GULF GOANS HOTELS CO. LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2014-9-78
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
September 22,2014
Gulf Goans Hotels Co. Ltd.
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
JOHNSON V. SARGANT [REFERRED TO]HARLA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
RAI SAHIB RAM JAWAYA KAPUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY THE HINDUSTAN TIMES LIMITED INDIAN EXPRESS MADURAI PRIVATE LIMITED G NARASIMHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. RANGANATHA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
GRAMOPHONE COMPANY OF INDIA LIMITED VS. BIRENDRA BAHADUR PANDEY [REFERRED TO]
B K SRINTVASAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
VELLORE CITIZENS WELFARE FORUM VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
VISHAKA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
VINEETNARAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSOCIATION VS. YESHAWINEE MERCHANT [REFERRED TO]
FOMENTO RESORTS AND HOTELS VS. MINGUEL MARTINS [REFERRED TO]
GOAN REAL ESTATE AND CONSTRUCTION LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL VS. SUNIL KUMAR VAISH [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
G. VENKATESH AND ORS. VS. BRIDGE FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-6-413] [REFERRED TO]UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-9-97] [REFERRED TO]
ANOWARA BEGUM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2021-12-19] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYESH KUMAR VERMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-1-20] [REFERRED TO]
NINA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI ASHOK KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-11-105] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SATYA JIBAN ROY [LAWS(CAL)-2021-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR TRUCK OWNER ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2022-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
ASSAM CIVIL SERVICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, AND OTHERS VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2018-4-144] [REFERRED TO]
G J MULTICLAVE (INDIA) PVT LTD VS. STATE OF TELANGANA REP , BY ITS SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT, FOREST, SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY DEPT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2017-8-50] [REFERRED TO]
P. VENKATACHALAM VS. TAHSILDAR [LAWS(MAD)-2022-6-120] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA PRAKASH VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-131] [REFERRED TO]
MD. ABDUL KHALIQUE VS. THE STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2016-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
B S WASKEL VS. STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2015-7-185] [REFERRED]
B.S. WASKEL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-7-82] [REFERRED TO]
NATURE LOVERS FORUM VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2015-12-80] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY VS. KANCHAN [LAWS(BOM)-2023-7-748] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR NATH MUKHERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2019-9-112] [REFERRED TO]
NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD. (NEEPCO) WORKERS UNION VS. NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(MEGH)-2022-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
DIGVIYAJSINH MAHENDRASINH CHAVDA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-6-14] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL S/O GOVINDRAO KALE VS. MAHARASHTRA ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING AND EDUCATION RESEARCH, PUNE [LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-129] [REFERRED TO]
SIRAJ VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2023-1-125] [REFERRED TO]
PANDU RAILWAY BAZAR COMMITTEE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2019-2-124] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL HIGH SPEED RAIL CORPORATION LTD. VS. STATE OF MAHARAHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-12-166] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY RASTOGI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-7-129] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD SHANKAR JHA @ BINOD SHANKAR JHA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2024-1-21] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-427] [REFERRED TO]
VEDANTA LIMITED VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2020-8-312] [REFERRED TO]
AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS. AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2020-1-190] [REFERRED TO]
GAURIPUR CO-OPERATIVE FISHERY SOCIETY LTD VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-9-88] [REFERRED TO]
KOSHY, T. VS. BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2016-11-86] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT MAZDOOR SABHA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-2-14] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVA PETRO-SYNTH SPECIALITIES LTD VS. GOA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD [LAWS(BOM)-2021-7-41] [REFERRED TO]
AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VS. IMG TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2019-7-36] [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY, MANAGING COMMITTEE, MAHARISHI VIDYA MANDIR VS. VISWADHARA NAG & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-7-150] [REFERRED TO]
PEOPLES MOVEMENT FOR CIVIC ACTION VS. GOA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(BOM)-2015-1-62] [REFERRED TO]
SHIRDI SAI PULSES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2019-10-63] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. P.C. ZODINTLUANGI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MIZORAM AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2017-10-66] [REFERRED TO]
ORISSA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2023-3-75] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASHKUMAR BABULAL CHAVDA AND ORS. VS. RAMESHCHANDRA GOVINDBHAI CHAUDHARY AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2016-5-28] [REFERRED TO]
H. NABACHANDRA SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MANIP)-2017-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2019-9-123] [REFERRED TO]
S D PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-2-12] [REFERRED TO]
MD. ASHIQUE AHAMED AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-2-54] [REFERRED TO]
DHIR BEEL FISHERMAN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2023-5-86] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDAN BORA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2016-9-29] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The appellants are the owners of Hotels, Beach Resorts and Beach Bungalows in Goa who have been facing the prospect of demolition of their properties for the last several decades. The respondent-Goa Foundation is a non- Governmental body who claims to be dedicated to the cause of environmental and ecological well being of the State of Goa. The respondent- Goa Foundation had filed parallel writ petitions before the High Court for demolition of the allegedly illegal constructions raised by the appellants. Both sets of writ petitions i.e. those filed by the appellants against the orders of demolition by the State Authorities and the writ petitions filed by the Goa Foundation seeking demolition of constructions raised by each of the appellants were heard together by the Bombay High Court. The High Court, by separate impugned orders dated 13th July, 2000, had upheld the orders passed by the authorities requiring the appellants to demolish the existing structures. It is against the aforesaid orders passed by the High Court that the present group of appeals have been filed upon grant of leave by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
(2.)The constructions raised by the appellants are not per se illegal in the conventional sense. They are not without permission and sanction of the competent authority. What has been alleged by the State and has been approved by the High Court is that such constructions are in derogation of the environmental guidelines in force warranting demolition of the same as a step to safeguard the environment of the beaches in Goa. Specifically, it is the case of the State that the constructions in question are between 90 to 200 meters from the High Tide Line (HTL) despite the fact that under the guidelines in force, which partake the character of law, constructions within 500 meters of the HTL are prohibited except in rare situations where construction activity between 200 to 500 meters from the HTL are permitted subject to observance of strict conditions. Admittedly, all constructions, though completed on different dates and in different phases, were so completed before the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) were enacted (w.e.f.19th February, 1991) in exercise of the powers under the Environment Protection Act, 1986.
(3.)The above basis on which the impugned action of the State is founded has been sought to be answered by the appellants by contending that at the relevant point of time when building permissions and sanctions were granted in respect of the constructions undertaken, the prohibition was with regard to construction within 90 meters from the HTL. Admittedly, none of the constructions are within the said divide. The guidelines, detailed reference to which are made in the succeeding paragraphs of the present order, are not 'law' so as to constitute activities contrary thereto as acts of infringement of the law and hence illegal. Such guidelines do not confer the power of enforcement and lack the authority to bring about any penal consequences.
(2.)The constructions raised by the appellants are not per se illegal in the conventional sense. They are not without permission and sanction of the competent authority. What has been alleged by the State and has been approved by the High Court is that such constructions are in derogation of the environmental guidelines in force warranting demolition of the same as a step to safeguard the environment of the beaches in Goa. Specifically, it is the case of the State that the constructions in question are between 90 to 200 meters from the High Tide Line (HTL) despite the fact that under the guidelines in force, which partake the character of law, constructions within 500 meters of the HTL are prohibited except in rare situations where construction activity between 200 to 500 meters from the HTL are permitted subject to observance of strict conditions. Admittedly, all constructions, though completed on different dates and in different phases, were so completed before the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) were enacted (w.e.f.19th February, 1991) in exercise of the powers under the Environment Protection Act, 1986.
(3.)The above basis on which the impugned action of the State is founded has been sought to be answered by the appellants by contending that at the relevant point of time when building permissions and sanctions were granted in respect of the constructions undertaken, the prohibition was with regard to construction within 90 meters from the HTL. Admittedly, none of the constructions are within the said divide. The guidelines, detailed reference to which are made in the succeeding paragraphs of the present order, are not 'law' so as to constitute activities contrary thereto as acts of infringement of the law and hence illegal. Such guidelines do not confer the power of enforcement and lack the authority to bring about any penal consequences.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.