Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019

Observing that the matter needed consideration, especially in view of Rule 5 of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986, a Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai issued notice in the Special Leave Petition.

Senior Advocate, Mr. V.R. Dhond appearing on behalf of Vanashakti ("petitioner") submitted -

"The High Court had held that a CRZ notification is not delegated legislation but an administrative order. Therefore, a petition challenging the ultra vires or the constitutional validity of the legislation had been delegated to the NGT. While sending me to NGT, the High Court has foreclosed my right before NGT by saying that I am beyond the 6 months period, therefore the appeal before NGT is illusory…"

Concluding that the National Green Tribunal ("NGT") was the appropriate forum to examine the challenge to the vires, the High Court had dismissed the writ petition. Moreover, it also held that though the CRZ Notification was published on 18.01.2019, the PIL was presented after a considerable delay on 25.03.2021.

While refusing to indulge in matters which, it noted, squarely fell within the jurisdiction of the NGT, the High Court found the CRZ Notification to be "administrative orders". It was clarified that the CRZ Notification not being delegated legislation the NGT was equipped to adjudicate the same. The present Special Leave Petition filed by Advocate-on-Record, Mr. A. Karthik has controverted this finding for being contrary to the decision in Alembic Pharmaceuticals v. Rohit Prajapati And Ors. (2020) SCC OnLine SC 347, wherein the Apex Court had held that the NGT does not have jurisdiction to hear a challenge to a notification under Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. It was argued that though the NGT is vested with wide powers, challenge to notifications issued under Section 3 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 read with Rule 5 of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986 cannot be decided by the Tribunal, as it is not a constitutional tribunal constituted under Article 323A and 323B of the Constitution of India and is devoid of any power to strike down delegated legislation.

On the issue of delay, the petitioner has contended that the CRZ notification dated 18.01.2019 itself prescribed that it would come into effect only when the Coastal Zone Management Plan ("CZMP") was notified. The earliest CZMP for Maharashtra was notified on 29.09.2019 and the petition was filed subsequently on 23.03.2021. It was asserted that the interim period would not have been considered for delay and laches in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. Though the High Court permitted the petitioner to approach the NGT, it is pertinent to note that Section 4 of the NGT Act prescribed a period of limitation of six months. Therefore, it was argued that the grant of permission to approach NGT was only illusory in nature.

It was pointed out by the petitioner that the High Court had given liberty to approach the NGT only on the limited aspect of challenge to the CZMPs and not the provisions of the CRZ Notification, which violated Article 14 and 21 and also Section 5(3) of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986.

[Case Title: Vanashakti v. Union of India SLP(C) No, 20495 of 2021

Petition Filed by: Advocate-on-Record, Mr. A. Karthik

Assisted by: Advocates, Mr. Akash Rebello and Zaman Ali]