Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. FINDINGS ON POINT NO. (i) :

The CRZ Notification dated 19th February 1991 came to be issued under section 3(1) and section 3(2)(v) of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986. By the said Notification, Government of India brought into force, Rules/ Regulations severely restricting development and construction activities in the area known as Coastal Regulation Zone as defined in the said Notification. The Statement of Objects and Reasons preceding the said Act, 1986 shows growing concern of the Central Government about the decline in environmental quality as evidenced by increase in the pollution, loss of vegetal cover and biological diversity, excessive concentrations of chemicals in the ambient atmosphere and in food chains, growing risks of environmental accidents and threats to life support systems. The world community's resolve to protect and enhance the environmental quality found expression in the decisions taken at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in June 1972. Government of India participated in the Conference and strongly voiced their environmental concerns. Taking stock of the existing legal provisions dealing with environment protection and finding them to be hazardously inadequate, the Parliament enacted the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Under this Act, sections 3, 4 and 5 authorise the Central Government plenary powers to take all steps and measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purposes of protecting and improving the quality of environment and for the purposes of preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution. The Act also contemplates appointment of several authorities for the purposes of overseeing the effective implementation of the environment protection policy envisaged by the Act. Section 5 of the said Act gives specific powers to the Central Government for issuing directions in writing from time to time to any person, officer or any authority in connection with the Act which such person is bound to comply with. Under the Act, the Central Government is authorised to monitor the implementation of the Act. The Act is intended to put severe restrictions on untramelled depredation of environmental resources. However, as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, reported in Judgment Today 1996(4) S.C. Page 263, the Central Government shall, while issuing Notifications, has to balance various interests including economic, ecological, social and cultural. In the said judgment vide Para 31, the Supreme Court further observed that while economic development should not be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology or by causing widespread environment destruction and violation; at the same time, the necessity to preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other development. It is further laid down that both development and environment must go hand in hand. In other words, there should not be development at the cost of environment and vice versa. That, there should be development while taking due care to protect environment. In other words, in order to prevent ecological imbalance and degradation, the development activity should also be simultaneously regulated. The above observations of the Supreme Court in Para 31 of the judgment in the case of Indian Council (supra) applies to the facts of the present case, particularly with regard to setting up of Bulk Receiving Station by respondent No. 7. Pursuant to the authority given to the Central Government under the Act, 1986, various guidelines have been issued from time to time by the Central Government keeping in mind the above observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Council (supra). Some of these guidelines recommend case to case study. This is in view of the fact that in certain cases, it was found that development may be hampered on account of peculiar location and size of the plot, or on account of coastal belt having a peculiar size and shape. One more fact needs to be mentioned. After issuance of the CRZ Notification, 1991, the State Government was required to prepare Coastal Zone Management Plan which, in turn, was required to be approved by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests. Many of the States did not prepare Coastal Zone Management Plan for considerable length of period and in the circumstances, the Supreme Court was required to step in and direct the States to submit Coastal Zone Management Plan to the Central Government for approval. During this interregnum i.e. prior to the preparation of Coastal Zone Management Plan, the judgment of the Madras High Court came to be delivered in the case of Ramnathan & others v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra). This fact is important, particularly in view of the fact that various guidelines which have been subsequently issued by the Central Government were not in existence when the Madras High Court delivered its judgment. Further, the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan was not before the Madras High Court when it delivered the above judgment whereas in the present matter, we are required to consider the CRZ Notification, 1991 in the light of the subsequent amendments/directions issued by the Ministry of Environment and also in the light of the approved Maharashtra State Coastal Zone Management Plan.