BAITHKOL BANDHARU NIRASHRITHARA Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTUAL ASPECTS AND PLEADINGS IN WRIT PETITIONS:

(2.) It is recorded in the Environmental Clearance that the same has been granted as per the Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14th September, 2006 (for short 'EIA Notification') as amended from time to time. There is a challenge to the Environmental Clearance on the ground that as the 2nd stage Development Project was 'A' category project under the EIA notification, the SEIAA had no authority to grant Environmental Clearance and it is only the Government of India which could have granted the same. The petitioner in W.P.No.1332/2020 is claiming to be an Association of fishermen in Baithkol village of Karwar district. Reliance is placed in the petition on the representation made by the Uttara Kannada District Fishermen Association Forum (the petitioner in W.P.No. 2336/2020). On 20th December, 2019, a letter was addressed by the Environmental Officer of KSPCB (5th respondent in W.P.No.1332/2020) to the Executive Engineer of the Port Division, Karwar to stop the activities of construction of breakwater wall which is a part of the 2nd stage Development project on the ground that consent under the Air Act and the Water Act were not obtained. It is stated that CRZ clearance was issued on 20th December, 2019 and construction activities were commenced abutting Rabindranath Tagore Beach at Karwar.

(3.) During the pendency of these writ petitions, various orders were passed by this Court. While issuing a notice in Writ Petition No. 1332/2020, on 23rd January, 2020, this Court referred to condition No.23 incorporated in the Environmental Clearance regarding obtaining consent from KSPCB to establish/operate under the Air Act and the Water Act. This Court also referred to the show cause notice issued by SEIAA on 20th December, 2019 calling upon the second respondent why the Environmental Clearance should not be cancelled. This Court also noted that the photographs produced on record which were not disputed showed that stones have been brought on the beach for filling work for making a road on the beach and activities were in progress close to a boat of fishermen and a considerable portion of beach has been filled in. Therefore, this Court issued the following directions: