ATMARAM GOPAL PARAB Vs. ALCON CEMENT COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is agreed by both sides that the matter may be heard finally at the stage of admission. The matter is, accordingly, heard at great length and is being disposed off by this Judgment. Accordingly, formal order of Rule is passed. Respective Counsel for the respondents waive service.

(2.) The construction of a jetty at Kothambi (Taixem), in Bicholim Taluka, in violation of CRZ-III Notification is the subject-matter of this public interest litigation. The petitioner, Atmaram Gopal Parab, addressed a letter to this Court on 23-11-2007, alleging that the Government of Goa and its various Departments have given NOCs to M/s Alcon Cement Company Private Limited for construction of the jetty in question, without proper inquiry as to congestion in barge traffic, environmental damages and pollution aspects, amongst other points. It is alleged in the said letter that the jetty is being constructed by flouting all the rules, regulations and directions of the Captain of Ports, CRZ Authorities and Government of Goa etc. Along-with the letter, some photographs were also annexed. By the said letter, the petitioner requested this Court to intervene in the matter. On the basis of the said letter, the Incharge Registrar prepared a note and ultimately, the letter was ordered to be treated as Public Interest Litigation and the author of the letter Shri Atmaram Gopal Parab has been shown as the petitioner. By order dated 10-12-2007, notices were issued to the concerned respondents. By order dated 21-1-2008, Advocate D. Pangam was requested to appears as an amicus curiae. Thereafter, Mr. A. D. Bhobe put in his appearance on behalf of the petitioner.

(3.) The question which requires consideration in this PIL writ petition is as to whether the construction of jetty in question is in violation of CRZ Notification According to the petitioner, the said jetty has been constructed by respondent No. 1 without valid permissions and that the construction of the jetty is not permissible in CRZ-III as per the Regulations in connection with CRZ-III. According to the petitioner, unless environmental clearance is obtained from the Ministry of Environment and Forests ("MOEF" for short), Government of India, New Delhi for construction of a jetty, respondent No. 1 cannot be permitted to operate the jetty, in question. It is the case of the petitioner that the construction of the jetty is prohibited under the said Regulations. In order to substantiate his case, the petitioner has relied upon the Notification dated 19th February, 1991, which is issued under section 3(1) and section 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that if the jetty is required for the purpose of water front and foreshore facilities, then under Regulation 3(2), environmental clearance from the MOEF will have to be obtained. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that an area upto 200 metres from the High Tide Line (HTL) has to be earmarked as No Development Zone and construction of a jetty is as such prohibited in CRZ-III.