16:23] Sekarreporter: W.P.No.18829 of 2021 W.P.No.18829 of 2021 THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE and P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J. (Order of the Court was made by the Hon’ble Chief Justice) The petition, filed in public interest, challenges an office memorandum of February 19, 2021 issued by the Ministry of

[9/11, 16:23] Sekarreporter: W.P.No.18829 of 2021
W.P.No.18829 of 2021
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon’ble Chief Justice)
The petition, filed in public interest, challenges an office
memorandum of February 19, 2021 issued by the Ministry of
Environment, Forests and Climate Change of the Union.
2. The memorandum details the procedure for dealing with
violations arising due to not obtaining a prior CRZ clearance for
permissible activities. The essential contention of the petitioner is
that as of now under the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification,
2011, activities within a regulated coastal area can only be
undertaken upon obtaining prior clearance therefor. The petitioner
says that if the philosophy of obtaining prior clearance is
abandoned, as is evident from the impugned memorandum, there
would be wanton degradation and even if the parameters are left
unaltered, the activities undertaken before permission is sought to
be obtained may cause irreversible change and completely destroy
the environment.
__________
Page 1 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
[9/11, 16:23] Sekarreporter: W.P.No.18829 of 2021
3. The petitioner maintains that even if, in course of granting
the ex post facto clearance or refusing the same, that part of the
project which contravenes norms is required to be undone or the
entirety of the project is required to be abandoned and the activities
undertaken stopped together with the construction razed, the
damage that it would have done may be irreversible or may take
decades together before the natural scheme of things is restored.
4. There is some substance in the petitioner’s assertion and it
does not appear that the office memorandum talks of a one-time
amnesty scheme or a cut-off date or is limited in its operation.
There is sufficient basis to the petitioner’s assertion that if the
principle of prior clearance is diluted and ex post facto clearance is
permitted, it would encourage the wanton degradation of the
coastal region and would be completely opposed to the purpose of
the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the ethos of Section 3
thereof.
__________
Page 2 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
[9/11, 16:24] Sekarreporter: W.P.No.18829 of 2021
5. Mr.Babu, learned counsel, takes notice on behalf of the
Union of India. Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government
Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the State.
6. Counter-affidavits by both the Union and the State should
be filed within three weeks from date. The matter is of importance
and the Union should adhere to the time indicated to file its
counter- affidavit. Let the matter appear five weeks hence.
List on 21.10.2021.
(S.B., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
08.09.2021
sra/kst
__________
Page 3 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

You may also like...