LAWS(BOM)-2000-7-117

FLOYED LOPES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On July 13, 2000
FLOYED LOPES Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VARIOUS reliefs have been prayed for by the petitioner in this petition. In so far as relief prayer clause (a) is concerned, that is the subject matter of Writ Petition No.212/91 and Writ Petition No.309/89, the Judgment in that petition will cover the relief in the present petition. The only additional relief was the challenge to vires of Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act. We do not find that there is any abdication of the essential necessary functions in so far as Section 3 is concerned. Need for a provision like Section 3 (1) has been answered by the Apex Court in Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board v/s. Prof. M. V. Nayudu (Retd) and others (1992 (2) SCC 715 ). What Section 3 (1) of the Environment Protection Act contemplates is a precautionary principle that States cannot wait for environmental disaster to occur to exercise their powers to prevent ecological and environmental disaster. For reasons given in the aforesaid writ petitions where we have rejected the challenge to the vires of Section 5 and for the same reasons, we reject the relief sought herein.

(2.) IN so far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, it is a challenge to the CRZ Notification of 19.12.1991. The challenge has to be rejected in view of the Apex Court Judgment in the case of INdian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v/s. Union of INdia and others (JT 1996 (4) SCC 263 ). The very notification came up before the Apex Court. There was no challenge to the validity of the Notification. IN fact, the parties agreed that the Notification is valid and has to be enforced. Once the Apex Court has accepted that, it will not be open to this Court to hold otherwise.

(3.) CONSIDERING the above, the following order : Rule is discharged. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .