F.I. Rebello, J.

The petitioners are a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The aims and objects of the society amongst others are to take steps to halt the ecological degradation of the environment and to formulate and implement programmes for the rehabilitation and development of the Goa Environment and to restore ecological balance. The petitioners had averred that its members as citizens of India like other citizens have the fundamental duties enshrined under Article 51(g). The petitioners are all Nationals and Citizens of India. The petitioners had been involved in measures directed towards protection of the costal areas of Goa for about 10 years previous to filing of the petition. By the present petition, the petitioners complained that on the Cadolim Baga Beach, a large number of constructions have been coming up within 200 metres of the High Tide Line. The situation has become so alarming that the authorities responsible for taking steps have failed to exercise their duties or have been turning a blind eye to such development. Apart from licences given by the Panchayats for construction which could not have been given, there are other cases where constructions are coming up even without necessary permission. It is the case of the petitioners that the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 along with the rules has come into force from 19th November, 1986. It is contended that before the Act came into force, there were guidelines for constructions upto 500 metres of High Tide Line. Based on these guidelines, no constructions were approved within the 200 metres of the High Tide Line. The Government of India thereafter issued what are known as the Costal Zone Regulations. The first is dated 19th February, 1991 which has been amended from time to time on 16th August, 1994, 18th April, 1996, 31st January, 1997 and 9th July, 1997. It is, therefore, contended that there is a blanket ban to make any construction within the 200 metres of High Tide Line.

2. The petitioners specifically complain that respondent Nos. 2 and 8 who are the local authorities namely the Village Panchayat of Calangute and the Village Panchayat of Candolim have taken no steps to remove the constructions that have come up within the 200 metres of High Tide Line. It is contended that respondent No. 6 has put a construction within 60 metres of the High Tide Line in Cobravaddo, Calangute next to the crematorium near Villa Goensa. Apart from the said construction a well has been dug which violates, the CRZ notification. It is also contended that respondent No.7 has also put up a construction in violation of CRZ Notification.

3. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 by Shri R.N. Ray. Chief Town Planner. In para 2, dealing with the construction of respondent No. 6 it is pointed out that on 23rd March, 1996, his office carried out a site inspection. On inspection, it was found that there were two structures and a well within 200 metres. No permission had been obtained from the Goa State Committee for Coastal Environment. It is also contended that the construction appeared to be very recent. The matter was reported to the Department of Science Technology and Environment vide letter dated 21st June, 1996 giving the necessary details. It was found that the respondent No. 6 had obtained licence from the Village Panchayat of Calangute for the repairs and renovation of the structures. There are some averments in so far as respondent No.6 is concerned. In so far as respondent No.7 is concerned, it is pointed out that respondent No.7 had carried out construction within 200 metres of High Tide Line without any permission from the authorities under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or Goa State Committee for Coastal Environment. I need not dwell further as learned Counsel for respondent No.7 who appears in this Court points out that the constructions which are shown at Exhibit B to the petition have since been removed and that there are no further constructions which remain at site. It is further pointed out that the State has taken all steps including preparation of the plan, constitution of Goa State Committee for Coastal Environment and control of development along the 500 metres belt along Goas Coast.

4. There is an affidavit filed by Joseph Sequeira, the then Sarpanch of Village Panchayat of Calangute. I need not refer the various pleadings in the affidavit. Suffice it to say that pursuant to various directions by this Court further affidavits came to be filed. In the said affidavit, various structures which were existing, new constructions and extensions done to various structures have been set out. In paragraph 11 of the affidavit dated 27th July, 1998 of Smt. Muktabai M. Desai, Sarpanch, it is set out that the Sarpanch has identified the structures within the local area of the Panchayat which are within 200 metres of the High Tide Line. The total number of such structures as per the Panchayat statistics are 273 new structures. There are 160 structures which have extensions done to old houses. The structures have been identified on the map and denoted in the map. The map was done by the Panchayat with the help of Survey Department.

5. Similarly, the Village Panchayat of Candolim has also carried out a survey of new structures in addition to the existing structures which are within the 200 metres High Tide Line. Plans have also been prepared based with the assistance of the officials of the Survey Department of the State Government.

6. In the meantime, during the pendency of the petition, an order has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. By the said order, an authority has been constituted known as the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority. It consists of persons set out therein. The Director, Department of Science Technology and Environment of the Government of Goa is appointed as Member Secretary. Powers have been conferred on the said authority. The powers include as under:

"(ii)(a) Inquiry into cases of alleged violations of the provisions of the said Act and/or the Rules made thereunder, or under any other law which is relatable to the objects of the said Act and, if found necessary in a specific case, issuing directions under section 5 of the said Act insofar as such directions are not consistent with any direction issued in that specific case by the National Coastal Zone Authority or by the Central Government. (VIII) The authority shall ensure compliance of all specific conditions that are laid down in the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan of Goa". Thus, under the provision of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, there is now an authority competent to take action against constructions which have come within the No Development Zone of 200 metres. The first grievance of the petitioners, therefore, can be met by issuing suitable directions to the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority.

7. The larger grievance of the petitioners is that the constructions are mushrooming. The petitioners can only point out to the Court the fact that it is not physically possible for them to monitor the illegal constructions. It is the various statutory authorities who are bound to carry out the statutory functions within their local areas. In this view of the matter, it is contented that suitable direction be given that in further the areas covered by the C.R.Z. Notification would be monitored.

8. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Goa informed the Court that a note has been prepared in respect of which various authorities have been asked to carry out the monthly inspection, fortnightly inspection and weekly patrolling. A chart has been submitted which is as under:

Monthly InspectionFortnightly InspectionWeekly Patrolling

ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (North Goa)DY. COLLECTOR (Pernem, Bardez)MAMLATDAR (Pernem)

MAMLATDAR (Bardez)

MAMLATDAR (Bardez)

DY. COLLECTOR (Tiswadi)MAMLATDAR (Tiswadi)

ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (South Goa)DY. COLLECTOR (Marmugao, Salcete)MAMLATDAR (Marmugao)

MAMLATDAR (Salcete)

MAMLATDAR (Salcete)

DY. COLLECTOR (Quepem, Canacona)MAMLATDAR (Quepem)

MAMLATDAR (Canacona)

Apart from that, it is submitted that Government will be issuing directions to all the local authorities to constantly monitor constructions within the C.R.Z. areas.

9. This in our opinion would be sufficient for the purpose of carrying out inspections in future. If there are deficiencies, this Court can always be moved and take note and issue further directions in the matter. Suffice it to say that on a weekly partrolling done the Mamlatdars notified for the various Talukas will send their report of weekly patrolling within 7 days of patrolling to the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector on carrying forthnightly inspection based on reports or otherwise to consider all cases and thereafter inspection submit his report within 15 days to the Additional Collectors of North and South Goa respectively depending on the districts wherein they are exercising their jurisdiction. The Additional Collectors thereafter on examination of the report shall submit a report within a month of completion of the inspection to the Coastal Zone Management Authority. The Coastal Zone Management Authority thereafter to proceed according to law and dispose of the matters after following the procedure that will have to be followed at any rate within six months of receiving the report of the Additional Collector. This to our mind will substantially help monitoring of the area covered by the C.R.Z. Notification.

10. That being the position, in respect of constructions which have come up in violation of the C.R.Z. Notification, except these cases which are pending before this Court and/or cases in respect of which directions have been issued under section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, all other matters which presently the Panchayats namely respondent Nos.2 and 8 have identified as having violated and or purported to be in violation of the C.R.Z. Notification to be referred to the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority. In the instant case the structure of respondent No.6 will also be referred to the committee. The structure of respondent No. 6 has also been referred to in the affidavit filed by respondent No.6.

11. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 has been enacted as its preamble itself shows, in furtherance of Indias commitment of the resolution passed at the United Nations Conference on environment held at Stockholm in June, 1972. In matters of environment and ecology new visit as have opened the doors of knowledge. The destruction of our ecology and pollution of our environment is today a matter of concern not only to us but to the world at large. The Stockholm declaration has reflected on the same. It has enjoined on the nations of the world to implement legislations to protect the environment so that the ecology of the world is protected. Not only that, parliament has acknowledge the Stockholm declaration. Subsequent to a chapter on Fundamental Duties has been inserted as part IV-A to the Constitution of India, under the chapter "Fundamental Duties". One of the Fundamental Duties as inserted in the Constitution of India of Article 51(G) is to protect and improve the natural environment including forest, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures. Similarly, Article 48-A has been introduced which reads as under:

"The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safe guard the forests and wild life of the country."

Parliament, therefore, has noted the gravity of the situation and has enjoined on the executive to take all steps necessary in furtherance of those directive principles. Various acts on environment have been enacted. These are all meant to protect the ecology and environment of this country for our future generations. It is in that context that failure on the part of the executive to implement the various notifications becomes a matter of grave concern. Statutory authorities vested with powers under the various acts are duty bound to enforce the provisions. All public authorities entrusted with duties specially under the environmental laws must realise that in they discharging the duties consequently, lies the future of our children.

12. Having said so, the following directions:

1. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 within 30 days from today to submit to the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority the details of the illegal structures identified by them and located on the plans prepared and filed in this Court.

2. The Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority on receipt of such plan to proceed according to law as expeditiously as possible.

3. The Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority to consider all these cases in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon them whether or not the local Panchayat has taken a decision to regularise or otherwise.

4. Respondent No.1 to notify the authorities set out in pars 6 for the purpose of weekly patrolling, fortnightly inspection and monthly inspection within thirty days from today.

5. The Authorities so notified to submit their reports regularly, as set out in para 6 of this petition within the time framed as fixed.

6. The Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority to separately consider the case of respondent No.6 and issue directions according to law.

13. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms.

We have noted that the statutory duty cast on respondent Nos. 2 and 8 has not been discharged by those statutory authorities. The petitioners had to approach this Court to ensure performance of statutory functions by the said authorities. In these circumstances, we feel that it is just and proper and as petitioners have acted in public interest they must be compensated for bringing to the notice of this Court the ecological degradation of the coastal area and mushrooming of illegal constructions. We, therefore, direct respondent Nos.2 and 8 by way of compensatory cost to pay the petitioners a sum of Rs.15,000/- each within four weeks from today.