WP/9407/2007 of Fisherman Youth Welfare Association, (Registered No. 775/03) Vs Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA) repby its on 31 December 2007

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEFJUSTICE BILAL NAZKIAND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

WRIT PETITION NO. 9407 OF 2007

DATE: 31-12-2007

Between:

Fisherman Youth Welfare Association, Pada Jalaaripeta,-Waltair Bus DepotI, Lawasons Bay Colony, Visakhapatnam andanother

…..

Petitioner

and

Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority rep. By its ViceChairman, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam and others.

..

Respondents

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEFJUSTICE BILAL NAZKIANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANWRIT PETITION NO. 9407 OF 2007

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of therespondents in going ahead with the construction activity of layingthe road from Visakhapatnam to Bheemunipatnam, in violation ofthe CRZ notification and the conditions imposed by theGovernment of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, in theirletter dated 04.03.2005, as illegal. The petitioners seek aconsequential direction to the respondents not to take up anyconstruction activity within CRZ-1, forest and other prohibitedareas along the coastal stretch from Visakhapatnam toBheemunipatnam.

The grievance of the petitioner is that, contrary to theCostal Regulatory Zone notification issued by the CentralGovernment, road laying activity had been taken up between Kms3 to 6 from Visakhapatnam to Bheemunipatnam which wasdamaging the sand dunes, that hills were being blasted and therewere encroachments into CRZ-1 and the forest area of Chinagadilivillage. Petitioner contends that, despite their representation tothe authorities that the road was being laid within CRZ-1 area, without approval of the Central government, construction of theroad was continued and completed. Petitioner would submit thatthe road which was laid passed through Survey Nos. 122 and 123of Chinagadili village, contrary to condition No. XV of thepermission granted by the Central government, and was requiredto be realigned outside CRZ-1 area. According to the Petitioner,the road being laid was primarily meant for industrial developmentalong the beach which would result in stoppage of fishing activityaffecting the livelihood of fishermen. Petitioner would seekdismantling of the road which was laid contrary to the CRZnotification and the conditional approval accorded by the CentralGovernment.

In exercise of its powers under Sections 3(1) and 3(2)(v) ofthe Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 the Central Governmentissued a notification to declare the Coastal Stretches as CoastalRegulation Zones (CRZ) and for regulating activities within CRZareas. The CRZ notification issued on 19[th] February 1991 wasamended periodically. The amended notification dated 21.05.2002prohibits certain activities. Under Clause 2 (xi), constructionactivities are prohibited in CRZ-1 except as specified in Annexure-I of the notification. Annexure-I is the Coastal Area Classificationand Development Regulations and thereunder Coastal RegulationZones are classified into four categories. Category I (CRZ-I) arethe areas that are ecologically sensitive, such as nationalparks/marine parks, sanctuaries, reserve forests, wildlife habitats,mangroves, corals/coral reefs etc and include areas between theLow Tide Line and the High Tide Line. Annexure I prohibits newconstruction activity in CRZ-I except those enumeratedthereunder. In accordance with the CRZ notification, the Central Government, vide proceedings dated 04.03.2005, accordedenvironmental clearance for construction of the Coastal Roadconnecting Visakhapatnam and Bheemunipatnam subject toeffective implementation of the conditions prescribed therein. Clause (xv) of the conditions required the road stretch in SurveyNos. 122 and 123 of Chinagadila village to be re-aligned outsidethe CRZ-I Area.

While counter-affidavits have been filed by all therespondents, including three by the Superintending Engineer,Roads & Buildings, it is wholly unnecessary to refer to all of them. Suffice to note that the Superintending Engineer, Roads andBuildings, initially contended that no road was laid in Survey Nos.122 and 123 of Chinagadila village but later conceded that, whileno new road was laid, the existing road was widened which,according to him, was not prohibited. This Court, in its order dated12.11.2007, had observed that prima facie it appeared as if theCRZ regulations and the permission granted by the Ministry ofEnvironment had been violated. On the views of the CentralGovernment being sought, the Learned Assistant Solicitor Generalplaced before us a copy of the letter addressed by the AdditionalDirector, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of Indiato the Member Secretary, A.P. Coastal Management Authoritydated 03.12.2007 wherein it was stated that monitoring was carriedout on 27/28.11.2007 and, as per the monitoring report, the stretchbetween Kms. 3.00 to 3.4 had been strengthened in Survey Nos.122 and 123 of Chinagadila village, which fell in the CoastalRegulatory Zone area. The Member Secretary was furtherinformed that, as per the CRZ notification, 1991, such constructionwould require clearance from the competent authority viz., the State Coastal Zone Management Authority and, since nopermission had been obtained for such construction, necessaryaction should be initiated against the proponents for undertakingconstruction without prior permission from the A.P. CoastalManagement Zone Authority as per the delegated provisions.

The assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, it is evidentfrom the said letter dated 03.12.2007 that the SuperintendingEngineer, Roads and Buildings, in carrying out road widening inKms. 3.00 to 3.4, in Survey Nos. 122 and 123 of Chinagadilavillage, had violated both the CRZ notification and the conditions of the order of approval of the Central Government dated04.03.2005. Since the road widening exercise has already beencompleted, and as the Central Government has already requestedthe A.P. Coastal Management Authority to initiate action againstthe persons involved, it would suffice if the A.P. Coastal ZoneManagement Authority is directed to examine whether the roadshould be realigned to bring it in conformity with the CRZregulations and the Central Government’s permission and to takeappropriate action against all the persons involved in accordancewith law within a period of three months from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order.

Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, wouldfurther contend that the respondents had also violated the CRZnotification in having blasted the hills. Learned Counsel would referto paragraph 8 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition tocontend that this specific averment regarding the hills beingblasted has not been denied in any of the counter-affidavits filedby the respondents.

Sri V. Rajagopal Reddy, learned Counsel for

Conclusion

Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA), soughttime on 07.12.2007 to file an additional counter-affidavit. In theadditional counter-affidavit dated 10.12.2007, the SuperintendingEngineer, VUDA, has stated that no sand dunes were damaged, nohill were blasted and that there was no encroachment by VUDA inthis area between Kms. 3.00 to 6.00 into CRZ-I and forest area ofChinagadili village. Before this Court also both the LearnedGovernment Pleader for Transport and Sri V. Rajagopal Reddy,learned Standing Counsel for VUDA, while reiterating that no hillswere blasted, expressed their readiness to have their undertakingrecorded. Recording the undertaking of both the LearnedGovernment Pleader for Transport and Sri V. Rajagopal Reddy,learned Standing Counsel for VUDA that no hills had been or werebeing blasted, the writ petition is disposed of. However, in thecircumstances, without costs.

__________________

BILAL NAZKI, HACJ

Date: .12.2007

_____________________________

RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J

ASP/MRKR