SANJU PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a practising advocate. The petitioner has filed this writ petition in public interest. According to the petitioner, when she went to Puri, she found unauthorised constructions coming up on the beach in clear violation of Coastal Regulation Zone Notifications and in violation of Building Regulations and other laws relating to construction of buildings in urban areas. She was particularly shocked by the unauthorised construction put up by opposite party No. 3 encroaching into the beach near Chakratirtha, raising the construction and a boundary wail within 40 metres of the sea -shore. The petitioner understood that it was a hotel that was being constructed. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the building was being constructed by opposite party No. 3 and that opposite party No. 3 was doing it without obtaining the required clearance from the authorities for such construction. This Court issued notices to the opposite parties. The opposite parties appeared. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No. 3 traversing the allegations in the writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner who appeared in person before us vehemently contended that there is blatant violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notifications issued by the Central Government and that this Court was bound to act to protect the Coastal Environment in the light of the direction of the Supreme Court in the decision of Indian Council for Enviro -Legal Action v. Union of India and Ors., 1996 (4) JT 263. She also submitted that opposite party No. 3 did not even have an approved plan for the construction and this was clearly in violation of the Orissa Development Authorities Act and the Building Regulations. She also submitted that the Puri Municipality and Puri -Konark Development Authority are criminally negligent in not protecting the environment and in permitting violations of Coastal Regulation Zone Notifications issued by the Central Government. Hence, the Puri Municipality, the District Collector, the Puri -Konark Development Authority and the State of Orissa should be directed to remove forthwith the unauthorised constructions put up by opposite party No. 3.

(3.) IN this state of the record, it is a clear case where a direction should be issued to opposite parties 1 and 2 to demolish the unauthorised constructions raised by opposite party No. 3 in violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notifications, the Orissa Development Authorities Act and the Building Regulations. It is clear from the allegations of the writ petitioner that the compound wall and two other rooms constructed by opposite party No. 3 are unauthorised ex facie. Therefore, we direct opposite parties 1 and 2 and the concerned authority under the Orissa Development Authorities Act to demolish the compound wall and the two rooms constructed by opposite party No. 3 on the seaward side. That will be done first. We direct the District Collector, thereafter, to conduct an enquiry with notice to opposite party No. 3 as to whether there are any further violations of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notifications and apart from that, whether there are any other unauthorised constructions made in violation of the Orissa Development Authorities Act and the Building Regulations by opposite party No. 3. If such further unauthorised constructions are found, they will also be got demolished by opposite parties 1 and 2 and the concerned Authority under the Orissa Development Authorities Act. It is made clear that demolition of the compound wall on the seaward side of the building referred to in the writ petition and the two rooms towards seaward side will be carried out forthwith and their demolition is not to await the enquiry regarding the existence of any other unauthorised constructions by opposite party No. 3.