1. This application seeks review of order dated 11.05.2022 directing discontinuing of impermissible activities in CRZ area without requisite CRZ Clearance. The Tribunal also directed joint Committee of MoEF&CC, NCZMA, GCZMA, CPCB, State PCB and National Institute of Oceanography, (NIO) Goa to prepare and execute a restoration plan including removal of encroachments by vessels. The Tribunal found as follows:-
“1to14…xxx……………………………….xxx………………………….xxx
15. On due consideration of rival contentions, we find that foreshore activities are involved in respect of vessels in question. Vessels are birthed not merely for repairs but have been there for years without requisite CRZ clearance. Permission granted by the Captain of Port for use of water frontage is not be a substitute for the CRZ Clearance, statutorily required as per CRZ Notification. Such clearance is not exempted even if the activities started prior to 1991. What is protected is the construction is already made prior to 1991 and not such foreshore activities for which CRZ Clearance is required. There is also mandate to protect mangroves and khazan land under para 8 of the CRZ Notification. The activities in question fall under para 4 (ii)(f) of the CRZ Notification, 2011 for which the CRZ Clearance is required. The Bombay High Court at Goa dealt with the matter vide order dated 31.07.2017 in PIL W.P. No. 6&10/2016, Mr. Antonio Fernandes & Ors. v. State of Goa & Ors. and held:-
“14. We have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and with their assistance, we have also proceeded to examine the relevant records. Considering the view we propose to take we shall deal with the first contention raised by the petitioners to the effect that the respondent no.2 GCZMA had no jurisdiction to grant the permission to the petitioners under the relevant CRZ notification. It is not disputed that the subject permission in the present case was granted by the GCZMA in terms of the CRZ notification 1991. The said CRZ notification 1991 which deals with the regulation of permissible activity inter alia provides at clause 3(2)(v) & 3(3)(ii) as under:
3(2)(v) – All other activities with investment of five crores rupees or more:
Provided that activities involving investment of less than five crores rupees shall be regulated by the concerned authorities at the State or Union territory level in accordance with the provisions of sub paragraph (2) of paragraph 6 of Annexure I of this Notification.
3(3)(ii) – Within the framework of such approved plans, all development and activities within the CRZ other than those covered in para 2 and para 3(2) above shall be regulated by the State Government, Union Territory Administration or the local authority as the case may be in accordance with the guidelines given in Annexures-I and II of the Notification.
19. In such circumstances, we find that the impugned permission granted by the respondent no.2 GCZMA dated 27/01/2010 and 01/02/2010 cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed and set aside. The respondent no.9 is accordingly directed to approach the competent Authority to get the permissions in terms of the applicable CRZ regulations within 6 months from today. For such period of 6 months, there will be status quo with regard to the existing construction activity carried out by the respondent no.4. Needless to say, all the other statutory permissions obtained from the Captain of Ports, the Village Panchayat Town Planning Authorities would be subject to the permissions if at all granted by the competent authority under the Environment Protection Act. In case no permissions are granted, the concerned Authorities will have to proceed in accordance with law. Mr. S.S. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents no.8 & 9, upon instructions, states that the respondent no.9 shall not take any new contract with regard to the repairs of vessels other than the pending contracts which have already been taken by the private respondent no.9. Hence, status quo subject to the said statement of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents no.8 & 9 which is accepted and shall automatically be vacated after a period of 6 months.”
16. In view of the above, without CRZ clearance activities of the private respondents are not permissible. Mere fact that the CZMP has not been prepared cannot be a ground to continue the said activity as the matter will be governed by already finalized CZMP on 27.09.1996, according to which the area falls under CRZ-I (inter tidal area) calling for CRZ Clearance for regulated activities. As held in judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia in Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action, (1996) 5 SCC 281, [LQ/SC/1996/829] Piedade Filomina (2004) 3 SCC 445, [LQ/SC/2004/337] Vaamika Island (2013) 8 SCC 760 [LQ/SC/2013/870] and Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority vs. State of Kerala, Maradu Municipality (2019) 7 SCC 248 [LQ/SC/2019/863] (Maradu case), CRZ notification has to be strictly followed. In Piedade, it was held that CRZ Notifications have to be strictly followed as they have issued for protection of environment and ecology of the coastal areas. Uncontrolled activities in such areas have disastrous effect and result in natural calamities. CZMP of the area is to be strictly followed. PCB has found continuing pollution by the activities.”
2. According to the review applicant, the order is not justified as the applicant was not a party in the PIL in the High Court. There cannot be any liability for past violations.
3. We are unable to accept the review application which in substance seeks rehearing and involves challenge to the order on merits, beyond the scope of review jurisdiction.
4. The application is accordingly dismissed.
