INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTIONversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

            INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION                                A
                               v.
                    UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                                 APRIL 18, 1996

      IKULDIP SINGH, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND B.N. KIRPAL, .I.I.]                      B

          Environmental Protection Act/Rules, 1986 :

           S.5(3)-Notification dated 19.2.91-Coastal Regulation Zone;~
    Prohibiting cCltain activities therein-Implementation of the Notification-
    Not following guidelines-Notice to coastal States and Union Ter-
                                                                                  c
    1ito1ies-Managenient Plans subn1itted by sonie States and not others-No
    challenge niade to the n1ain notification-Continued infringe111ent of tlze law
    and tolerance of such violations of law not only renders legal provisions
    nugato1y-Such tolerance by Enforce111ent autlzo1ities also encourages la1v-
    lessness and it cannot be tolerated in a civilized society-Vohra Conunittec D
    Repo1t in this regard discussed--Central Govenunent's power under para-
    graph 7 sub-paragraph ( J) item (i)-Held arbitrGly wicanalized, un-
j   guided-Hence quashed-Implementation of the Notification-Duty of
    Central Gove11unent, State Govenunents and Union Tcnito1ies-Directions
)   gi,ven.
                                                                                  E
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 664
    of 1993.

          Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

          Ms. Seema Midha for K.R. Rajesekaran for the Petitioner.                F

          Ms. H. Wahi, P.K. Manohar, S.K. Sinha, R.K. Mehta, K.L. Teneja,
    C.V.S. Rao, S.K. Mehta, A.S. Bhasme, Ms. M. Karanjawala, V. Krish-
    namurthy, Vineet Kr., K. Ram Kumar, A. Mariarputham, R. Sasiprabhu,
    P.N. Puri K.H. Nobin Singh, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Meenakshi Arora,           G
    Sanjay Parikh, Anip Sachthey, H.K. Puri S.K. Bhat, Ms. Ruby Ahuja for
    the Respondents.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          Concern for the protection of ecology and for preventing irreversible   H
                                       507
    508                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A   ecological damage of the coastal areas of the country has led to the filing
    of the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India as a
    public interest litigation.

           The main grievance m this petition is that a Notification dated
    19.2.1991 declaring coastal stretches as Coastal Regulation Zones
B   (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulation Zones') which regulates the
    activities in the said zones has not been implemented or enforced. This has
    led to continued degradation of ecology in the said coastal areas. There is
    also a challenge to the validity of the Notification dated 18.8. 1994 whereby
    the first Notification dated 19.2.1991 has been amended, resulting in further
c   relaxations of the provisions of 1991 Notification and such relaxation, it is
    alleged, will help in defeating the intent of the main Notification itself.

          The petitioner is a registered voluntary organisation working for the
    cause of environment protection in India. India has a coast line running
D into 6000 K.Ms. which has abundance of natural endowments, geographic
    attractions and natural beauty. According to the petitioner, these coastal
    areas are highly complex and have dynamic eco-systems, sensitive to
    development pressures. The stresses and pressure of high population
    growth non-restrained development, lack of adequate infrastructure
                                                                                    "',.
    facilities for the resident population are stated to be some of the factors
E   responsible for the decline in environ.mental quality in these areas. The
    development short activities in the coastal areas are stated to caused-term
    and long-term physical, chemical and biological changes that will and has
    caused damage to flora and fauna, public health and environment. It is
    further alleged that as a consequence of indiscriminate industrialisation
F   and urbanisation, without the requisite pollution control systems, the coas-
    tal waters are highly polluted.

         It is futher the case of the petitioner that some of the costal areas
    contained extensive ground-water resources and sometimes mineral
    resources1 while in other areas, there are iron ore, oil and gas resources
G   and mangrove-forests. As a result of the impact of tidal waves and cyclones,
    mangrove-forests are being increasingly destroyed, while some of the major
    fishing areas in some of the coastal areas of the country are undergoing
    serious damage consequent to ecologically unsound development. Over-
    exploitation of ground-water in the coastal areas in places like Madras and
H   Vishakapatnam is stated to have resulted in growing intrusion of salt water
       INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENV!RO-LEGAL ACTION v. U.0.1.                      509

fron1 the sea to inland areas and fresh \Valer acquifers previously used for        A
drinking, agriculture and horticulture are getting highly damaged. Un-
planned urbanisation and industrialisation in the coastal belts is stated to
be causing fast disappearance of fertile agricultural lands, fruit gardens and
energy plantation like casurina trees, that serve as \Vind brakers and protect
inlanJ. habilations from the cyclonic dan1ages.
                                                                                    B
      With a view to protect the ernlogical balance in the coastal areas,
the then Prime Minister is stated to have written a letter in November, 1981
to the Chief Ministers of coastal States in which she stated as under :

        11
             The degradation and n1isutilization of beaches in the coastal States   c
        is worrying as the beaches have aesthetic and enviromental value
        as well as other values. They have to be kept clear of all activities
        at least upto 500 metres from the water at the maximum high tide.
        If the area is vulnerable to erosion, suitable trees and plants have
        to be planted on the beaches without marring their beauty. Beaches
        must be kept free from all kinds of artificial development. Pollution
                                                                                    D
        from industrial and town wastes must also be avoided totally.

Working groups were set-up by the Ministry of Environmental and Forests
in 1982 to prepare environmental guidelines for development of beaches
and coastal areas. In July, 1983 environmental guidelines for beaches were          E
promulgated which, inter alia, stated :

               11
                    The traditional use of sea water as a dun1p site from our
        land-derived wastes have increased the pollution loads of sea and
        reduced its development potentials including the economic sup-
                                                                                    F
        port it provides to people living nearby. Degradation and
        misutilization of beaches are affecting the aesthetic and environ-
        mental loss. These could be avoided through prudent coastal
        development and management based on assessment of ecological
        values and potential damages from coastal developments."
                                                                                    G
These guidelines further stated that "adverse direct impact" of development
activities was possible within 500 metres from the high water mark or
beyond two kilomet,es from it. The example which was given was that the
sand dunes and vegetation, clearing, high density construction etc. along
the coast could alter the ecological system of the area.                            H
    510                     SUPREME CO\JRTRFPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A          The cnvironnient guidelines for the development of beaches, inter
    alia, rcquin..:d the Slate (Jovcrnmcnts to prepare a status report on the
    obtaining situatilHl of the coastal art.:as 1 as a prc-rcquisitt.: to cnviron1nental
    management of the area. Such a status report \Vas required to be follcnved
    by a master plan idcntif)'ing the areas required for conservation, prescrva-
    tinn and develop1ncnt an<l other <1ctivitie:--. A n1astcr plan so prepared
B   \Vnukl ensure a scientific assessment and development of the coastline and
    this would ultimately ensure the preservation and enforcement of the
    coastal eco-system.

          The Ministry of Environment and Forests undertook an exercise with
C   regard to the protection and development of the coastal areas. It invited
    objections against the declaration of the coastal stretches "' Regulation
    Zones and in1posing restrictions on industries, operation and processes in
    the Regulations Zones.

           After considering all the objections, the Central Government issued
D   a Notification dated 19.2.1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the main
    Notification') in exercise of the powers conferred on it by clause ( d) of
    sub-rule 3 of Rule 5 of the Environmental Protection Rules, 1986. By this
    Notification, it declared the coastal streches of seas, bays, estuaries, creeks,
    rivers and backwaters which were influenced by tidal action (in the
E   landward side) upto 500 metres from the High Tide Linc (hereinafter
    referred to as 'HTL') and the land between Low Tide Line (hereinafter
    referred to as 'LTL') and HTL as Regulation Zones. With regard to this
    area, it imposed, with effect from the date of the said Notification, various
    restrictions on the setting up and expansion of industries, operation or
    processes etc. in the said Regulation Zones. It was clarified that for the
F   purposes of the main Notification, HTL was defined as the line upto which
    the highest high tide reaches at spring times.

           The salient features of the main Notification are that a number of
    activities were declared as prohibited in the Regulation Zones, which are
G   as follows :

             "(i) setting up of new industries and expansion of eXJstmg in-
             dustries, except those directly related to water front or directly
             needing foreshore facilities:

H            (ii) manufacture or handling or storage or disposal of hazardous
INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVJRO-LEGALACTIONv. U.0.1.                      511

substances as specified in the Notifications of the Government of A
India in the Ministry of Environment and Forests No. S.O. 594 (E)
dated 28.7.1989, S.O. 966 (E) dated 27.11.1989 and GSR 1037 (E)
dated 5.12.1989;

(iii) setting up and expansion of fish processing units including
warehousing (excluding hatchery and natural fish drying permitted          B
areas);

(iv) setting up and expansion of units mechanisms for disposal of
wastes and effluents, except facilities required for discharging
treated effluents into the water course with approval under the
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 except for
                                                                           c
storm water drains;

 (v) discharge of untreated wastes and effluents from industries,
 cities or towns and other human settlements. Schemes shall be
 implemented by the concerned authorities for phasing out the              D
 existing practices, if any, within a reasonable time period not
 exceeding three years from the date of this Notification;

 (vi) dumping of city or town wastes for the purposes of landfilling
 or otherwise; the existing practice, if any, shall be phased out within
 a reasonable time not exceeding three years from the date of this         E
 Notification;

 (vii) dumping of ash or any wastes from thermal power stations;

 (viii) land reclamation, bunding or disturbing the natural course
 of sea water \Vith si1ni1ar obstructions, except those required for       F
 control of coastal erosion and maintenance or clearing of water-
 \vays, channels and ports and for prevention of sandbars and also
.except for tidal rcguh1tors, storn1 \Vatcr drains and structures for
 prevention of salinity ingress and for sweet \I.later recharge;

 (ix) mining of sands, rocks and other substrata materials, except
                                                                           G
 those rare minerals not available outside the CRZ areas;

 (x) harvesting or drawal of ground water and construction of
 mechanisms therefore, within 200 m of HTL; in the 200 m to 500 m
 zone it shall be permitted only when done manually through ordinary H
    512                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A           wells for drinking, horticulture, agriculture and fisheries;

            (xi) construction activities in ecologically sensitive areas as
            specified in Annexure-1 of this Notification;

            (xii) any construction activity between the Low Tide Line and High
B           Tide Linc except facilities for carrying treated effluents and wastes
            waler discharges into the sea, facilitties for carrying sea water for
            cooling purposes, oil, gas and similar pipelines and facilities essen-
            tial for activities permitted under this Notification; and

            (xiii) dressing or altering of sand dunes, hills, natural features
c           including landscape changes 50 per cent of the plot size and the
            total height of construction shall not exceed 9 metres."

    Secondly, the main Notification provided for regulation or permissible
    activities. Further more, the coastal States and Union Territory Ad-
D   ministrations were required to prepare, within one year from the date of
    the main Notification, Coastal Zone Management Plans (hereinafter
    referred to as 'the Management Plans') identifying and clarifying the
    Regulation Zones areas within their respective territtories in accordance
    with the guidelines contained in the main Notification and those plans were
    required to be approved with or without modification, by the Central
E   Government, Ministry of Environment and Forests. The main Notification
    also stipulated that within the framework of the approved Management
    Plans, all developments and activities \vithin the Regulation Zones, except
    the prohibited activities and those which required environment clearance
    from Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, were to
F   be regulated by the State Government, Union Territory Administration or
    the local Authority, as the case may be, in accordance with the guidelines
    contained in Annexures I and JI of the main Notification.

         Anticipating that it will take time till the Management Plans are
    prepared and approved, the main Notification provided that till the ap-
G   proval of the Management Plans, "all development and act:vities within
    CRZ shall not violate the provisions of this Notification". The State
    Governments and Union Territory Administrations were required to en-
    sure adherance to the provisions of the main Notification and it was
    provided that any violation thereof, shall be subject to the provisions of the
H   Environment Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
           INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGALACTION v. U.0.L                      513

           It was also provided in clause 4 of the main Notification that the         A
    Ministry of Environment and Forests and the State Government or Union
    Territory, and such, other authorities at the State or Union Territory levels,
    as may be designated for the purpose, shall be respomible for the monitor-
    ing and enforcement of the main Notification \Vithin their respective juris-
    dictions.
                                                                                      B

-        As already noticed there are two Annexures namely; Annexure I and
    Annexure II to the main Notification. While Annexurc I contains the
    Coastal Area Classification and Development Regulations which are for
    general application, Annexure II is the specific provision which contains
    the guidelines for development of beach resorts/hotels in the designated          C
    areas of CRZ llI for temporary occupation of tourists/visitors with prior
    approval of the Ministry of Environment and Forests.

          Anncxure I consists of clause 6(1) which relates to the classification
    of coastal regulation zone. The norms for regulation activities in the said
    zones are provided by clause 6(2) for regulating development activities.          D
    The Coastal stretches within 500 meters of HTL of the landward side are
    classified under clause 6(1) into four categories, \Vhich are as under :

             (a) Category I (CRZ-1) includes the areas that arc ecologically
             sensitive and important, such as national parks/Jnarine parks,
                                                                                      E
             sanctuaries etc., areas rich in genetic diversity, areas likely to be
             inundated due to rise in sea level consequent upon global warming
             and such other areas as have been declared by the Central Govern-
             ment or the concerned authorities at the State/Union Territory
             level from time to time. In addition thereto, CRZ-1 also contains
             the area between the LTL and the HTL.                                    F

             (b) Category fl (CRZ-ll) contains the areas that have already been
             developed upto or clu::-.e to the shore line. This; is the area \Vhlch
             is within the municipal limits or in other legally designated urban
             areas which is already substantially built up and which h3' been         G
             provided with drainage and approach roads and other infrastruc-
             tural facilities, such as \Vater supply and sewerage n1ains.

             (c) Category llI (CAZ-Ill) is the areas which was originally undis-
             turbed and includes those areas which do not belong either to
             category 1 or Category 11. CRZ-1!! includes coastal zone in the          H
    514                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996J SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A             rural areas (developed and undeveloped) and also areas within the
              municipal limits or in other legally designated urban areas which
              are not substantially built up.

              (d) Category IV (CRZ-IV) contains the coastal stretches in the
              Andaman & Nicobar Lakshadweep and small islands except those
B             designated as CRZ-l, CRZ-II or CRZ-lll.

           Clause 6(2) of Annexure I provides for norms for regulation of
    activities in CRZ l, II, ITI and IV. With regard to CRZ I, the norms for
    regulation of activities do not permit new construction within 500 metres
C   of the HTL. Further more, practically, no construction activity is allowed
    between the LTL and HTL. The norms for regulation of activities in CRZ
    ll relate to construction or reconstruction of the buildings within the said
    zone.

            With regard lo CRZ lll, the norms for regulation of activities, inler
D alia, provides that the area upto 200 metres from the HTL is to be
    earmarked as 'No Development Zone'. The only exception is that there can
    be repairs of existing authorised structures but, the permissible activity in
    this zone is for its use as agriculture, horticulture, gardens, pastures etc.
    The norms further provide for development of vacant plots between 200
    and 500 metres of HTL in designated areas of CRZ llJ \vith prior approval
E
    of Ministry of Environn1ent and Forests for construction of hotels/beach
    resorts for temporary occupation of tourists/visitors subject to the condi-
    tions as stipulated in the guidelines at Annexure II.

         In CRZ IV also, detailed norms for regulation of activities are
F   provided in the said clause 6(2) of Annexure I.

         As already noticed. Annexure II contains the guidelines for develop-
    ment of beach resorts/hotels in the desi1,,'11ated area of CRZ III for tem-
    porary occupation of tourists/visitors. The vacant area beyond 200 metres
    in the landward side, even if it is within 500 metres of the HTL can be
G   used, after obtaining permission for construction of beach resorts for
    tourists/visitors. There was no provision for allowing any fresh construction
    within 200 metres of the HTL or within the LTL and HTL. Clause 7(1) of
    the main Notification which comes under Annexurc II contains various
    conditions which have lo be fulfilled before approval can be granted by the
H Ministry of Environment and Forests for the construction of beach
       INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGALACTION v. U.0.1.                     515

resorts/hotels in the· designated area of CRZ III.                                A
      In the background of the aforesaid facts, we will now deal with the
main contentions raised, namely; the non-imp1ementation of the main
Notification and the validity of the Notification dated 18.8.1994 {hereinafter
referred to as 'the 1994 Notification').
                                                                                  B
   RE: NON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MAIN NOTIFICATION

      It is the ease of the petitioner that with a view to protect the
ecological balance in the coastal areas, the aforesaid Notification was
issued by the Central Government which contained various provisions for
regulation development in the coastal areas. It was contended that there          c
had been a blatant violation of this Notification and industries were illegally
being set-up, thereby causing serious damage to the environment and
ecology of the area. It was also submitted that the Ministry of Environment
and Forests except for issuing the main Notification, had taken no steps to
follow up its own directions contained in the main Notification. The main         D
prayer in the Writ Petition was that this Court should issue appropriate
writ, order or direction to the respondent so as to enforce the main
Notification.

       In the Writ Petition, specific allegations were also contained to the
effect that Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India had          E
issued another Notification dated 20.6.1991 under clause (5) of sub-section
{2) of Section 3 of the Act declaring Dahanu Taluka, District Thane,
Maharashtra as an ecologically fragile area.

     The main Notification was issued so as to ensure that the develop-           F
ment activities are consistent with the enviromental guidelines for beaches
and coastal areas and to impose restrictions on the setting up of industries
which have deterimcntal effect on the coastal environment. This Notifiea-
tion also required the Government of Maharashtra to prepare a master
plan or regional plan for the Dahanu Taluka based on the existing land use
of Dahanu within a period of one year from the Notification and to get the G
said plan approved by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The
master plan and the regional plan was to demarcate all the existing green
areas, orchards, tribal area and other environmentally sensitive areas in the
said Dahanu Taluka. I:·dustries which were suing chemicals above the
limits/quantities prescribed by the Act or by Rules were to be considered H
    516                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996} SUPP. l S.C.R.

A hazardous industries. The hazardous waste was required to be disposed of
  in the identified areas after taking prec"utionary measures. This Notifica-
   tion also required the Government of Maharashtra to constitute a monitor-
  ing committee to ensure the compliance or conditions mentioned in the
   Notification in which local representatives may be included. According to
   the petitioner, the Maharashtra Government has not implemented the
B directions contained in the said Notification and has permitted develop-
   ment activities which have resulted in new polluting industries being estab-
   lished in the coastal area, thereby seriously endangering the ecology. The
   industries which are operating in Dahanu are stated to be balloon manufac-
  .turing units, buffing and chromium plating units and chemical units. There
c  has been a failure to make the master plan or the regional place for the
   said Dahanu Taluka and indiscriminate licences have been issued and
   consent given to new industries by the State Government and the
   predominately agricultural area is slowly being converted into an industrial
   area in complete disregard of environmental laws, guidelines and notifica-
   tions. There are other instances stated to be in the Writ Petition with
D
   relation to the Dahanu Taluka but, for the view we are taking, it is not
   necessary to deal with the same in any great length.

           Notices were issued by this Court on 3.10.1994 to the respondents
    including the coastal States, namely, Maharashtra, Kerala, Karnataka, Oris-
E   sa, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and the Union Territory of
    Pondicherry. On 12.12.1994, while granting time to the respondents to file
    their counter-affidavits, this Court directed that "the respondent states shall
    not permit the setting up of any industry or the construction of any type
    on the area at least upto 500 metres from the sea water at the maximum
    high tide". Notice was also directed lo issue to the State of Goa, the Union
F
    Territory of Daman and Diu and the islands of Andaman & Nicobar and
    Lakshdweep, which were added as respondents. The aforesaid interim
    order dated 12.12.1994 was slightly modified hy this Court by its order
    dated 9.3.1995 in the following terms :

G            "We modify our order dated December 12, 1994 and direct that
             all the restrictions, prohibitions regarding construction and setting
             up of industries or for any other purpose contained in the Notifica-
             tion dated 19.2.1991 issued by the Ministry of Environment and
             Forests, Government of India under clause (d) of Sub Rule (3) of
H            Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 shall be
           INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGALACTION v. U.0.1.                   517

            meticulously followed by all the concerned States. The activities       A
            which have been declared as prohibited within the Coastal Regula-
            tion Zone shall not be undertaken by any of the respondent States.
            The regulations of permissible activities shall also be meticulously
            followed. The restrictions imposed by the Coastal Area Classifica-
            tion and Development Regulations contained in Annexure I to the
            abovesaid Notification shall also be strictly followed by the respon-
                                                                                    B
            dent-States."

          According to class 3(i) of the main Notification, the coastal States
    and Union Territory Administrations were required to prepare the
    Management Plans within one year from the date of the main Notification.        C
    This was essential for the implementation of the said Notification. The lack
    of commitment on the part of these States and Administrations, towards
    the protection and regulation of the coastal stretches, is evident from their
    inaction in complying with the aforesaid statutory directive requiring the
    preparation of Management Plans within the specified period. In view of         D
    the fact that there had been a non-compliance with this provision, this
    Court on 3.4.1995 directed all the coastal States and Union Territory
    Administrations to frame their plans within a further period of six weeks
    thereof.

           A status report was filed in court by the Union of India which shows     E
    non-compliance of clause 3(i) by practically everyone concerned. While
    some of the States and Union Territory Administrations submitted their
    plans, though belatedly, except in the ca'e of Pondicherry, none of the
    other plans were approved by the Central Government. It appears that
    some modifications were suggested and those States and Union Territories        F
    had to resubmit their plans. Direction will have to be issued to these States
    and Union Territories to resubmit their plans and the Central Government
    will also be required lo approve the re-submitted plans within a specified
    time. The State of Orissa had only partly complied with this Court's order
•   dated 3.4.1995 inasmuch as the plans submitted by it were only for a small
    part of a coast. The State of West Bengal only submitted a preliminary          G
    concept while States of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka and Kerala
    did not care to submitted any plans at all. Therefore, these six States
    namely, Orissa, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnalaka and
    Kerala have to be answerable for non-compliance with the directions issued
    by this Court on 3.4.1995.                                                 H
    518                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A          Affidavits which have been filed by the respondent clearly show that
    all the provisions of the main Notification have not been complied with.
    Explanations for the delay in preparation of the Management Plans and
    their approval have been offered, but they are far from satisfactory. If the
    mere enactment of the laws relating to the protection of environment was
    to ensure a clean and pollution free environment) then India would, per-
B   haps, be the least polluted country in the world. But, this is not so. There
    are stated to be over 200 Central and State Statutes which have at least
    some concern with environment protection, either directly or indirectly.
    The plethora of such enactment has, unfortunately, not resulted in prevent-
    ing environmental degradation which, on the contrary, has increased over
c the years. Enactment of a law, relating to protection of environment,
    usually provides for what activity can or c~nnot be done by people. If the
    people were to voluntarily respect such a law, and abide by it, then it would
    result in law being able to achieve the object for which it was enacted.
    Where however, there is a conflict between the provision of law and
    personal interest, then it often happens that self-discipline and respect for
D
    law disappear.

           Enactment of a la\v but tolerating its infringement, is worse than not
                              1

    enacting law all. The continued infringement of law, over a period of time,
    is made possible by adoption of such means which arc best known to the
E   violators of law. Continued tolerance of such violations of law not only
    renders legal provisions nugatory but such tolerance by the Enforcement
    Authorities encourages lawlessness and adoption of means which cannot,
    or ought not to, be tolerated in any civilized society. Law should not only
    be meant for law abiding but is meant to be obeyed by all for whom it has
F   been enacted. A law is usually enacted because the Legislature feels that
    it is necessary. It is with a view to protect and preserve the environment
    and save it for the future generations and to ensure good quality of life
    that the Parliament enacted the Anti-Pollution Laws1 namely, the Water
    Act, Air Act and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. These Acts and
    Rules framed and Notification issued thereunder contain provisions which        •
G   prohibit and/or regulate certain activities with a view to protect and
    preserve the environment. When a law is enacted containing some
    provisions which prohibit certain types of activities, then, it is of utmost
    importance that such legal provisions are effectively enforced. If a law is
    enacted but is not being voluntarily obeyed, then, it has to be enforced.
H   Otherwise, infringement of law, which is actively or passively condoned for
       INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGALACTJON v. U.0.1.                    519

personal gain, will be encouraged which will in turn lead to a lawless           A
society. Violation of anti-pollution laws not only adversely affects the
existing quality of life but the non-enforcement of the legal provisions often
results in ecological imbalance and degradation of environment, the ad-
verse affect of which will have to be borne by the future generations.

       The present case also shows that having issued the main Notification,     B
no follow-up action was taken either by the coastal States and Union
Territories or by the Central Government. The provisions of the main
Notification appear to have been ignored and, possibly, violated with
impunity. The coastal States and Union Territory Administrations were
required to prepare Management Plans within a period of one year from            c
the date of the Notification but this was not done. The Central Government
was to approve the plans which were to be prepared but :: did not appear
to have reminded any of the coastal States or the Union Territory Ad-
ministrations that the plans had not been received by it. Clause 4 of the
main Notification required the Central Government and the State Govern-
ments as \Veil as Union Territory Administrations to monitor and enforce
                                                                                 D
the provisions of the main Notification, but no effective steps appear to
have been taken and this is what led to the filing of the present writ
petition.

       There is no challenge to the validity of main Notification. Counsel E
for all the parties are agreed that the main Notification is valid and has to
be enforced. Instances have been given by the petitioner as well as some
of the intervenors where in different States, infringement of the main
Notification is taking place but no action has been taken by the authorities
concerned. The courts are ill-equipped and it is not their function to see F
day to day enforcement of law. This is an executive function which it is
bound to discharge. A public interest litigation like the present, would not
have been necessary if the authorities, as well as the people concerned, had
voluntarily obeyed and/or complied with the main Notification or if the
authorities who were entrusted with the responsibility, had enforced the
main Notification. It is only the failure of enforcement of this Notification G
which has led to the filing of the present petition. The effort of this Court
while dealing with public interest litigation relating to environmental issues,
is to see that the executive authorities take steps for implementation and
enforcement of law. As · such the Court has to pass orders and give
directions for the protection of the fundamental rights of the people. H
    520                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996j SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A   Passing of appropriate orders requiring the implementation of the law
    cannot be regarded as the Court having usurped the functions of the
    Legislature or the Executive. The orders arc passed and directions are
    issued by the Court in discharge of its judicial function namely; to sec that
    if there is a complaint by a petitioner regarding the infringement of any
    Constitutional or other legal right, as a result of any \Vrong action or
B
    inaction on the part of the State, then such wrong should not be permitted
    to continue. It is by keeping the aforesaid principles in mind that one has
    to consider as to what directions should be issued to ensure, in the best
    possible manner, that the provision of the main Notification which has been
    issued for preserving the coastal areas are not infringed.
c
                       VALIDITY OF NOTIFICATION OF 1994


          The Notification datcd 18.8.1994 made six amendments in the main
    Notification. These amendments were made after the receipt of the report
D   of a Committee, headed by Mr. B.B. Vohra, which had been set up by the
    Central Government. The validity of amended Notification was also chal-
    lenged in I.A. 19/1995 which was filed by three environment protection
    groups, namely, the Goa Foundation, Nirmal Vishwa and Indian Heritage
    Society (Goa Chapter). In the said application, the applicants gave a table
E   containing, the main points of the main Notification, the recommendations
    made by the Vohra Committee and the amendments made by amended
    Notification of 1994. The said particular are as follow :

          "Main CRZ               Vohra Committee      Amending Notification
          Notification dated      recommendations      dated 18.8.94.
F
          19.2.1991 issues for
          relaxation
     1. 200 metres from           Relaxation allowed   Blanket relaxation for
          HTL is. no-             rocky and hilly      all areas upto HIL if
          development zone        areas; no limit      Central Government
G                                 specified            so desires.
    2. No-development            Clarification         No-development zone
          zone for river, creeks demanded about        relaxed to 50 metres.
          and backwaters 100     limits; no relaxation
          metres                 suggested.
H
       INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVJRO-LEGAL ACTION v. U.0.1.                       521

3. No levelling or           Allows destruction     No destruction of sand          A
    digging of sand          of sand dunes          dunes allowed.
    dunes or sand                                   However, goal posts,
                                                    net posts, lamp posts
                                                    allowed.
4   No-development           Recommends no-         Relevant section not            B
    zone area cannot be      development zone       amended but
    used for FSI             area be permitted      explanation added as
    calculations.            for FSI calculations   an afterthought in the
                                                    Notification permitting
                                                    no-development zone
                                                    area to be included
                                                                                    c
                                                    for FSI calculations.
5. No basements              Basements              Basements allowed.
   allowed area not to       permitted
   be included in FSJ
                                                                                    D
6. No fencing permitted Only green fencing          Allows green and
   within 200 metre     permitted, no               barbed wire fencing. 11
   zone from HTL        barbed wire
                        fencing allowed.

Contending that the 1994 Notification will adversly affect the environment          E
and would lead to unscientific and unsustainable development and ecologi-
cal destruction, an application was filed by the petitioner being I.A.
16/1995, inter alia, praying for the quashing of the said Notification.

      A reply was filed by the Union of India justifying the amendments             F
and giving reasons for the issuance of 1994 Notification.

      While examining the validity of the 1994 Notification, it has to be
borne in mind that normally, such Notification are issued after a detailed
study and examination of all relevant issues. Jn matters relating to environ-
ment, it may not always be possible to lay down rigid or uniform standards          G
for the entire country. While issuing the notifications like the present, the
Government has to balance various interests including economic, ecologi-
cal, social and cultural. While economic development should not be al-
lowed to take place at the cost of ecology or by causing wide spread
enyironment destruction and violation; at the same time, the necessity to           H
    522                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996[ SUPP. lS.C.R.

A preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other
    developments. Both development and evironment must go hand in hand,
    in other words, there should not be development at the cost of environment
    and vice-versa, but there should be development while laking due care and
    ensuring the protection of environment. This is sought lo be achieved by
    issuing notifications like the present, relating lo developmental activities
B
    being carried out in such a way so that unnecessary environmental degrada-
    tion does not take place. In other words, in order lo prevent ecological
    imbalance and degradation that developmental activity is sought lo be
    regulated.

c         The main Notification was issued under Sections 3(1) and 3(2)(v) of
    the Environment Protection Act, presumably after a lot of study had been
    undertaken hy the Government. That such a study had taken place is
    evident from the bare perusal of Notification itself which shows how coastal
    areas have been classified into different zones and the activities which are
D   prohibited or permitted to be carried out in certain areas with a view to
    preserve and maintain the ecological balance.

          According to the Union of India, while implementing the main
    Notification, certain practical difficulties were faced by the concerned
    authorities. There was a need for having sustainable· development of
E   tourism in coastal areas and that amendments were effected after giving
    due consideration to all relevant issues pertaining to environment protec-
    tion and balancing of the same with the requirement of development. It
    has been specifically averred that a Committee headed by Mr. B.B. Vohra
    was set-up by the Government in response to the need for examining the
F   issues relating to development of tourism and hotel industry in coastal
    areas and to regulate the same keeping in view the requirements of
    sustainable development and the fragile coastal ecology. According to the
    Union of India, the committee also included three environmentalist Mem-
    bers who had expressed their views and that the Government had accepted
    the recommendations of the Vohra Committee with slight modifications.
G   According to it, there has been no blanket relaxation in any area as alleged
    and adequate environmental safeguards have been provided in the 1994
    Notification.

          In this background, we now deal with each of these six amendments
H separately :
       !NDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGALACTIONv. U.0.1.                    523

       (i) According to the main Notification, distance of 200 metres from      A
the HTL was no-development zone (hereinafter referred to as 'NDZ'). The
representation of the Hotel and Tourism Industry was that the existing 200
metres depth of NDZ constituted a serious handicap in the said industry
competing with the beach hotels of other countries where there were no
seeh restrictions. It was represented that reduction of the NDZ would not
be ecologically harmful and there was no convincing scientific reason for
                                                                                B
fixing 200 metres as the appropriate width for the NDZ. It was also stated
before the Committee that according to its projection, the Hotel Industry
in India would at the most require only about 20-30 K.Ms. of coastline for
the construction of sea-side resorts over the nexi 15 year or so. If this
requirement was viewed in the context of the fact that the total coastline      c
of the country was over 6,000 K.Ms. in length, the industry represented that
relaxation with regard to this limited area would not pose any big threat to
the country's ecology.

      The Vohra Committee in its recommendations observed that certain
Members of the Committee had felt that a blanket provision of 200 metres        D
in the case of sandy beaches would lead to difficulties and there should be
provision for relaxation to be m~de in suitable cases, but the consensus that
emerged was that the present regulations should not be disturbed. The
Committee, ho\vever, recommended that relaxations in 200 metres rule may
be made in a case to case basis with regard to such stretches of the            E
coastline which were rocky or hilly, but the relaxations should be made
after carrying out necessary impact assessment studies. Further morP, this
relaxation should be made by the Ministry of Environment & Forests and
not by the State Governments concerned.

      In the 1994 Notification, there is a clear departure from the recom-      F
mendations of the Vohra Committee. The Notification now provides that
for reasons to be recorded, the Central Government may permit any
construction \Vithin the said 200 n1ctrcs ND·Z subject to such conditions
and restrictions as it may deem fit.

       In the written submissions filed by the Union of India in this Court
                                                                                G
on 29.9.1995, this amendment has been sought to be justified and explained
by it in the following words :

        "As :egards the developmental activities upto the High Tide Line,
        the Central Government may for reasons recorded in writing              H
    524                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A           permit construction in any particular case taking into account the
            geographical features and other relevant aspects.

            This is necessary as providing of 200 metres of no development
            zone all along was not po~sibic in the coastal line in an uniform
            way on account of \Vide VJriations in geographical features, exi~ting
B           human sett1en1ents and <levl;':luprnental activities requiring fore
            shore facilities etc."

    The relaxation with regard to NDZ was sought by the Hotel and Tourism
    Industry and they desired concession only with regard to 20-30 K.Ms. of
    coastline. By the amended Notification, power had been given to the
c   Central Government to make such relaxation with regard to any part of the
    6,000 K.Ms long coastline of India. The Central Government has, thus,
    retained the absolute power or relaxation of the entire 6.000 K.Ms. long
    coastline and this, in effect, may lead to the causing of serious ecological
    damage as the said provision gives unbridled power and docs not contain
D   any guidelines as to how or when the power is to be exercised. The said
    provision is capable of abuse. The Central Government also did not confine
    the relaxation to the extent as specified by the Vohra Committee. No
    satisfactory reason has been given by the Union of India as to why it
    departed from the opinion of the Expert Committee and that too in such
    a manner that the concession which has now been given is far in excess of
E
    what was demanded by the Hotel and Tourism Industry.

          We, accordingly, hold that the newly added proviso in Annexure II
    m paragraph 7 in sub-paragraph (1) (item i) which gives the Central
    Government arbitrary, uncanalized and unguided power, the exercise of
F   which may result in serious ecological degradation and may make the NDZ
    ineffective is ultra vires and is hereby quashed. No suitable reason has been
    given which can persuade us to hold that the enactment of such a proviso
    \Vas nece~sary. in the l<trgcr public interest~ and the exercise of power under
    the said proviso will not result in large scale ecological degradation and
G   violation of Article 21 of the citizens living in those areas.

          (ii) The NDZ for rivers, creeks and backwaters which was 100 metres
    from HTL has, by. the amended Notification, been relaxed to 50 metres.
    As already seen the main Notification does not apply to all the rivers. It
    applies only to tidal rivers which are part of coastal environment. It was
H   contended that the reduction from 100 metres to 50 metres was arbitrary


                                                                                      •
       INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVJRO-LEGALACTION v. U.O.J.                  525

and was not made on any hasis. It was also contended that the Vohra            A
Committee had made no proposal for relaxation along the rivers but it
merely asked for a clarification of the limits LO which the control would
apply since in some areas tidal ingress could go upto 50 K.Ms. from the
coastline.

      Justifying this amendment, it was contended by the Union of India        B
thal in case of creeks, rivers or back \Vaters, it is not possible to have a
uniform basis for demarcating NDZ. The zone shall be regulated based
upon each individual case. It is no doubt true that there can be no uniform
basis for demarcating NDZ and it will depend upon the requirements by
each concerned State Authority in their own Management Plans but no            c
reason has been given why in rel<ition to tidal rivers, there has been a
reduction of the ban on construction from 100 metres to 50 metres. Even
the Vohra Committee which had been set-up to look into the demands of
Hotel and Tourism Industry had not made such a proposal and, therefore,
it appears to us that such a reduction does not appear to have been made
for any valid reason and is arbitrary. This is more so when it has been
                                                                               D
alleged that in some areas like Goa, there are mangrove forests that need
protection and which stretch to more than 100 metres from the river bank
and this contention had not been denied. In the absence of any justification
for this reduction being given the only conclusion which can be arrived at
is that the relaxation to 50 metres has been done for sotne extraneous         E
reason. It was submitted, at the time of arguments by the Additional
Solicitor General that construction has already taken place, along such
rivers, creeks etc. at a distance of 50 metres and more, but no such
explanation has been given in the reply affidavit. Even if this be so such
reduction will pertnit new construction to take place and this reduction
                                                                               F
cannot be regarded as a protection only to the existing structures. In the
absence of a categorical statement being made in an affidavit that such
reduction will not be harmful or result in serious ecological imbalance, \Ve
are unable to conclude that the said amendment has been made in the
larger public interest and is valid. This amendment is, therefore, contrary
to the object of the Environment Act and has not been made for any valid       G
reason as is, therefore, held to be illegal.

       (iii) The main Notification had provided that there would be no
levelling for sand dunes or sand extraction. The Vohra Committee however
allowed extraction of sand. This recommendation has not been accepted          H
      526                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1996[ SUPP. I S.C.R.

A     but the amended notification allowed the installation of goal posts or lamp
      posts. Justifying this amendment, it was contended by the Union India that
      installing such goal posts or lamp post will not result in Oattcning of sand
      dunes and will also not have any other undesirable affect with regard to
      the sai<l sand dunes. No permanent structure for sport facilities is per-
      mitted. We <lo not see any illegality having been committed by allowing the
B
      goal posts, net posts and lamp posts to be erected. In fact the erection of
      these would f.. cilitate or lead to more enjoyment of the beaches. Therefore,
      the challenge to this amendment fails.

             (iv) By the amended Notification, the NDZ is now to be included for
c     FSI calculations. Justifying this amendment, it was submitted by the Union
      of India that an explanation had been added to the effect that although no
      construction is allowed in NDZ, for the purpose of calculation of FSI the
      area of entire plot including portions which falls within NDZ shall be taken
      into account. This modification has been brought in because the area in
      NDZ will in any case be left vacant and although this land may belong to
D     a private O\vner, he has to keep it vacant. To compensate for this, he is
      allowed to construct a building of such FSI as permissible after taking into
      account the area which falls in NDZ. This, it was submitted, is based upon
      fair and equitable conditions and as such this would have no effect on the
      ecological balance in the coastal area.
E
             In view of the aforesaid reasons given by the Union of India and also
      keeping in view the fact that a similar recommendation had also been made
      by the Vohra Committee we ab'fee with the principle that some compen-
      sation is to be allowed to the private owner whose land falls in the NDZ,
F     but at the same time haphazard and congested construction-a pollutant in
      itself-cannot be permitted in any area of the city. We, therefore, modify the
      amendment and direct that a private owner of land in NDZ sha 11 be
      entitled to take into account half of such land for the purpose of permis-
      sible FSI in respect of the construction undertaken by him outside the
      NDZ.
G
             (v) With regard to the amendment which allows construction of the
      basements, it was contended that the deep foundations and structure could
      interfere in the coa~tal areas where Lhere is an intern1ixture of salt and
      sweet aquifers. According to the Union of India, this amendment has been
J-1   n1ade on the recon1mcndation of the Vohra Committee. It wa.;;, however,
       INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION v. U.O.l.                   527

stated that the basements shall be allowed subject to the condition that the     A
other authorities such as State Ground Water Boards will permit such
construction and will issue no-objection certificate after confirming that the
basement will not hamper free Oow of ground water in that area. It is,
therefore, obvious that there will not be any adverse affect lo the ecological
balance in the area if basements are allowed to be constructed sub_jcct to
the satisfaction of the concerned authorities that the same will not hamper
                                                                                 B
free !low of ground water.

      (vi) The main Notification, had not permitted fencing within 200
metres zone from HTL. By the amended Notification, green am! barbed
wire fencing within the said zone has been permitted. Chalknging this            c
amendment, it was contended that the effect of such fencing wo~ld be to
prevent the public from using the beaches. Justifying this amendment, the
Union of India had stated that the Vohra Committee had permitted green
fencing. By the amended Notification barbed fencing, in addition to green
fencing, has also been allowed. The reason for this is that green and barbed
fencing has been a1lowed so that private owners are in a position to stop
                                                                                 D
encroachment of their properties. Further more, in the interest of security
also, a private owner would like to have some kind of boundary so that his
property is safe. The implication, therefore, clearly is that it is not as if
public beaches will be encroached or fenced. The fencing is being allowed
only of the privately owned property in order to protect the same. W c,          E
however, direct that fencing should not be raised in such a manner so as
to prevent access of the public to public beaches. In other words, the right
of way enjoyed by the general public to those areas which they are free to
enjoy, should in not way be closed, hampered or cutrailcd. The amendment
as made., does not, in our opinion, call for any intcreference.
                                                                                 F
      GENERAL CONCLUSION :

       W'ith rapid industrialisation taking place! there is an increasing threat
to the maintenance of the ecological balance. The gencrai public is becom-
ing aware of the need to protect environment. Even though, laws have been G
passed for the protection of environment, the enforcement of the same has
been tardy, to say the least. With the governmental authorities not showing
any concern with the enforcement of the said Acts, and with the develop-
ment taking place for personal gains at the expense of environment and
with regard to the mandatory provisions of law, some public spirited H
    528                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A
    persons have been initiating public interest litigations. The legal position
    relating to the exercise of Jurisdiction by the Courts for preventing environ-
    mental degradation and thereby, seeking to protect the fundamental fights
    of the citizens, is now well settled by various decisions of this Court. The
    primary effort of the Court, while dealing with the environmental related
B   issues, is to sec that the enforcement agencies, whether it be the Stale or
    any other authority, take effective steps for the enforcement of the laws.
    The Courts, in a way, c:ct as the guardian of the people's fundamental rights
    but in regard lo many technical matters, the Courts may not be fully
    equipped. Perforce, it has to rely on outside agencies for reports and
c recommendations whereupon orders have been passed from time to time.
    Even though, it is not the function of the Court to sec the day to day
    enforcement of the law, that being the function of the Executive, but
    because of the non-functioning of the enforcement agencies, the Courts as
    of necessity have had to pass orders directing the enforcement agencies to
    implement the law.
D
          As far as this Court is concerned, being concious of its constitutional
    obligation to protect the fundamental rights of the people, it has issued
    directions in various types of cases relating to the protection of environ-
    ment and preventing pollution. For effective orders to be passed, so as to
E   ensure that there can be protection of environment along with develop-
    ment, it becomes necessary for the Court dealing with such issues to know
    about the local conditions. Such conditions in different parts of the Country
    are supposed to be better known to the High Courts. The High Courts
    would be in a better position to acerlain facts and to ensure and examine
    the implementation of the anti-pollution laws where the allegations relate
F   to the spreading of pollution or non-compliance of other legal provisions
    leading to the infringement of the anti-pollution laws. For a more effective
    control and monitoring of such laws, the High Courts have to shoulder
    !:!Teater responsihilities in tackling such issues which arise or pertain to the
    geographical areas within their respective States. Even in cases \Vhich have
G   ramifications all over India, where general directions are issued by this
    Court, more effective in1plemcntation of the same can, in a number of
    cases, be effected, if the concerned High Courts assu!lle the responsibility
    of seeing to the enforcement of the laws and examine the complaints,
    mostly made by the local inhabitants, about the infringement of the laws
H   and spreading of pollution or degradation of ecoloi,y
        JNDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENV!RO-LEGALACTION v. U.O.l.                    529

        There is likelihood that there will be instances of infringement of the   A
 n1ain N()tification and also of the Managen1ent Plans, as and \Nhen framed~
 taking place in different parts of the country. In our opinion, instead of
 agitating these questions before this Court, now that the general principles
 have been laid down and arc well- established, it wiII be more appropriate
_that action with regard lo such infringement even if they relate to the
 violation of fundamental rights, should first be raised before the High
                                                                                  B
 Cour_t having territorial jurisdiction over the area in question. We are sure
 and we expect that each High Court will deal with such issues urgently.
 Environmental law has now become a specialised field. In the decision
 which was taken al the United Nations Conference on Environment and
 Development held at Rio de Janeiro in June, 1992 in which India had also         c
 participated, the States had been called upon to develop national laws
 regarding liability and compensation for the victims for pollution and
 other environmental damages.

      There is 6,000 K.Ms. long coastline of India. It is the responsibility
                                                                                  D
of the coastal States and Union Territories in which these stretches exist
to see that both the Notifications are complied with and enforced. Manage-
ment Plans have to be prepared by the States and. approved by the Central
Government. If the said plans have been approved, the development can
take place only in accordance therewith. Till the preparation and approval
of said plans by virtue of the provisions of main Notification, no develop-       E
ment in the coastal areas within the NDZ can take place. Therefore, it is
in the interest of all concerned that the Management Plans are submitted
and approved at the earliest.

      There has been a complete h'<ity in the implementation of the Act           F
and other related Statutes. Under the said Act, the Central Government
has e;sentially been entrusted with the responsibility to enforce and imple-
ment the Act. Section 23 of the Act, however, enables the Central Govern-
ment, by Notification in the Official Gazettee, to delegate such of its
powers and functions to the State Governments or Authorities. Thus, the
implementation of the provisions of the Act has now essentially become            G
the functions of the State Governments. In an effort to control pollution,
State Pollution Boards have also been established but the extent of its
 effectiveness is yet to be demonstrated. The Environment (Protection) Act,
 as framed, and Section 5 of the Act in particular, gives the Ci-overnment
 extensive powers to issue directions to any person, officer or Authority         I-I
    530                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A which they arc bound to comply. The directions as issued have necessarily
    to be in accordance with the provisions of law and to give protection to
    environment.

            As far as the implementation of the main Notification is concerned,
    the Vohra Committee has slated in its report that many members of the
B   Committee expressed g.eat concern that sufficient attention was not being
    paid to the enforcement of regulations. It also noted that "in the absence
    of anything like adequate machinery to implement the Regulations, a great
    deal of unauthorised development is taking place on most beaches which
    it will be difficult if not impossible to remove in the future". The Committee
c   also recommended that the problems relating to the implementation of the
    regulations should be given high priority by the Ministry, if these are not
    to become a mockery.

           With increasing threat to the environmental degradation taking
    place in different parts of the country, it may not be possible for any
D   single authority to effectively control the same. Environmental degrada-
    tion is best protected by the people themselves. In this connection, some
    0[ the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other environmen-
    talists arc doing singular service. Time has perhaps come when the
    Government can usefully draw upon the resources of such NGOs to
E   help and assist in the implementation of the laws relating tu protection
    of environment. Under Section 3 of the Act, the Central Government
    has the power to constitute one or more authorities for the purposes of
    GXercising and performing such powers and functions, including the
    power to issue directions under Section 5 of the Act of the Central
    (~overnment as may be delegated to them.
F
    DIRECTIONS

          (1) Keeping in vie\v I.be aforesaid observations in mind, we would
    direct that if any question arise with regard to the enforcement or im-
    plem~ntation or infringement of n1ain Notific<Jtion as amended by the
G   Notification of 1994, the same should be raised before and dealt with by
    the respective High Courts. ln the present case, there were allegations of
    infringement having been taking place by allowing the setting-up of in-
    dustries in Dahanu Taluka in Maharashtra in violation of the provision:-. of
    n1ain Notification and \Vhich industries are stated to be causing pollution.
H   Similarly, there were allegations of non-compliance with the provisions of
       INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGALACTION v. U.0.l.                    531

Jaw by a unit manufacturing Alcohol in Pondicherry; which regard to Goa          A
also allegations have been made. As we have already observed, it will be
more appropriate if the allegations so made are dealt with by the respective
High Courts, for they would be in a better position to know about and
appreciate the local conditions which are prevailing and the extent of
environmental damage which is being caused. We, accordingly, direct that
the contentions raised in the Petition regarding infringement of the main
                                                                                 B
Notification and of the Notification dated 20.6.1991 relating to Dahanu
Taluka should be dealt with by the Bombay High Court. The High Court
may issue such directions as it may deem fit and proper in order to ensure
that the said Notifications are effectively implemented complied with. A
copy of the Writ Pe.titian along with a copy of the Judgment should be sent      c
to the High Court by Registry for appropriate orders. As regard I.A. No.
17-18 of 1995 is concerned relating to alcohol manufacturing unit at Pon-
dicherry the. said application is transferred to the Madras High Court for
disposal in accordance with law.

       (2) Any allegation with regard to the infringement of any of the          D
Notifications dated 19.2.1991, 20.6.1991 & 18.8.1994 be filed in the High
Courts having territorial jurisdictions over the areas in respect of which the
allegations are made. As far this Court is concerned, this matter stands
concluded except to examine the reports which are to be filed by all the
States with regard to the approval of the Managements Plans, or aoy              E
classification which may be sought.

       (3) Considering the fact that the Pollution Control Boards are not
only overworked but simu!taoeously have a limited role to play in so far as
it relates to controlling of pollution for the purpose of ensuring effective
                                                                                 F
implementation of the Notifications of 1991 and 1994, as also of the
Management Plans, the Central Government should consider setting up
under Section 3 of the Act, State Coastal Management Authorities in each
State or zone and also a National Coastal Management Authority.

       (4) The States which have not filed the Management Plans with the G
Central Government are directed to file the complete plans by 30.6.1996.
The Central Government shall finalise and approve the said plans, with or
without modifications within three months thereafter. It is possible that the
plans a' submitteu by the respective State Governments and Union Ter-
ritories may not be acceptable to the Ministry of Environment and Forests. H
    532                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A   Returning the said plans for modifications and then re-submission of the
    same may become an unnecessary lime consuming and, perhaps, a futile
    exercise. In order ro ensure that these plans are finalised at the very
    earliest, we direct that the plans as submitted will be examined by the
    Central Government who will inform the State Government or the Union
    Territory concerned with regard to any shortcomings or modifications
B   which the Ministry of Environment and Forests may suggest. If necessary,
    a discussion amongst the representatives of the State Government and the
    Ministry of Environment and Forests should take place and thereafter the
    plans should be finalised by the Ministry of Environment, if necessary, by
    carrying out such modifications as may be required. The der:isions by the
c   Ministry of Environment and Forests in this regard shalJ be final and
    binding.

          A report with regard to the submission and the finalisation of the
    plans should be filed in this Court and the case will be listed for noting
    compliance in September; 1996.
D
         (5) Pending finalisation of the plans, the interim order passed by this
    Court on 12.12.1994 and 9.3.1995 shall continue to operate.

          (6) Four States, namely Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka and
    Kerala have not yet submitted their Management Plans to the Central
E   Government. There is thus a clear non-compliance with the direction
    issued by this Court on 12.12.1994 and 9.3.1995. We issue notices to the
    Chief Secretaries of these States to explain and show cause why futher
    appropriate action be not taken for this non-compliance. The notices are
    to be returnable after six weeks.
F   G.N.                                                           Still pending.