves, irrespective of whether on private land or public land and in doing so, to ensure compliance with CRZ Regulations, 2011 and the Forest (Conservation) Act. He refers to paragraphs 50, 52, 54, 55 and 83 (viii) of the said judgment and submits that the said judgment holds that all mangroves irrespective of area will fall in CRZ-I as per CRZ Notifcation 2011.

57. Insofar as the contention raised by Ms. Collasso that the railway authorities were required to obtain prior environmental clearance from the GCZMA is concerned, the same is equally tenuous. Paragraph 3 of the 2011 CRZ Notifcation lays down the activities which are prohibited within the CRZ area. None of the subparagraphs of paragraph 3 refer to a railway. We may, in this connection, consider and apply the legal maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius. This maxim, embodying the principle of implied exclusion, means that expression of one is the exclusion of another. Where the law specifes certain activities to be prohibited, an inference may be drawn that activities other than those prohibited are permitted. Although the courts must guard against indiscriminate application of this maxim, we can safely infer not on the basis of what is provided in paragraph 3 but also in view of the non-obstante clause in section 11 of the Railways Act, that whatever has not been included in paragraph 3 of the 2011 CRZ notifcation has, by implication, been excluded.

61. We are, thus, of the considered opinion that if indeed the legislature intended laying of a railway line or other incidental activities to be a prohibited activity within the EP Act, a fortiori, the 2011 CRZ notifcation or even under the notifcation issued by the Ministry of WP-442-2020-J.odt Environment and Forests on 14th September 2006, such a prohibition could have been included but only after amendment of the Railways Act and not without. Parliament is presumed to have known what the existing state of law is, when a new law is in course of being enacted by it and if a legislation is enacted giving it overriding efect over the law prior in point of time, the newly enacted law has to be given efect no matter what the consequences would be.

63. Importantly, the petitioners have neither challenged section 11 of the Railways Act nor the 'special railway project'. Their grievance is confned to non-obtention of permissions from the authorities under the stated State legislation and environmental clearance under the 2011 CRZ notifcation.

64. As has been held above, permissions were not required to be obtained and, therefore, we see no reason to hold that the provisions of the 2011 CRZ Notifcation were required to be followed by the railway authorities and/or that by not following the same, they have indulged in activities which ought to be held illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction by this Court."