Coastal Zone Management Authority - granting approval - Court cannot in the absence of any contrary material

Kerala High Court
M.K.Salim vs State Of Kerala on 13 August, 2021
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
 PRESENT
 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI
 &
 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
 FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1943
 WP(C) NO. 19580 OF 2019

34. The next allegation against the construction is based on CRZ violations. Petitioner has raised a
two-pronged attack regarding CRZ violation against the construction in question. The first objection
is regarding the Aakulam Lake, while the second objection is based on the proximity to the Parvathy
Puthanar Canal. Petitioner contends that the construction area falls within the prohibited distance
under the CRZ notification from the Aakulam Lake as well as the Parvathy Puthanar Canal.
35. The Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, which is arrayed as the 4th respondent, has
affirmed that the project was approved by the said authority after verifying the details submitted by
the 7th respondent. According to the 4 th respondent, though the HTL line was demarcated and
approved in 1996 as per the CRZ notification of 1991, a new Coastal Zone Management Plan was
prepared as per CRZ notification of 2011. This subsequent plan was approved only on 28.02.2019
and till the approval, the plan under 1991 notification was in force. It is understood from the
pleadings that the Coastal Zone Management Authority looked at it from another angle, in the sense
that, even if the project fell under CRZ III category, still there could be no objection to the
construction as the distance between the Aakulam Lake and the proposed construction was beyond
100 metres. Similarly as regards the Parvathy Puthanar Canal that runs near to the proposed
construction, its width being less than 25 metres, the construction did not fall within the prohibited
distance under the CRZ notification. It is evident that the petitioner is under a misconception that
under CRZ regulations the prohibited distance applies equally from every water body. From the
Parvathy Puthanar Canal the prohibited distance is to be measured as 100 metres or width of the
canal towards the landward side, whichever is less. When the Coastal Zone Management Authority
asserts that while granting approval/recommendations for the project, they had ascertained the
width and the distance measured and found the questioned construction to be falling beyond the
prohibited distance, this Court cannot in the absence of any contrary materials, disregard the said
assertions and recommendation of the statutory authority. Petitioner has not placed any material to
disprove the assertion of the KCZMA. In the above circumstances, we hold that the construction in
question does not fall within the prohibited distance under the CRZ notification.