DLF UNIVERSAL LIMITED, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ADELIE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD), HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1E, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NAAZ CINEMA COMPLEX,NEW DELHI Vs. ANTONY A.V., 36 YEARS OF AGE, S/O. VARGHESE, ANAMTHURUTHIL HOUSE, CHILAVANNUR ROAD, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KOCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can the concession given under the Coastal Zone Regulation Notification (CRZ Notification) enabling construction/re-construction of a building in a property, with reference to the imaginary line to be drawn towards the landward side, be extended to the other properties situated all along the coastal side of the State or should it be restricted to the next/adjoining plot as clarified by the Ministry vide their proceedings dated 08.09.1998 in response to the query raised by the State of Maharashtra, which stands accepted by the Division Bench of Mumbai High Court Can the construction of the building (multistoreyed residential flats) completed much before getting CRZ clearance from the competent authority but for getting a permit issued by the Local Authority/Corporation could be ordered to be regularised, if there is any violation of the relevant provisions of law; more so when the integrated environmental clearance (under the EIA Notification, 2006) and the CRZ Clearance (under the CRZ notification) were admittedly obtained by the appellant only as per Ext.P22/Ext.R4 (e) dated 11.12.2013. If the aforesaid integrated clearance issued by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), merely with reference to the recommendation made by Kerala State Zonal Management Authority [KSZMA] in the year 2010, without referring to the intervening developments, particularly seeking for the proceedings of the Central Expert Assessment Committee (EAC) mentioning the violations and also ordering to defer the clearance; (simultaneously noting the necessity to have the presence of the Member Secretary of the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, to have further deliberations) and also omitting to note the earlier proceedings and without calling for the recommendations of the SEAC (State Environmental Assessment Committee) could be regarded as a valid clearance If not, is there anything wrong on the part of the learned Single Judge, in holding that such proceedings issued during pendency of the writ petition filed against the appellant as null and void If the finding is not wrong, can it be interfered with, merely for the reason that Ext.P22/Ext.R4(e) was not separately challenged by the writ petitioner or that SEIAA was not impleaded in the party array These are some of the main points to be dealt with in the appeal and the writ petitions.

(2.) The writ appeal arises from the verdict dated 08.12.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P (C)No. 27248 of 2012, whereby the multi-storeyed residential flat/complex constructed by the appellant has been ordered to be demolished, for violation of the relevant provisions of the Coastal Zone Regulations and such other reasons. The writ petition was filed in the year 2012 by the first respondent in the appeal, mainly contending that construction was being effected by the appellant/4th respondent in the writ petition illegally, by violating the Coastal Zone Regulations/Notifications. Prayer was made for causing the same to be demolished and to stop all further constructions, besides seeking to direct the Local Authority/Corporation of Kochi to implement the directions contained in Exts.P6 and P7 issued by them and not to issue occupancy certificate. The matter was contested by the appellant/4th respondent (Builder) contending that there was no violation of any of the provisions of the Coastal Zone Regulations; that the Builder had obtained all the requisite clearance/licences, particularly from the Pollution Control Board, Fire and Rescue Department, Naval Authorities, permit from the Local authority/Corporation of Kochi, etc. An interim order was passed by the Single Bench prohibiting the Corporation of Kochi from issuing any occupancy certificate. In the course of proceedings, the Builder was successful in getting Ext.P22 [Ext.R4(e)] Integrated Environment Clearance, authenticity of which was vehemently disputed by the writ petitioner. It was contended by the Builder that, by virtue of the turn of events, no interference was to be made. Various proceedings came to be filed during pendency of the matter and after hearing both the sides, the learned Single Judge held that there was clear violation of the relevant provisions of law and that the unauthorised construction effected by the Builder was never liable to be regularised and hence it was ordered to be demolished. This made the Builder to feel aggrieved, who has approached this Court by filing the writ appeal.

(3.) After passing the judgment as above, the appellant sought to challenge the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P25 report prepared by the 'Three Member Committee' appointed by the Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority, (which is filed as Ext.P25 in the writ petition No 27248 of 2012) by filing W.P(C) No. 18483 of 2014, mainly contending that it had been prepared on the instructions given by the Chief Secretary of the State [based on the 'Note' prepared by him and submitted before the Chief Minister of the State in the year 2014]; that the Chief Secretary had no such power or authority to deal with the matter involving the Coastal Zone Regulations; that the Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority had already become 'functus officio' on granting integrated clearance by SEIAA [the competent authority] and on such other grounds. It was disposed of by the learned Single Judge, holding that the 'Note' could be treated only as a piece of information, observing that though there is no power to the Chief Secretary to deal with a proceeding under the Coastal Zone Regulation Notification, if any violation is pointed out, the State cannot remain as a mute spectator and is bound to initiate prompt/appropriate action through the competent authority who is to deal with the matter. It was also observed that, it would be open for the parties concerned to challenge the report of the Committee before the appropriate Court/Forum in accordance with law and hence the writ petition.