GOA FOUNDATION Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The aims and objects of the society amongst others are to take steps to halt the ecological degradation of the environment and to formulate and implement programmes for the rehabilitation and development of the Goa Environment and to restore ecological balance. The petitioners had averred that its members as citizens of India like other citizens have the fundamental duties enshrined under Article 51 (g ). The petitioners are all Nationals and Citizens of India. The petitioners had been involved in measures directed towards protection of the costal areas of Goa for about 10 years previous to filing of the petition.

(2.) THE petitioners specifically complain that respondent Nos. 2 and 8 who are the local authorities namely the Village Panchayat of Calangute and the Village Panchayat of Candolim have taken no steps to remove the constructions that have come up within the 200 metres of High Tide Line. It is contended that respondent No. 6 has put a construction within 60 metres of the High Tide Line in Cobravaddo, Calangute next to the crematorium near Villa Goensa. Apart from the said construction a well has been dug which violates, the CRZ notification. It is also contended that respondent No. 7 has also put up a construction in violation of CRZ Notification.

(3.) AN affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 by Shri R. N. Ray. Chief Town Planner. In para 2, dealing with the construction of respondent No. 6 it is pointed out that on 23rd March, 1996, his office carried out a site inspection. On inspection, it was found that there were two structures and a well within 200 metres. No permission had been obtained from the Goa State Committee for Coastal Environment. It is also contended that the construction appeared to be very recent. The matter was reported to the Department of Science Technology and Environment vide letter dated 21st June, 1996 giving the necessary details. It was found that the respondent No. 6 had obtained licence from the Village Panchayat of Calangute for the repairs and renovation of the structures. There are some averments in so far as respondent No. 6 is concerned. In so far as respondent No. 7 is concerned, it is pointed out that respondent No. 7 had carried out construction within 200 metres of High Tide Line without any permission from the authorities under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or Goa State Committee for Coastal Environment. I need not dwell further as learned Counsel for respondent No. 7 who appears in this Court points out that the constructions which are shown at Exhibit B to the petition have since been removed and that there are no further constructions which remain at site. It is further pointed out that the State has taken all steps including preparation of the plan, constitution of Goa State Committee for Coastal Environment and control of development along the 500 metres belt along Goas Coast.