Holding

The Supreme Court held that it is not correct to say that the whole of Mumbai falls within CRZ‑II; CRZ‑II areas can exist within municipal limits, and the High Court’s observations on this point are not warranted.

Summary

The Indian Heritage Society filed a public‑interest writ in the Bombay High Court seeking to quash permissions granted to the Bombay Municipal Corporation for constructing a new public toilet block near the Gateway of India and to demolish an existing block. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the facility was essential and that the case did not merit interference under Article 226. The petitioners then filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, not challenging the toilet construction itself but contesting the High Court’s observations that the entire city of Mumbai fell within Coastal Regulation Zone II (CRZ‑II) and that such a classification would preclude any area from being CRZ‑I or CRZ‑III. The Supreme Court examined the relevant notifications under the Environment (Protection) Act and the State’s Coastal Zone Management Plan, noting that CRZ‑II areas can exist within municipal limits and that the High Court’s sweeping observation was not warranted. It further observed that subsequent amendments to the CRZ notifications (1997) occurred after the impugned judgment and would be considered in a proper case. Consequently, the Court disposed of the Special Leave Petitions without further order.

Issues considered

Whether the entire city of Mumbai falls within the ambit of Coastal Regulation Zone II (CRZ‑II) as per the 1991 notification.
Whether the High Court’s observation that the whole of Mumbai is covered by CRZ‑II is legally correct.
Whether CRZ‑II areas can exist within municipal limits or urban areas.
Whether the construction of the toilet block violates CRZ regulations pending categorisation of the area.

Legislation cited

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986s. 3(1), s. 3(2)(v)
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966

Subjects

Coastal Regulation ZoneCRZ‑IIEnvironment Protection ActPublic Interest LitigationArticle 226Municipal CorporationConstruction permitsUrban planningSpecial Leave PetitionSupreme Court

Judgment

....

A P. NA VIN KUMAR AND ORS. ETC.
v.
BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

APRIL 26, 1999

B [D.P. WADHWA AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.]

Environment Protection Act, 1986-Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ)-
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966-Public Interest
Litigation before High Court to prevent construction of toilet block and
C demolish existing block-High court held, such facility necessary and observed
that entire city within ambit ofCRZ-11-Held, such observation not warranted

Section 3(2) (a)-Notification-Coastal Zone Management Plan
(CZMP)-Categorisation of city under CRZ-1, CRZ-11 and CRZ-Ill pending
D approval of State Government-permissibility of construction dependent on
categorisation-Held, to be considered in an appropriate case.

Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ)--Categorisation-CRZ-JJJ-can exist
within municipal limits or urban areas.

E The petitioners, Indian Heritage Society had filed a writ petition in the
High Court as a public Interest Litigation to quash and set aside all
permissions granted by the Municipal Corporation for construction of"new
public toilet block" and demolition of existing toilet block abutting th~ sea
near Gateway of India.

!F
I
The High Court held that it was not a fit case to be interfered under
Article 226 of the Constitution as this facility is a must at a place visited
by thousands of people, and it would also prevent nuisance as there would be
--
no unauthorised use of ope'n spaces.

Aggrieved the petitioners filed special leave petition in this Court, only
G against certain observations made by the High Court because they could be
fatal for the other writ petitions pending there and as the effect would be that
the entire city of Mumbai would fall within the ambit of CRZ-11 and that once
an area is covered under CRZ-11 it could not fall within the ambit ofCRZ-
1 or CRZ-III.

H Union of India contended, before this Court that the entire city does
906
P.N. KUMAR v. BOMBAY M.C. [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 907
not fall within the_ambit ofCRZ-11 and the areas have been categorised as A
CRZ-1, CRZ-11 and CRZ-III, that they are still not aware whether the said
area under reference is categorised as CRZ-1 or CRZ-11, as a response from
the Government of Maharashtra is awaited; and that the possibility and
permissibility of any new construction would depend upon this categorisation.
Disposing of the Special leave petitions, this Court. B
HELD : 1. It is nobody's case that whole of Mumbai would fall within
the ambit of CRZ-11 and the observations of the High Court that entire city
would fall within the ambit of CRZ-11 do not appear to be quite warranted.
CRZ-111 areas can exist even within the municipal limits or urban areas.
(911-A; 910-F) C
2. The notifications issued in February, 1991 were fater amended by
a notification in July, 1997, and the Central Government had also addressed
a communication to the Government of Maharashtra regarding Coastal Zone
Management Plan in September 1997. These developments occurred after
the impugned judgment and the effect thereof would be considered in an D
appropriate case. [911-D; 910-C)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No.
21959 of 1996 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10/11.9.96 of the Bombay High
E
Court in W.P. No. 619of1992.

Mahesh Agrawal for Ms. Purnima Bhat for the Petitioner in SLP. No.
21959/96.
F
Atul Setalvad, Ms. Indu Malhotra and Ms. Shruti Devi for the Petitioner
in SLP. No. 22216/96.

Bhimrao N. Naik and S. Sukumaran for the Respondent Nos. I-2.

LG. Shah, D.M. Nargolkar, (Y.P. Mahajan) and P. Parmeswaran for the G
Respondent No. 3.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D.P. W ADHW A, J. Petitioner - Indian Heritage Society and others are
aggrieved by the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated September I I, H
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A 1996 holding that construction of toilet block near "Gateway of India" in
Mumbai by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay is valid.
-
The petitioners had filed writ petition in the Bombay High Court as
Public Interest Litigation praying for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction to quash and set aside all permissions and sanctions
B granted by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and the Municipal
Commissioner for the construction of "new public toilet block abutting the
~ea on the northern side of the plaza of the Gateway of India and for the
demolition of the existing old toilet block". A writ of mandamus was also
sought directing Indian Hotels Company Ltd. to take all necessary steps
c under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,
1966 to prevent and prohibit the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay,
the Municipal Commissioner and the State of Maharashtra from proceeding
with the construction of the said new toilet block and for demolition of old
toilet block. Lastly, the petitioners prayed requiring Union of India in the
Ministry of Environment and Forests to take necessary steps under the
D provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to prohibit the aforesaid
_respondents from proceeding with the construction of the said new public
toilet block. There was also a prayer for demolition of the existing old toilet
block and of whatever construction of the new public toilet block was there.
In short the writ petition was directed against the construction of the new
E toilet block near the Gateway of India and for demolition of the old toilet
block.

High Court in the impugned judgment said that it was not a fit case for
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution when the Municipal _..

Corporation was providing a facility which is a must for the human beings ~

F at a place which is visited by thousands of persons everyday. It said that
facility of providing toilet block was also to prevent nuisance because there
could be unauthorized use of the open spaces around the Gateway of India
by persons to answer calls of nature. It was noticed that the resolution to
construct toilet block was passed as far back on August 5, 1991 and till after
G the toilet block was constructed the writ petition was filed only March 13,
1992. After having said so High Court also examined the merits of the case
and dismissed the writ petition. Interim relief which the High Court had
granted from using the new toilet block by the public was vacated.

Before us the petitioners have given up their challenge to the
H construction of the new toilet block or relief for demolition of the old toilet
P.N. KUMAR v. BOMBAY M.C. [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 909
block. Their grievance is that in the judgment High Court made certain A
observations which will strike death-knell for other writ petitions pending in
the High Court seeking reliefs under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) ,
Notification dated February 19, 1991 and other provisions of the Environment
(Protection) Act. Once it is conceded that the petitioners are not challenging
the construction of the new toilet block or the existence of the old toilet block B
it was not necessary for us to deal with this matter as all the observations
made by the High Court would be with reference to the issue of the
construction of new and existence of the old toilet blocks near the Gateway
of India. However, we may note that the petitioners have objected to the
following observations made in the impugned judgment :-

I. Necessarily it would mean that once an area is covered under
c
CRZ II, it would not be covered by CRZ I.
2. So far as the question of applicability of CRZ II, admittedly the
area near Gateway of India is fully developed upto shore line.
It is within the Municipal limits of Greater Mumbai. It is already D
completely built up and it has been provided with drainage and
approach roads and other infrastructural facilities. Hence, the
entire city of Mumbai would fall within the ambit of CRZ II.
3. In view of clause (I) of CRZ II it is clear that building cannot
be pennitted to the seaward side of the existing road or proposed E
in the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan. Considering
the above, it cannot be said that the construction of toilet block
on the existing road is in violation of CRZ II. It is not beyond
the road on the- sea-ward side.
--r- According to petitioners the effect of these observations would be (1) that F
the entire city of Mumbai fall within the ambit of CRZ II; (2) that once an area
is covered under CRZ II, it could not fall within the ambit of CRZ I or CRZ
III; and (3) that for construciton to be not in violation of CRZ II, it must fall
beyond the existing road on the seaward side, as against being on the road
which is the condition prescribed in the CRZ Notification, 1991.
G
We have examined the record of the case. We do not think it is anybody's
case that whole of the Mumbai would fall within the ambit of CRZ II.
Observations of the High Court that entire city of Mumbai would fall within
the ambit of CRZ II do not appear to be quite warranted.

Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests issued H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 2 S.C.R.

A Notification No. S.O. l 14(E) dated February 19, 1991 under the provisions of
Section 3(1) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act and
Rules made thereunder declaring coastal stretches as Coastal Regulation
Zone (CRZ) and regulating the activities in the CRZ. A corrigendum bearing
No. S.O. 190(E) dated March 18, 1991 was issued in partial modification of the
B aforesaid notification dated February 20, 1991. There has been amendment to
these regulations by Notification No. S.O. 494 (E) dated July 9, 1997. Central
Government also addressed a communication dated September 27, 1996 to the
Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai on the subject of Coastal
Zone
\.
Management Plan (CZMP) of Maharashtra conveying its approval subject
to certain conditions and modifications mentioned in the said letter. It is not
C necessary for us to refer. to the notification dated July 9, 1997 and the letter
of approval to the CZMP dated September 27, 1996 as these developments
have occurred after the impugned judgment and the effect thereof would be
considered in an appropriate cas.e.

Central Government before us has submitted that as per approval dated
D September 27, 1996 construction of building shall be permitted only to the
landward side of the existing road. Central Government does not accept the
view that the entire city or'Bombay falls within the ambit of CRZ II. It is stated
that the impugned CZMP of Maharashtra CRZ areas of Mumbai city have
been categorized as CRZ I, CRZ II and CRZ III as per definition given in the
E notification dated February 20, 1991. It is further stated that "the areas that
· are relatively undisturbed and those which do not belong to either category
I or II will qualify for CRZ- III category. These areas will include Coastal Zone
in the rural areas (developed and undeveloped) and also .areas within municipal
limits or in other legally designated urban areas which are not substantially
built up. From this provision, it is clear that CRZ- III areas can exist even .....,_
.

F within the municipal limits or urban areas." Central Government has also
submitted that sirice the revised CZMP of Maharashtra has not yet been
'
received from the Government of Maharashtra, the Ministry of Environment
.and Forest is not aware whether the area under reference (area around the
Gateway of India) is categorized as CRZ-I or CRZ-11. In case the area is
G categorized as CRZ-I, no new construction is permissible in the CRZ area only
to the extent upto which the area has been categorized as CRZ-1. In case the
area is categorized as CRZ-II construction of buildings are not permitted on
the seaward side of the existing road (or road proposed in the approved
CZMP of the area) or on the seaward side of the existing authorized structures.

H Stress of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay has been to the
P.N. KUMAR v. BOMBAY M.C. [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 911
validity of the construction of the new toilet block. That is something which_ A
is not now being challenged. As to the observations in the impugned judgment
that "the entire city of Bombay would fall within the ambit of Coastal Regulation
Zone II", it was submitted that the High Court was not concerned with the
other areas except Fort area where the structure of Gateway of India is
situated and whole of the area is built up within roads and all infrastructural
facilities to the structure. In this view of the matter it was submitted that it B
was not necessary in this case to consider whether the structure or any other
place falls within the CRZ I or CRZ II. It was then submitted that State
Government had clarified that it would be sending the revised guidelines for
CRZ and it was most unlikely that the structure of Gateway of India would
be falling with the CRZ I and the area around it would fall in CRZ II ~nd that C
the said revised proposal was likely to be issued by the State Government
"very soon".

Having said so we do not think it is necessary for us to consider the
matter any further and would leave. the consideration of notification dated
July 9, 1997 amending the earlier notification dated February 20, 1991 and also D
the communication dated September 27, 1996 addressed by the Central
Government to the State of Maharashtra in an appropriate case .

. With these observations these petitions are disposed of.

A.Q. Petitions disposed of. E