VISAKHA SPCA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Espousing a public cause, this writ petition challenges the action of the respondents herein in attempting to install a decommissioned submarine and a naval ship in an area of 30 x 200 Metres in the sea coast at Ramakrishnapuram Beach, opposite Madhuvan Restaurant, Visakhpatnam as illegal and violative of the notification issued by the Central Government dated 19-2-1991 under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Rules made thereunder.

(2.) The petitioner, a society which came into existence about five years ago claims to have been formed for the protection of animal life and the endangered .species from being killed and subjected to cruelty by unscrupulous human beings and is recognized by the Animal Welfare Board of India. It is stated that Olive Ridley sea turtles swim to the shores of Vishakapatnam from thousands of miles away and lay eggs in the nests put up by them. However, the said species and the eggs laid by them are being destroyed and used by the people in the vicinity in spite of various representations and complaints made by it to the authorities. The petitioner had obtained permission through letter dated 18-1-1999 to protect turtle nests at Visakhapatnam, Gannavaram and Pudimadaka Beaches along the coast of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore the decision of the respondents herein to install a decommissioned submarine and ship on the coast is detrimental to sea turtles and is also in violation of the notification issued under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, wherein all such activities are prohibited. Further, item No. 13 of Schedule-I, para 2 to the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 takes in the Olive black loggerhead turtles and thus any interdiction with the said species is contrary to the said provisions. In spite of the same, the respondents are proceeding to lay the submarine and ship causing a serious threat to the very existence of the turtles on Viskhapatnam Beach. In its support, the petitioner had relied on various newspaper items and the representations made by it and their own acts of rescuing the nests of adult turtles and the eggs laid by them and ultimately releasing the hatchlings back into the sea.

(3.) Respondent No.1, the Union of India represented by its Secretary in the Ministry of Environment, and Forests, New Delhi, through its counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Director, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Bangalore, without contradicting the allegations in writ affidavit, categorically submits that the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notification declares the CRZ area as the coastal stretches of seas, bays, estuaries, creeks, rivers and backwaters, etc., which are influenced by the tidal action (in the landward side) upto 500 metres from the high tide line and the land between the low tide line and the high tide line, and the said notification categorises the area into four categories, viz., CRZ-I, CRZ-II, CRZ-III, and CRZ-IV. The area falling under CRZ-I is the area where nesting and breeding of Olive Ridley sea turtles occur and thus no developmental activities are permitted. Further, any such act touching the turtles like poaching, etc., is in violation of the Wildlife Protection Act for which appropriate action can be initiated under the provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. It was also stated that the Government of India has not required or sanctioned any proposal for construction of a museum for submarines in the sea coast and any such construction is contrary to the aforesaid notification.