Case Note & Summary
The present Public Interest Litigation invoked the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of an Office Memorandum dated 19th February 2021 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The impugned Memorandum prescribed a procedure for dealing with violations arising from failure to obtain prior Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearance for otherwise permissible activities, effectively permitting post facto clearance. The petition, filed by an environmental organization, contended that such post facto regularization undermines the statutory requirement of prior environmental clearance and the precautionary principle enshrined in the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Several interim applications were filed by entities such as National Real Estate Development Council (NAREDCO), Government of Nagaland, and Patel and Associates, seeking intervention in the matter. The court heard detailed submissions from counsel for petitioners, Union of India, interveners, and state authorities. After reserving judgment on July 10, 2024, the court pronounced its decision on September 24, 2024. The available extract of the judgment focuses on the challenge and the relevant statutory provisions under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, including Sections 3, 5, 6, and 25, but does not include the final reasoning or operative directions of the court. Consequently, the specific decision, ratio decidendi, and detailed analysis remain unavailable from the provided text.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Coastal Regulation Zone - Post facto clearance - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Sections 3, 5, 6, 25 - The petitioners challenged the Office Memorandum dated 19.02.2021 which allowed post facto clearance for CRZ violations, arguing that it undermines the mandatory prior clearance requirement. The court heard arguments and reserved judgment. (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Office Memorandum dated 19.02.2021 permitting post facto clearance for CRZ violations is valid under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the CRZ Notification.
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (9) 241
Public Interest Litigation No.7 of 2023
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ., Amit Borkar, J.
Shri Akash Rebello, Shri Zaman Ali, Ms. Karishma Rao, Shri Yogesh Pandey for Petitioners; Shri Saurabh Butala, Ms. Nikita Mandaniyan i/b Shri Harshad Bhadbhade for NAREDCO; Shri Saket Mone, Ms. Anchita Nair, Shri Abhishek Salian i/b Vidhi Partners for Interveners; Shri Y.R.Mishra, Shri Dashrath A Dube, Shri Upendra Lokegoankar for Respondent No.1; Smt. Jyoti Chavan, Additional Government Pleader for State of Maharashtra; Ms. Jaya Bagwe for Respondent No.3 (MCZMA)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Public Interest Litigation challenging the validity of Office Memorandum dated 19.02.2021 permitting post facto CRZ clearance.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners seek to quash the Office Memorandum as violative of environmental law.
Filing Reason
The Office Memorandum allows post facto clearance for CRZ violations, undermining the requirement of prior environmental clearance.
Issues
Whether the Office Memorandum dated 19.02.2021 permitting post facto clearance for CRZ violations is valid under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the CRZ Notification.
Judgment Excerpts
This PIL petition invokes our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to assail the validity of Office Memorandum dated 19th February 2021, issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change which prescribes a procedure for dealing with violations arising on account of not obtaining a prior Costal Regulation Zone (hereinafter referred to as the CRZ) clearance for permissible activities.
The impugned Notification permits a project proponent operating in CRZ areas to seek post facto clearance as required under the CRZ Notification(s).
Procedural History
PIL No.7 of 2023 filed by Vanashakti & Anr. challenging the Office Memorandum. Several Interim Applications filed by NAREDCO, Government of Nagaland, and Patel and Associates seeking intervention. Heard on July 10, 2024; Judgment reserved and pronounced on September 24, 2024.
Acts & Sections
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: 3, 5, 6, 25
