ORDER
1. Espousing a public cause, this writ petition challenges the action of the respondents herein in attempting to install a decommissioned submarine and a naval ship in an area of 30 x 200 metres in the sea cost at Ramakrishnapuram Beach, opposite Madhuvan Restaurant, Visakhapatnam as illegal and violative of the notification issued by the Central Government dated 19-2-1991 under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Rules made thereunder.
2. The petitioner, a society which came into existence about five years ago, claims to have been formed for the protection of animal life and the endangered species from being killed and subjected to cruelty by unscrupulous human beings and is recognised by the Animal Welfare Board of India, It is stated that Olive Ridley sea turtles swim to the shores of Visakhapatnam from thousands of miles away and lay eggs in the nests put up by them. However, the said species and the eggs laid by them are being destroyed and used by the people in the vicinity inspite of various representations and complaints made by it to the authorities. The petitioner had obtained permission through letter dated 18-1-1999 to protect turtle nests at Visakhapatnam, Gannavaram and Pudimadaka beaches along the coast of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore the decision of the respondents herein to install a de-commissioned submarine and ship on the coast is detrimental to sea turtles and is also in violation of the notification issued under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, wherein all such activities are prohibited. Further, item No.13 of Schedule-1, para 2 to the wildlife protection Act, 1972 takes in the Olive black loggerhead turtles and thus any interdiction with the said species is contrary to the said provisions. Inspite of the same, the respondents are proceeding to lay the submarine and ship causing a serious threat to the very existence of the turtles on Visakhapatnam beach. In its support, the petitioner had relied on various newspaper items and the representations made by it and their own acts of rescuing the nests of adult turtles and the eggs laid by them and ultimately releasing the hatchlings back into the sea.
3. Respondent No.1, the Union of India represented by its Secretary in the Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi, through its counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Director, Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests, Bangalore, without contradicting the allegations in the writ affidavit, categorically submits that the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notification declares the CRZ area as the coastal stretches of seas, bays, estuaries, creeks, rivers and backwaters, etc., which are influenced by the tidal action (in the landward side) upto 500 metres from the high tide line and the land between the low tide line and the high tide line, and the said notification categorises the areas into four categories, viz., CRZ-I, CRZ-II, CRZ-III and CRZ-IV. The area falling under CRZ-I is the area where nesting and breeding of Olive Ridley sea turtles occur and thus no developmental activities are permitted. Further, any such act touching the turtles like poaching, etc., is in violation of the Wildlife Protection Act for which appropriate action can be initiated under the provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. It was also stated that the Government of India has not required or sanctioned any proposal for construction of a museum for submarines in the sea-coast and any such construction is contrary to the aforesaid notification.
4. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, i.e., on behalf of the Flag Officer, Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam, objections have been raised in detail against the complaint of the petitioner, especially pointing out that coinciding with the completion of twenty five years of victory in Indo-Pak war, a sea memorial was erected in December, 1996 at Visakhapatnam and therefore it was envisaged to install a decommissioned submarine and landing craft (landing ship tank) on the sea front for the purpose of display with a view to dedicate it as national monument to preserve the maritime heritage of India and to educate and enhance the public understanding and appreciation of the features of Indian Navy. It is contemplated to have a museumwith the naval exhibits, programmes, publications, etc. In its support, they relied on letters addressed to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, Mayor of Visakhapatnam and the Chairman of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust indicating these proposals and also a letter from the State Government dated 14-6-1997 to the then Union Minister, New Delhi acceding to such proposal for Victory of Sea War Memorial at Ramakrishnapuram Beach centre as a tourist centre and conveying the State Government's willingness to provide the required land for the said purpose and to fund the project from the Prime Minister National Defence Fund. Similarly, it was stated that by letter dated 5-1-1997, the Director of Shore Area Development Authority under the Department of Environment, Forests, Science and Technology (SADA), Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh permitted the said project stating that as per the inspection made on 18-10-1997, the site is towards the land ward side of the structures i.e., the edge of the compound wall of the park and the proposed activity does not involve violation of para-2 (XIII) of the CRZ notification as the area is on the land ward side and is in CRZ-II and also since no violations are there, it is not necessary to relax any provisions of the CRZ notification. Similarly, the letter of the Chairman of Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam dated 26-3-1988 is relied on, which states that as no CRZ violation is involved in the subject, no VUDA clearance for CRZ is required. Similar is the permission from the District Collector, Visakhapatnam dated 14-11-1998 for allotment of the land required by the Navy pending formalities for alienation of the land. In its support, a research paper of the Department of Environmental Sciences, Andhra University has been pressed into service to show that there is no possibility of the turtles laying eggs in the city limits due to port and other activities including the glare of lights and human habitation. Further,the other departmental correspondence has been shown relating to the establishment of the said museum. Above all, the other objection on the part of respondent No.2 is that there is no violation of CRZ notification for installation of the proposed monument especially in view of the fact that the area where the submarine is to be installed does not fall in CRZ-I, but only falls in CRZ-II where all the activities, including buildings, structures, etc., are permitted and therefore the restrictions as applicable to CRZ-I notification do not apply since the area is no where nearer to Gannavaram or Pudimadaka beach where the alleged turtle activity is on. Further, the Pudimadaka shore is 40 K.M., away from the place selected for the submarine installation and there is no connection in between these two, whereas the petilioner was permitted to carry on its activity of protecting turtles at Gannavaram and Pudimadaka, which are far away from the area where the submarine is proposed to be installed. Accordingly, in view of the clearance issued by all the authorities, including the Department of Environment and Forest there is no valid apprehension on the part of the petitioner to make any such complaint. That apart in view of the long coast line and the sea bed available of which only 200 x 30 metres of land is being selected for the purpose of installation of the submarine, in and around of which there is already a sufficient activity with huge buildings, hotels, VUDA parks, etc., the apprehension of the petitioner has no basis.
5. In reply, the petitioner disputes the claim of respondent No.2 that the area where the submarine is sought to be installed falls within CRZ-II and insisted that the said area, in fact, falls in CRZ-I, which is not highly populated and therefore all the restrictions or prohibitions are applicable for the proposed project.
6. With the emerging background from the respective pleadings and by takinginto consideration the submissions made on either side, the main question which comes to the fore, as involving public interest; is as to whether the proposed project of respondent No.2 for installing a submarine and landing craft (landing ship tank) and to create a museum, is environmentally viable and is prohibited under the notification dated 19-2-1991 issued under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act.
7. There cannot be any serious dispute as to the purposes and objects for which the petitioner-society was constituted, viz., for the care and protection of the animal world especially sea turtles at Visakhapatnam and as to certain steps taken by it in furtherance of the said objects, especially in trying to save the sea turtles and putting back the hatchlings into the sea.
8. Before going into the other aspects, it is necessary to refer to the notification dated 19-2-1991, which was issued under Sections 3(1) and 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Rule 5(3)(d) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 declaring the coastal stretches as coastal Regulation (7) NE (CRZ) and Regulating Activities in the CRZ, In view of the said notification of the Central Government, the coastal stretches of sea, bays, estuaries, creeks, rivers and backwaters which are influenced by the tidal actions (in the land ward side) up to 500 metres from the high tide line and the land between low tide lines and the High Tide Lines Coastal Regulation Zone are prohibited from several activities like expansion of industries, operations or processes, etc. Under the notification, the area has been categorised into several zones, including CRZ-I and CRZ-II. Of the prohibited activities, item Nos.9 and 11 pertain to the mining of sands and rocks and other substrata material and construction activities in sensitive areas, etc.
9. The proposal of respondent No.2 is to establish a monument by installing a decommissioned submarine and a landing craft i.e., landing ship tank for the purpose of display on the sea front and to establish a museum as a tourist development centre and also to make the public aware of the activities of the Indian Navy. However, according to the respondents, the area where the submarine is to be installed is restricted only to an extent of 200 x 30 metres of land in the coast line and the other entire stretch is not any way concerned or affected by the said installation, Further, the site selected falls in CRZ -II but not in CRZ-I for which all such restrictions are not applicable. However, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1 categorically staters that the area falls within the prohibited zone and for any such activity necessary action would be taken. Further, it is also denied that there is any sanction or approval for the construction of such museum or installation of submarine. There is no explanation forthcoming from respondent No.2 in its counter affidavit for these allegations from respondent No.1. However, the entire proceedings and the permissions as sought to be relied on is only at the level of the State Government and the authorities thereunder. No doubt the State Government has commended through its letter dated 14-6-1997 to the Union Defence Ministry for providing land required for developing the Victory at Sea War Memorial at Ramakrishnapuram Beach at Visakhapatnam. Further, the proceedings dated 5-10-1997 from the Department of Environment, Forests, Science and Technology through its Director states that the activity does not involve any violation of CRZ notification as the area is in CRZ -II where the activities are permitted and there is no necessity of granting any relaxation from the said notification. The other proceedings of the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority dated 26-3-1998 and the DistrictCollector, Visakhapatnam dated 14-11-1998 merely endorse the said proposal made by respondent No.2. However, there is no similar such correspondence or any proceeding from respondent No.1 herein in respect of such proposal either in furtherance of such proposal or any permission or sanction in this regard. In view of the notification issued under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 by the competent authority, viz., the Central Government, it is but necessary to have the clearances and necessary permissions from those authorities. Any proceedings or formalities by the State Government are of no consequence unless the same is cleared under the provisions of the said Act.
10. Under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1972 which has come into force with effect from 23-5-1986, the Central Government has been conferred with powers to take measures to protect and improve environment and Section 3(3) of the said Act contemplates constitution of an authority to oversee the measures and exercise the powers conferred under the Act. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India and others, JT 1998 (7) SC 31, while considering the constitution of authorities under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1972 and Rule 5 of the Rules made thereunder, following the directions of the Court made earlier, it was represented on behalf of the State (Andhra Pradesh) that for constitution of Coastal Management Authority, the notification was issued in the year 1988. Accordingly, along with other States, the Central Government was directed to constitute State Coastal Management authorities. In Sector 14 Residents' Welfare Association v. Slate of Delhi, 1990 (1) SCC 161, a case arising out of City sewerage management system in trans-yamuna, considering the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, it was held that the directions given by the authorityconstituted under Section 3 of the Act are final and binding on all persons and organisations concerned. Accordingly, a final report submitted by a Committee constituted by the Court was referred to the said authority for implementation. In P. Navin Kumar v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, : [1999]2SCR906 - a public interest litigation case against the construction of public toilet block abutting the sea on the side of Gateway of India - the notification dated 19-2-1991 came up for consideration. On a submission made by the State Government that revised proposals are likely to be issued in respect of arrears covered under CRZ -I and CRZ -II, the said notification was left unconsidered. Similarly, the Wild Life (Protection) Act enunciates the measures to protect the wild life. In Centre for Environmental Law v. Union of India, : (1998)9SCC623 , the Apex Court reiterated the constitution of Wildlife Advisory Board, appointment of Honorary Wildlife Wardens and issuance of proclamation under Section 21 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
11. The large issue as pointed out by the petitioner is as against the damage and destruction caused to sea turtles on the coast line, which stood supported by various news items as relied on by the petitioner which also include certain steps taken by it in saving several such turtles and also the hatchlings. There is no doubt that the object is very laudable one and the cause is of great concern and more so the same is sufficiently covered under the provisions of the Wildlife and Environment (Protection) Acts. Accordingly any such project ultimately has to necessarily pass through the tests laid down under the provisions of these Acts with necessary permissions and clearances and the approvals from those authorities. The Central Government has already constituted the authority known as the Andhra Pradesh Coastal Zone Management Authority with the Principal Secretary, Environment, Forests and Scienceand Technology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as its Chairman along with other members as per notification No.S.O. 993 (E) dated 26-11-1998 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Vol.3(ii). Apart from the absence of any proceedings from these competent authorities, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 - Union of India, is directly in contradiction to the claim made by respondent No.2 in its counter affidavit and various proceedings referred to by them at various levels, including that of the Urban Development Authority and the District Collector and Department of Environment of the State Government. The proceedings by these authorities though reiterate that the area does not fall within the prohibited zone i.e., CRZ-I but falls in the zone of CRZ-II, the same is seriously disputed by the petitioner. Even otherwise, according to respondent No.2, the area apart from being outside CRZ-I, there is ample activity and development at the proposed site where several buildings, parks, hotels etc., have already come up and as per the research paper from the Andhra University, the turtle activity cannot be expected in such place. However, the fact remains that the notification issued under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act covers the entire sea coast line, though made into several categories and the restrictions are applicable to certain areas. Any such project requires a proper consideration of various aspects at all levels, including the authorities under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act without which, mere approvals at the local level cannot be of any assistance, more so when such larger environmental issues are sought to be raised even touching upon the safeguards under the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act. However, there is no such classification or any proceedings from the competent authority constituted under these environmental laws. Surprisingly, there is total silence in referring to this aspecton the part of the respondents. If there is already sufficient activity in and around the proposed site, as pointed out by respondent No.2, there may not be any difficulty for the authorities to allow such museum and the placement of a decommissioned submarine and other crafts for the purpose of public and to make it a tourist spot and thereby enrich public awareness. Especially where there is serious dispute as to the area falling in CRZ -I or CRZ -II, it is more desirable, before one proceeds with the establishment of such museum of naval park, that the authorities concerned should apply their mind together and decide upon such establishment with consultation inter se.
12. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents herein to obtain proper approvals and clearances from the Andhra Pradesh Coastal Management Authority constituted under Section 3(3)(i) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 by the Central Government. The said authority shall have local inspection of the proposed site and consider the feasibility and permissibility of such installation of the decommissioned submarine and the naval ship vis-a-vis the protection to be afforded to the wild life including the sea turtles, if any. This exercise shall be done by the authority within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open for the petitioner herein to submit its representation or objections with all the material within a period of fifteen days from today to the Andhra Pradesh Coastal Zone Management Authority, which shall take the same into consideration before arriving at a decision as directed above. The respondents are further directed to proceed with the proposed project only after obtaining the clearance and approval from the aforesaid authority. No costs.