Supreme Court Rejects Plea Seeking Clearance By Coastal Zone Management Authority For Railway Double-Tracking In Goa
The Supreme Court, yesterday (on July 02) upheld the Bombay High Court's decision stating that prior permission is not required from Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority for doubling of the railway track in Goa. The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and R. Mahadevan said that the issues relating to ecological balance have been adequately addressed by the statutory authorities and the...
The Supreme Court, yesterday (on July 02) upheld the Bombay High Court's decision stating that prior permission is not required from Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority for doubling of the railway track in Goa.
The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and R. Mahadevan said that the issues relating to ecological balance have been adequately addressed by the statutory authorities and the High Court. Though the Court refused to interfere with the High Court's decision, it left the question of law open.
“In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain this petition under Article 136 of the Constitution, which is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the question of law is kept open to be decided in an appropriate case.,” the Court ordered.
The genesis of the present case stemmed from the PIL filed challenging the mentioned construction by South Western Railways (SWR) and Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (RVNL) in the Vasco-da Gama area of the State of Goa.
The PIL was filed by a registered society and three residents of Guirdolim, Chandor and Cavorim villages of Salcete taluka. SWR and RVNL were found to have trespassed into a church property. However, on protests being raised by the villagers, the work was stopped by the representatives of SWR.
It is the petitioner's case that several attempts were made to seek intervention from the GCZMA and other authorities. However, there was no response and SWR and RVNL repeatedly encroached or trespassed into private properties of the residents without any permission.
However, the High Court held that the mere fact that the railway authorities have sought permission from the forest, as well as wildlife authorities, would not ipso facto would not mean that they need environmental clearance from the GCZMA.
“In any event, whether or not double tracking is a necessity cannot be decided by us. It is after all a policy decision taken by the Government of India in the appropriate department and unless such policy decision is shown to infringe any of the fundamental rights of the people, the writ court ought to stay at a distance is the settled law.,” the Court said.
The Court also refused to accept that the decision in T. N. Godavarman would not act as a bar for SWR or RVNL to lay lines for double tracking in execution of the special railway project in the other areas which do not fall in a national park/wildlife sanctuary.
In T.N Godavaram's case, the Supreme Court in the year 2022, had revoked the approval granted by the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) for doubling of existing railway line from Castlerock (Karnataka) to Kulem (Goa).
In view of this, the Bombay High Court had held:
“For the reasons aforesaid, we hold that SWR and RVNL are not under any statutory compulsion to obtain environmental clearance from the GCZMA or any building permissions or other permissions from any authority under the diverse legislation referred to by Ms. Collasso.”
Appearance for the Petitioners: Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar, Advocate-on-Record Srishti Agnihotri, Advocates M. A. Karthik, Maitreya Subramaniam, Pallak Bhagat, Ayushma Awasthi,. Sanjana Grace Thomas, Sruthi Kupadakath, Tara Elizabeth Kurien.