Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3(o).The Tribunal failed to consider only CRZ Notification 2011 will be applicable and not CRZ Notification 2019 dated 18.01.2019, which is yet to be approved and published. Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) was approved and published on 24.10.2018 based on CRZ Notification 2011. The petitioner extracted the portion of CRZ Notification 2011 relating to the lands which fall under CRZ-II category, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that adjacent to the land in which layout is formed is developed area and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis about 300 families are residing in Ward No.1 of Marakkanam Town Panchayat (Vasavankuppam Village) with all the facilities. This apart, one hatchery namely, “Pavani Hatchery” is also located nearby. In view of such development, the site falls only in CRZ-II area.

14. In the present case each of the three reasons given by the Industrial Adjudicator for holding the inquiry to be bad was sufficient for setting aside the same. The Industrial https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Adjudicator has held that the non-appointment of the Presenting Officer led to the truth having not been unraveled. The principles of natural justice are not confined to opportunity of hearing only but extend to effective hearing. The purport of the order dated 17 th December, 2009 of the Industrial Adjudicator is that no effective hearing was possible or held in the absence of the Presenting Officer. We are also of the view that the inquiry can also be held to be bad when the outcome thereof is not in consonance with its content and that is precisely the finding of the Industrial Adjudicator in the present case. The Supreme Court in M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India (2006) 5 SCC 88 held the findings of the departmental inquiry to be interferable if there is no evidence to prove the charge or where the relevant facts have not been considered. A Division Bench of this Court also in Union of India v. S.R. Tewari MANU/DE/0345/2012 held a finding of the departmental inquiry based on no evidence to be perverse. It was further observed that if on the basis of the material available no reasonable person could have recorded the finding, it would qualify as perverse.” 3(x)(ii). The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis further submitted that the Tribunal erroneously considered the definition of CRZ-II as mentioned in CRZ Notification 2019, instead of CRZ Notification 2011. CRZ Notification 2019 is not yet been approved and published and only CRZ Notification 2011 is in force. In view of CRZ Notification 2019 dated 18.01.2019 has not come into force and Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) approved and published by the 2nd respondent on 24.02.2018 based on CRZ Notification 2011, CRZ Notification 2011 is only applicable to the present case. This has been clarified by the 2nd respondent herein, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) circular dated 07.06.2019.

5(c).The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that both the petitioner and 1st respondent admitted that only 2011 Notification is applicable for the present land. For the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis purpose of implementation and enforcement of the provisions of the CRZ Notification, 2011 and compliance with the conditions stipulated there under, the powers either original or delegated are available under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, with the State Government and the State Coastal Zone Management Authority (SCZMAs). The composition, tenure and mandate of State/UT CZMAs, have been notified from time to time by the Ministry. Further, the Ministry vide three Notifications dated 30.09.2022, empowered SCZMAs under Section 5, Section 10 and Section 19 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to enforce and monitor the provisions of the CRZ Notification. The 4th respondent as per the provisions of CRZ Notification 2011, can exercise the power either original or delegated as per The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the 4th respondent has power to issue clearance as per delegated power. The authorities after following the procedure contemplated in CRZ 2011 and conditions stipulated thereunder, has granted clearance. It is not correct to state that only the 2nd respondent has power to grant clearance, whereas, the 4th respondent is the competent authority as per delegated power to grant clearance. The clearance granted by the 2nd respondent is proper and valid.

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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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.” In the first paragraph, the Committee has stated that “Committee did not notice any apparent violation of Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, insofar as recommendation for clearance in the case, as seen from the relevant records.” 12(i). Contrary to the said finding, the Committee in the last paragraph has stated that in the absence of the road abutting on the eastern boundary of layout, CRZ Notification, 2011 is not fulfilled in this case. If there is no road between the boundary of the property of the petitioner and HTL, clearance granted by 4th respondent is in violation of CRZ Notification 2011. The Committee having stated that there is no violation of CRZ Notification 2011, has erroneously stated in the last paragraph that condition in the said Notification is not fulfilled. The Committee in their report has mentioned that when they enquired villagers of the Vasavankuppam Village, they informed the Committee that they carry dead bodies to the burial ground on the eastern boundary of the layout. The Committee has not given any reason for not believing the statement of the villagers in this regard. National Green Tribunal has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis not considered the first portion of the report of the Joint Committee, wherein the Committee has stated that there is no apparent violation of Coastal Regulation Zone Notification in granting clearance in this matter.