IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 292 OF 2009 M/S. MAHA SEER HOTEL AND RESORTS PVT LTD ... Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. P. S. Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Asst. Solicitor General for respondent no.1. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. S. Mordekar, Addl. Government Advocate for the Respondent nos. 2 and 3. Ms. Norma Alvares, Advocate for Respondent no.4. Coram:- B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 6th July, 2009 ORAL ORDER By this Petition, petitioner is seeking a writ against the respondent no.3 to forward his proposal for development i.e. construction of Hotel for Environmental Clearance to respondent no.1, which is sought in background of Judgment dated 13.10.2006 delivered by this Court in Writ Petition no. 422/1998 and 99/1999. The operative part (D) and (E) therein are important for consideration of present controversy. The same read as under : (D) To identify the open plots in CRZ-III zone which are available for construction of hotels and to frame appropriate policy/regulation for utilisation thereof before they are being allowed to be utilized for such construction activities. (E) Till and until the survey and inquiry is completed, as directed above, no new licence for any type of construc- tion in CRZ-III zone shall be issued or granted, and no new structure of whatsoever nature shall be allowed to be constructed in CRZ-III zone, except repairs and re- novation of the existing houses which shall be subject to the appropriate order on completion and result of the survey and inquiry to be held as directed above and this should be specifically stated in the licenses to be granted for the purpose of repairs and/or renovation of the existing houses. 2. Petitioner states that their proposal for development is approved by respondent no.3 vide subject no. 46.4.2 but then because of the above mentioned Judgment, they have expressed inability to forward it to respondent no.1. Learned Counsel for petitioner states that the proposal, therefore, should be directed to be forwarded to respondent no.1 so that it can be processed further in accordance with law and all objections to that proposal can be appropriately considered by respondent no.1. 3. The respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 have not filed any reply. Respondent no.4, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 422/1998, has contended that the Hotel is coming up in CRZ-I area and for that purpose, our attention is invited to Environmental Impact Assessment of said Hotel of petitioner particularly clause 3.4.3, to show that Mandrem Beach where the Hotel is supposed to come up is described as main nesting sites of Olive Ridley Turtles in Goa. A similar application moved by one Competent Automobiles in Writ Petition already decided vide MCA no. 884/2006, was dismissed on 13.03.2007. The subsequent Order dated 07.04.2008, passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter and sought to be relied upon by petitioner is stated to be not applicable in the present matter. 4. Perusal of the Orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court shows that there the grievance made was if Hotel Project was cleared, large number of trees were likely to be cut and sand dunes in the land would be flattened, thereby, adversely affecting coastal eco-system and causing pollution. Hon'ble Apex Court found that it can be considered by MoEF and other appropriate authorities. In paragraph 5, Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed that authorities have to examine whether construction of Hotel is permissible at that site in accordance with law and the present respondent no.4 was given liberty to raise all objections before MoEF or other appropriate authorities. In paragraph 6 thereafter, the Hon'ble Apex Court found that if at all clearances were obtained by petitioner as required for securing licence for construction, the High Court may, on application of petitioner, consider granting them exemption/exclusion from operation of ban in paragraph 32(E) of the Judgment mentioned above. This further course of action as directed by this Court is maintained. 5. It is not in dispute that as directed by this Court, the open plots in CRZ-III zones available for construction of Hotels are yet not identified and the appropriate policy or regulation for utilization thereof has also not been formulated. This Court vide operative part, directed that till that exercise was complete, no new licences for any type of construction in CRZ-III Zone should be granted and no new structure should be allowed to be constructed. 6. Though petitioner in his Petition in paragraph 7 has stated that portion of his property whereon Beach Resort is proposed to be set up is affected by Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 1991, and though in said Notification it is stated to be falling under CRZ-III Zone, the authorities namely respondent no.3, Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority has granted him the necessary clearance. It appears to be without looking at rapid EIA. 7. The copy of EIA pertaining to Hotel of petitioner submitted by petitioner himself to respondent no.3 is shown to us by learned Counsel for respondent no.4 and its relevant page which carries 3.4.3 has got heading Turtle Nesting Sites in the Buffer Zone. The said page is page no.23 of the said report. The said clause mentions that Morjim and Mandrem beaches are the main nesting sites and all sites are protected by Forest Department with the help of local people. It is also mentioned that proposed Project area is about 4.5 kms from Marine Turtle Project at Morjim. It is also mentioned that Morjim beach has a good sandy shore with well developed dune system. It is also mentioned that during 1997-98, total five nests were located and protected on part of Morjim beach. The number increased to eight in 1998-99 and resulted in extension of protected area of the beach. It is also stated that because of consistent efforts, the nesting sites reached 32 in 2000-01. 8. The learned Counsel for petitioner has invited attention to page 9 of said report to show that in paragraph 3.1.1 where location features are described, the site is expressly stated to be in CRZ-III. He has also pointed out from the map appearing at page 23 below para 3.4.3, that Marine Turtle Nesting Site which is shown by a circle is at Morjim beach which is 4.5 kms from the Hotel site which is shown in black square at Mandrem beach. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.4 has heavily relied upon the very opening line of said paragraph which we have already mentioned above. Learned Counsel has further stated and, in our opinion rightly, that Turtles will not go to Morjim beach because a Project for them has been undertaken at that place. The increasing number of nests clearly show that the concern expressed by respondent no.4 cannot be stated to be ill founded. The fact that Mandrem beach is main nesting site of Olive Ridley Turtles in Goa, is mentioned in said paragraph by petitioners themselves. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court has not disturbed the Judgment delivered by this Court in Writ Petition no. 422/1998 and 99/1999. On the contrary, the action as directed therein is ordered to be taken even in case of M/s. Competent Automobiles. The consideration of proposal of petitioner by respondent no.3 shows that earlier his proposal was cleared by GCZMA in 24th meeting held on 02.12.2005 for reference to MoEF and then petitioner applied for re-location of building on the plan as they have acquired additional land adjoining their property. The 40th meeting of GCZMA conducted on 08.10.2008, considered said aspect and decided to refer the matter to TCP for scrutinizing the revised plan. It is also mentioned that TCP has given its recommendations in principle subject to guidelines in CRZ Notification. This consideration is after High Court Judgment mentioned above. Our attention has been invited to the fact that in the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan issued under CRZ Notification, Turtle Nesting Sites at Mandrem have been classified as CRZ-I, where no development is permitted. The authorities, however, have not filed any affidavit before us and the statement about the nesting sites of Olive Ridley Turtles appearing at opening of paragraph 3.4.3, does not appear to have been considered by respondent no.3. 10. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. U. D. SALVI, J. arp/*