Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

34. It is submitted that, in fact, the CRZ Notifcation, 2011 having been issued under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, the same would have an overriding efect over other laws, including Central Acts as well, since:

WP-442-2020-J.odt "i. The Environment Protection Act is enacted under Article 253 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the Parliament to "make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference, association or other body." ii. Section 24 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 contains a non-obstante clause:

55. After extensively analysing the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, Environment Protection Act, 1986 as well as the concept of 'forest' pursuant to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India & Ors.8, as well as the decision of the Nagpur High Court in the case of Laxman Ichharam vs. Divisional 8 (1997) 2 SCC 267 WP-442-2020-J.odt Forest9, this Court observed that a land covered by mangroves would be a 'forest'. Further, after considering the "Coastal Regulation Zone" (CRZ) notifcations of 1991, 2001 and various orders by the Government of India thereunder, it was observed that all mangroves fall in CRZ-I irrespective of its area and in case the said area is one thousand square meter or more, even a bufer zone of ffty meters along the said area shall be a part of CRZ-I, where no new construction shall be permitted except as mentioned in the CRZ Regulations. Highlighting the fundamental duty of the State and the citizens to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and the wildlife of the country as enshrined in Article 48-A as well as 51-A (g) of the Constitution of India and taking into account the public trust doctrine, precautionary principle, the RAMSAR Convention and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court observed that mangrove eco systems play a vital role in human life and if a citizen is to lead a meaningful life as contemplated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the mangroves will have to be preserved and protected and the destruction of the mangroves and the failure of the State to take steps for its restoration will amount to violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. This Court, accordingly, directed a total freeze on the destruction and cutting of mangroves in the entire State of Maharashtra. In Paragraph No.83, a summary of all important fndings was set out. The said Paragraph 83 is quoted as under: -

60. While it cannot be disputed that the CRZ Regulations are enforceable in terms of the Environment Protection Act, however keeping in mind that the Railways Act starts with a non obstante clause, as discussed above, it cannot be said to be subject to the Environment Protection Act, as argued by Mr. Khambata, since the intention of the Legislature is quite clear in this regard when considered in the light of the fact that when the Parliament enacted the Railways Act in 1989, the WP-442-2020-J.odt Environment Protection Act was already in place and the Parliament was well aware of what it had enacted a couple of years before.

64. When called upon to respond, Mr. Khambata submitted that the said observation does not in any manner dilute the submissions of the Respondent No.5. He contended that the 11 AIR 1966 SC 529 WP-442-2020-J.odt non-obstante clause contained in Section 11 of the Railways Act cannot and does not exclude the Environment Protection Act, the CRZ notifcation or the Forest (Conservation) Act. Since there is no confict between the two and the legislations are not in the same feld, the environment laws are in fact to be read into the Railways Act and Section 11 of the Railways Act is subject to the provisions of the Environment Protection Act.