Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two writ petitions filed by Prasad Naik and Rosalina de Souza against orders of the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) directing demolition of structures allegedly violating Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) norms. The petitioners claimed their structures were built before 1991 and thus exempt from CRZ restrictions. The court examined the factual background: Prasad Naik owned property in Penha de Franca with a general store and a wine shop run by his sister-in-law; Rosalina de Souza owned property in Katem, Baina with a commercial structure. Complaints were lodged in 2015 by Kashinath Shetye and others alleging illegal construction. The GCZMA issued show-cause notices and stop-work orders. The petitioners initially filed writ petitions but withdrew them to approach the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which dismissed their appeals. They then filed fresh writ petitions. The legal issues were whether the writ petitions were maintainable given the alternative remedy under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, and whether the petitioners had proved pre-1991 construction. The court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable as the petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy before the NGT, which they had already availed and lost. The court also noted that the petitioners failed to provide credible evidence of pre-1991 construction. The court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the GCZMA orders.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Coastal Regulation Zone - Alternative Remedy - Maintainability of Writ Petition - National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, Section 22 - The court held that since the petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal before the National Green Tribunal under Section 22 of the NGT Act, 2010, the writ petitions were not maintainable. The court noted that the petitioners had earlier withdrawn their writ petitions and approached the NGT, but lost. They cannot now re-agitate the same issues in writ jurisdiction without exhausting the appellate remedy. (Paras 2, 6-8) B) Environmental Law - Coastal Regulation Zone - Pre-1991 Construction - Burden of Proof - Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991 - The court observed that the petitioners failed to produce satisfactory evidence to prove that their structures were constructed prior to 1991. The burden of proof lies on the person claiming exemption, and mere assertions or unsubstantiated documents are insufficient. (Paras 3-5, 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petitions are maintainable in view of the alternative remedy available under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, and whether the petitioners have established that their structures were constructed prior to 1991 so as to be exempt from Coastal Regulation Zone restrictions.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The orders of the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- maintainability of writ petition
- National Green Tribunal Act 2010 Section 22
- Coastal Regulation Zone notification 1991
- pre-1991 construction
- burden of proof
