Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9
PETITIONER:
GOA FOUNDATION, GOA.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DIKSHA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/11/2000
BENCH:
G.B. Pattanaik, & Umesh C. Banerjee.
JUDGMENT:
PATTANAIK,J.
L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
This appeal by the Goa Foundation, is directed against
the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 8th of October,
1999, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
Initially, the appeal had been filed through counsel, but
later on, the appearing counsel having withdrawn, the appeal
was argued by the Secretary of the Goa Foundation, Dr.
Claude Alvares. The appellant filed the writ petition
before the High Court as a Public Interest Litigation,
objecting to the construction of a hotel on a plot of land
situated in the area of Nagorcem, Palolem, Taluka- Cancona,
Goa, inter alia, on the ground that the land in question
comes within CRZ-I, and as such it is not permissible to
have any construction on the same plot of land. It was also
contended that the plan and sanction obtained for such
construction from the competent authority, are in
contravention of the provisions of the Environment
(Protection) Act and such permission has been granted by the
concerned authority without application of mind and without
considering the relevant materials, and, therefore, the
Court should issue mandamus, injuncting the hotelier- Diksha
Holdings Pvt. Ltd., from constructing the proposed hotel on
the disputed plot of land. It was also contended before the
High Court that there exist large number of sand dunes and
by permitting the respondent to have the hotel complex on
the plot of land will ultimately lead to irreversible
ecological damage of the coastal area, and, therefore, the
Court should prevent such construction. The High Court in
the impugned judgment, took into consideration the balancing
task of maintaining and preserving the environment and
ecology of the pristine beach with sand dunes and the
development of hotels and holiday resorts for economical
development of the State. It also took into account several
Acts and Regulations like Town and Country Planning Act, the
CRZ Notification, the Coastal Zone Management Plan. It also
took into account the approval of the Ministry of
Environment and Forest, under which the disputed hotel
complex comes as CRZ-III, the Court also took into account
the Expert Committees recommendations, recommending the
hotel project for environmental clearance, indicating
therein that the existing sand dunes will not be disturbed
in any manner and also the fact that the Goa Foundation had
submitted its representation to the Ministry of Environment
and forest, objecting to the construction of the hotel at
the disputed location. The High Court also took into
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9
account several inspections carried on by the different
authorities and the fact that the Chief Town Planner
submitted its report to the Ministry of Environment and
forest, stating therein that the construction of the hotel
will not affect the sand dunes. The High Court also had
privilege of going through the report submitted by Dr.
N.P.S. Varde, the Director of Science, Technology and
Environment, Goa, who had categorically indicated that the
hotel project is located on undistributed beach eco-system
which has mostly gradually undulating landscape covered with
stable dune vegetation which in a strict technical sense can
be classified as sand dunes, and he was also of the opinion
that if such technical view is taken, no development can
ever be taken place along with the sea coast of Goa. The
Ministry of Environment and Forest also had taken the
opinion of the Secretary, Department of Science, Technology
& Environment on the question whether sand dunes exist at
the site of proposed hotel. The Ministry of Environment and
Forest also sent one of its Scientists Dr. R. Warrier to
the place where the hotel complex was to come up and said
Dr. Warrier submitted his inspection report on 16th of
September, 1997 and it is only after that, the Ministry
granted clearance on 9th of October, 1997. On getting such
clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, the
Cancona Municipal Council granted license for construction
of hotel on 16th January, 1998. On these set of materials
and applying the law relating to the approach of a Court in
a Public Interest Litigation, the High Court came to the
conclusion that the appropriate authority have accorded
permission for construction of the hotel on the disputed
site, after consideration of relevant and germane materials
and the writ petitioner has failed to establish any
illegality in the matter of grant of such permission. The
High Court recorded a finding that the State Authorities as
well the Central Government were aware of the existance of
sand dunes formation up-to 200 meters strip from shore line
where no construction is permitted and beyond the said 200
meters strip within which the hotel complex is proposed to
be build up is under category CRZ III and as such there is
no prohibition for construction of the hotel within that
area. The High Court accordingly, dismissed the writ
petition filed by the Goa Foundation.
Assailing the impugned judgment of the High Court Dr.
Claude Alvares, Secretary of the Goa Foundation, contended
with vehemence that the foundation is committed to preserve
the environment and ecology of the coastal zone and it is
with that objective the writ petition had been filed in the
High Court, as Foundation was of the opinion that relevant
materials had not been placed before the appropriate
authority before the environmental clearance was obtained
from the Ministry of Forest and Environment and before the
Municipal Council sanctioned the plan for construction of
the hotel. According to the appellant, coastal stretches
having been declared as Coastal Regulation Zone (for short
CRZ) in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) and
3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and rule
5(3)(d) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 and
restrictions on the setting up and expansion of industries
having been put within the said CRZ, which lies upto 500
meters of the High Tide Line, the concerned authorities
committed gross error in granting environmental clearance as
well as in granting permission to the respondent for setting
up the hotel complex. The appellant also submitted that the
existance of sand dunes having been admitted in several
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9
reports, the disputed area in question should have been
categorised as Category I (CRZ I) which does not permit any
new construction except those listed under 2(xii) between
Low Tide Line and the High Tide Line and the so-called
reports classifying the land over which the hotel complex is
coming up as CRZ-III are motivated and designedly made to
assist the respondent in having the hotel complex and,
therefore, this is a fit case where this Court should
prohibit the construction of hotel, annulling the permission
granted by the Municipal Council and annulling the
environmental clearance of the Ministry of Environment and
Forest, Govt. of India or at least, this Court should remit
the matter for re- consideration to the Department of
Ministry of Environment and Forest for consideration of some
fresh data which the Goa Foundation has found subsequent to
the filing of the writ petition before the High Court.
Mr. I.M. Chhagla, the learned senior counsel appearing
for the respondent, on the other hand contended that it has
been held by this Court in several cases that in the matter
of developmental activities and protection of environment
and ecology, the Courts approach should be to achieve an
appropriate balance between the development and the
environment, so that both can co-exist without affecting the
other. The High Court in the impugned judgment, has
approached the problem from the aforesaid stand point. It
took into account all the relevant materials which had been
considered by the Ministry of Environment and Forest before
granting environmental clearance and on the basis of such
clearance, ultimately the Municipal Council sanctioned the
plan for putting up the hotel and no contrary materials
could be produced before the High Court to take any adverse
view or to enable the High Court to come to the conclusion
that either the concerned authorities did not apply their
mind to the relevant and germane materials or that the
clearance and sanction of the plan was obtained by any
unfair means. According to Mr. Chhagla, it took long 22
months for the respondent to obtain the necessary sanction
of the plan and such delay in obtaining the sanction of the
plan has already caused enormous escalation of cost in
bringing the hotel project. Mr. Chhagla, also further
submitted on instructions that the structural construction
of hotel has almost been completed and at this length of
time it would be wholly inequitable and inappropriate to
accept the contention of the appellant to remit the matter
to the Ministry of Environment and Forest for
re-consideration. Mr. Chhagla also placed before us the
different reports of different authorities at different
point of time and, so far as the subsequent report of the
National Institute of Oceanography, obtained by the Goa
Foundation during the pendency of this appeal in this Court,
Mr. Chhagla submits that two of the members were also
Members of the Committee which cleared the environmental
clearance and as such no credence can be given to such self-
serving report. Dr. Claude Alvares, in his reply however
submitted that the Foundation has no self-serving interest
in the matter except its effort to protect the environment
and ecology. He also submitted that two Members who were
5party to the environmental clearance had themselves
indicated that they were mere signatories to the decision
taken without any application of mind, and, therefore the
report of the National Institute of Oceanography which was
submitted in this Court should be given its due weight.
Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, the learned Additional Solicitor
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9
General, appearing for the State of Goa, submitted with
vehemence that the State Government and the concerned
authorities, for granting license, have acted only after the
Govt. of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forest
gave environmental clearance to the proposal of setting up
of a hotel. Mr. Rohtagi also contended that in a State
like Goa, where economy of the state, depends fully on
tourism, if hotels are not allowed to come up on the sea
shore, then the development of the State will come to a
grinding halt. At the same time, the learned counsel
submitted that the ecology and environment, must be
protected and in the case in hand, the Government has
proceeded from the aforesaid stand point. According to Mr.
Rohtagi, several inspections having made to examine whether
permission can be granted at the proposed place for
construction of hotel and on being fully satisfied that such
permission, does not contravene any of the prohibitions and
restrictions, contained in the CRZ notification as well as
provisions contained in the Environment (Protection) Act,
the State authorities have accorded permission to the
respondent for building up the hotel, and, therefore, the
High Court was fully justified in dismissing the writ
petition filed by the appellant and this Court should not
interfere with the said order. The learned counsel,
appearing for the Union of India, more or less, reiterated
the stand taken by the learned Additional Solicitor General,
appearing for the State of Goa.
Before we examine the materials on record to test the
correctness of the rival submissions, we think it
appropriate to notice one or two decisions, indicating the
approach of a Court in such matters concerning environment
and development. The Calcutta High Court in the case of
People United for Better Living in CalcuttaPublic and
another vs. State of West Bengal and ors. AIR 1993
CALCUTTA 215, had the occasion to deal with a similar
problem in relation to the wetland and the learned Single
Judge (U.C.Banerjee, J, as he then was) came to the
conclusion:
There is no manner of doubt that the issue of
environmental degradation cannot but be termed to be a
social problem and considering the growing awareness and
considering the impact of this problem on the society in
regard thereto Law Courts should also rise upto the occasion
to deal with the situation as it demands in the present day
context: Law Courts have a social duty since it is a part
of the society and as such, must always function having due
regard to the present day problems which the society faces.
It is now a well-settled principle of law that
socio-economic condition of the country cannot be ignored by
a Court of law. It is now a well-settled principle of law
that while dealing with the matter, the social problems
shall have to be dealt with in the way and in the manner it
calls for, since benefit to the society ought to be the
prime consideration of the Law Courts and ecological
imbalance being a social problem ought to be decided by a
court of law so that the society may thrive and prosper
without any affection.
The learned Judge had indicated in the said judgment
that there should be a proper balance between the protection
of environment and the development process : The society
shall have to prosper, but not at the cost of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9
environment and in the similar vein, the environment shall
have to be protected but not at the cost of the development
of the society there shall have to be both development and
proper environment and as such, a balance has to be found
out and administrative actions ought to proceed in
accordance therewith and not dhors the same. In the case
of Indian Council for Enviro- Legal Action vs. Union of
India and Ors. 1996(5) SCC, 281, this Court had the
occasion to deal with the question of protection of 6000 kms
long coast line of India and the Court emphasised that it
would be the duty and responsibility of the coastal states
and Union Territories in which the stretches exist, to see
that the notifications issued under the provisions of
Environment(Protection) Rules as well as the notifications
issued, declaring the coastal stretches should be properly
and duly implemented and the various restrictions on the
setting up and expansion of industries, operation or process
etc. in the Regulation Zone should be strictly enforced.
The Court had indicated that with a view to protect the
ecological balance in the coastal areas, notifications
having been issued by the Central Government, there ought
not to be any violation and the prohibited activities should
not be allowed to come up within the area declared as CRZ
notification. The Court also emphasised that no activities
which would ultimately lead to unscientific and
unsustainable development and ecological destruction should
at all be allowed and the Courts must scrupulously try to
protect the ecology and environment and should shoulder
greater responsibility of which the Court can have closer
awareness and easy monitoring.
Bearing in mind the observations made in the aforesaid
cases, let us now examine the case in hand to find out as to
whether there exists any infraction of any rule, regulation
or law by granting environmental clearance in favour of the
respondent to have the hotel complex and whether there
exists any authentic data or material before us for coming
to a conclusion that by allowing such hotel complex at the
disputed plot would upset the environment and ecological
balance of the area and would really have the effect of
damaging the pristine beach with sand dunes, if any.
Coming to the CRZ notification, it transpires that the
Ministry of Environment and Forest, issued the Notification
on 19th of February, 1991 in exercise of powers under
Section 3(1) and section 3(2)(v) of the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 and rule 5(3)(d) of the Environment
(Protection) Rules, 1986, declaring Coastal Stretches as
Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and Regulating Activities in
the CRZ. Be it be stated, the aforesaid notification was
issued after considering duly, all the objections received
by the Central Government. Paragraph 2 of the aforesaid
notification declares certain activities as prohibited
activities within the CRZ. Clause (xiii) prohibits dressing
or altering of sand dunes, hills, natural features including
landscape changes for beautification, recreational and other
such purpose, except as permissible under the Notification.
Paragraph 3 of the Regulation, provides that all other
activities, except those prohibited in para 2 will be
regulated, as indicated under the said paragraph. Annexure
1 to the Notification classifies the Coastal Regulation Zone
into four categories, but Category IV relates to Coastal
stretches in the Andaman & Nicobar, Lakshadweep and small
islands and as such all other coastal stretches in the
country are classified into three categories namely CRZ- I,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9
CRZ-II, and CRZ-III. Paragraph 6 of the Notification
provides the norms for regulation of the activities and so
far as CRZ I is concerned, it categorically provides that no
new construction shall be permitted within 500 meters of the
High Tide Line and no construction activity, except as
listed under 2(xii), will be permitted between the Low Tide
Line and the High Tide Line. By the proviso, certain
constructions have been permitted, like construction of
dispensaries, schools, public rain shelters, community
toilets, bridges, jetties, water supply, drainage and
sewerage etc., but the proviso applies to the State of West
Bengal in Sunderban area. Under CRZ- III, an area upto 200
meters from High Tide Line is to be earmarked as No
Development Zone. But development of vacant plots between
200 meters and 500 meters of High Tide Line in designated
areas of CRZ III with the prior approval of Ministry of
Environment and Forest is permitted for construction of
hotels/beach resorts, subject to the conditions stipulated
in the guidelines at Annexure-II. Annexure-II to the
notification provides detailed guidelines for development of
beach resorts and hotels in the areas of CRZ-III. According
the appellant, the plot of land on which the respondent has
been granted permission to construct the hotel is CRZ-I and
by allowing such construction of hotel, necessarily, there
will be dressing or altering of sand dunes, which is a
prohibited activity under paragraph 2 (xiii) of the
Notification, whereas according to the Union Government, the
State Government and the hotelier, the plot of land falls
under Category CRZ-III and the same being beyond 200 meters
from the High Tide Line, developmental activities for
construction of hotel is permissible with the prior approval
of the Ministry of Environment and Forest and as such there
has been no infraction of the CRZ notification. In fact the
High Court in the impugned judgment has come to the finding
that the land in question falls within the Category CRZ-III
of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, issued by the
Government of India and, therefore, one question has to be
answered whether the land has been appropriately categorised
as CRZ III, as contended by the respondent or it ought to
have been classified as CRZ I, as contended by the
appellant.
Under the main notification issued by the Government of
India, referred to earlier, the Coastal States and Union
Territory Administrations were required to prepare within
one year from the date of the notification, Coastal Zone
Management Plan (hereinafter referred to as the Management
Plan), identifying and clarifying the Regulation Zone Areas
within the respective territories, in accordance with the
guidelines contained in the main Notification and those
plans were required to be approved with or without
modifications by the Ministry of Environment and Forest,
Govt. of India. The Notification of the Union of India
further stipulates that within the framework of the approved
Management Plan, all developments and activities within the
Regulation Zone, except the prohibited activities and those
which require environmental clearance from the Ministry of
Environment and Forest, Govt. of India, were to be
regulated by the State Government. The Goa State Coastal
Zone Management Plan stood approved by the Govt. of India
Ministry of Environment and Forest on 27th of September,
1996 with certain conditions mentioned in the letter and
this approval purports to have been accorded in exercise of
powers vested in the Central Government under Section
3(3)(i) of the CRZ Notification of 1991. In the State of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9
Goa, so far as Cancona Taluka is concerned, in which Taluka,
the proposed hotel of the respondent situates, the whole of
Cancona Taluka is classified as CRZ I, except settlement
area, which is classified as CRZ III and in Nagorcem area,
the entire area is classified as CRZ I, except settlement
area which is classified as CRZ III. According to the
various reports submitted by the State Government to the
Govt. of India as well as reports obtained by the Union of
India through its own scientists, in the area, where the
permission has been accorded for construction of hotel, lot
of settlement and built up structures are available like
temples, schools etc. and that the plot of land is located
beyond 200 meters of the High Tide Line. On going through
the aforesaid CRZ Notification issued by the Government of
India as well as the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan
of State of Goa, we are not in a position to persuade
ourselves to agree with the submission of Dr. Claude
Alvares, appearing in person for the appellant that there
has been an infraction of any provisions, and by allowing
construction of hotel on the land, the authorities have
allowed certain prohibited activities.
Coming to the materials on record, we find in the High
Court itself, the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Govt.
of India had filed the affidavit, indicating therein that as
per the information submitted by the Govt. of Goa, the area
of the proposed construction is designated as settlement
area and the same has been categorised as CRZ-III in the
approved Coastal Zone Management Plan of Goa. It was also
averred in the said affidavit that the proposal for
construction of hotel was thoroughly examined by the
Ministry, including a visit to the site where the
construction of hotel is proposed and the sand dunes and
only after satisfying that the construction of the project
was not on the sand dunes, the approval for the project was
given by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forest. The
respondent No. 1, the hotelier in his counter affidavit
before the High Court had categorically stated:
The changes inter alia pertain to the said property
bearing Survey Nos. 28/1, 29/1, 33/1 to 33/2 of the Village
Nagorcem/Palolem notified in the Official Gazette annexed as
Exhibit R-1. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit R-2 is a
copy of the said Notification dated 5.4.1990. As the said
property was earmarked as a settlement/beach resort area,
the Respondent No. 1 negotiated its acquisition and
purchased it from the concerned owners thereof in the year
1994. In portions of the said property there are various
houses of occupants, namely in survey No.28/1 numbering 19
occupied by various families. There is a school within a
part of property bearing survey No. 28/1. There is also a
house of the owners and a temple which was constructed by
the owners of the said property, namely the kunde family for
the local residents within the property bearing Survey No.
28/1 and right at the back of the said property within
survey no. 30/41 there existed a canning factory belonging
to the owners, which now belong to the 1st Respondent and is
the project office of the 1st Respondent.
This assertion of fact was not controverted by the
appellant before us, who was the petitioner in the High
Court, though a rejoinder was filed in the High Court. The
Govt. of Goa, Department of Urban Development, Town and
Country Planning Department, had issued a notification under
Section 17 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9
Planning Act, 1974, way back in the year 1986 and in the
said Notification, so far as Nagorcem/Palolem and in
relation to Survey No. 28, 29, 33/1, the proposed user has
been indicated to be settlement (beach/resort). The
disputed plot of land in the case in hand falls within the
aforesaid area and, therefore, it is crystal clear that the
area in question was proposed to be used for settlement
(beach/resort). Dr. N.P.S. Varde, on receipt of the
letter from the Ministry of Environment and Forest vis-a-vis
the representation made by the Goa Foundation on the subject
of environmental clearance to the Goa Resort Hotel at
Nagorcem, examined the matter in consultation with the Town
and Country Planning Department and had categorically
indicated that the area falls within CRZ III Category as per
the CZMP approval dated 27th September, 1996 issued by the
Ministry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi. In the said
report, he had indicated the existance of sand dunes and the
number thereof and had also further stated that the
construction of resort complex will not disturb the dunes in
any manner and the dunes will remain undisturbed. He had
also stated that unless a realistic criteria is adopted for
mapping out prominent and ecologically sensitive dunes as
CRZ I areas, then a vast percentage of Goas coastline
within 200 to 500 meters of High Tide Line will be out of
bound for any development. The Chief Town Planner also
after inspection of the site had submitted a report on 21st
of February, 1997, indicating therein that the contour plan
given by the hotelier does not tally with the existing sand
dunes. Mr. R.N. Ray of the Town Planning Department, Goa,
also had intimated to the Secretary , Department of
Environment and Forest, Govt. of India that the proposed
building of the hotelier do not affect the sand dunes and
even the sand accumulations were protected by modifying the
layout of the cottages in the section. It may be borne in
mind that the appellant- Goa Foundation, had filed its
objections before the environmental authorities, requesting,
not to grant environmental clearance and it is because of
such objections, the department of Environment and Forest
had taken adequate care in obtaining reports from different
sources including their own source and then, ultimately came
to the conclusion that there possibly cannot be any
objection to allow the hotel project to come up at the place
particularly, when there exist several earlier settlements
and structures over the area. On these mass of materials
and those materials having been obtained after the appellant
objected to grant of environmental clearance to the hotel
project, when the Central Government granted the
environmental clearance, we see no infirmity with the said
grant of clearance nor are we in a position to hold that the
conclusion of the competent authority are based on non-
consideration of any relevant and germane materials. On the
other hand, the Central Government has taken due care in
obtaining reports from the authorities of the Goa Government
as well as deputed its own scientists to have a spot
inspection and report about the feasibility of the hotel
project being cleared up. Under the aforesaid
circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the
disputed plot situate in Category CRZ III and was available
for development by way of construction of hotel/beach resort
in the development plan of Goa, which was duly approved by
the Central Government and the activities in question cannot
be held to be prohibited activity under the initial
notification of the Govt. of India.
The appellant Dr. Claude Alvares, however placed before
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9
us the report of the National Institute of Oceanography,
which was obtained during the pendency of this appeal in
this Court and contended that in view of the aforesaid
authentic document, it would be meet and proper for this
Court to remit the matter to the Union Government for
re-consideration. While the matter was pending in this
Court, the Goa Foundation wrote a letter to the Director of
National Institute of Oceanography, asking some
clarification and comments in relation to the pending appeal
of the Goa Foundation in this Court and it is in that
context the National Institute of Oceanography has given the
report on which so much of emphasis has been given by the
appellant. Two of the scientists, belonging to the National
Institute of Oceanography who were the authors of the report
namely Dr. Antonio Mascarenhas and Dr. Kalidas Sawkar were
Members of the Goa State Committee for Coastal Environment
and they were signatories to the approved plan in the
meeting held on 15th of March, 1996 and they never objected
to the aforesaid approved plan, though now, they indicate
that permission granted for the hotel would have the effect
of demolishing the sand dunes. That apart, though the writ
petition is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation at
the instance of the Goa Foundation, but the said Goa
Foundation had vehemently objected before the Department of
Environment and Forest, which cleared the hotel project in
question and, therefore, it must be assumed that all
necessary materials in their possession had been produced
before the Government of India. The present report of
National Institute of Oceanography, if read with the letter
of the Goa Foundation dated 20th of April, 1999,
unequivocally indicates that the Goa Foundation had obtained
this report just to nullify the environmental clearance,
granted by the Department of Environment and Forest. On the
basis of such reports, we are unable to accept the
alternative prayer of Dr. Claude Alvares, that the matter
should be remitted back to the Department of Environment and
Forest for re- consideration of their approval granted
earlier. In our considered opinion, this subsequent report
obtained by the appellant cannot be considered for coming to
a conclusion that the conclusion of the environmental
authorities and the consequential clearance of the project
is either based on non- consideration of the relevant
materials or ignoring any vital material, requiring
re-consideration, more so, when the structural construction
of the hotel project is nearing completion. In our
considered opinion, the appellant has utterly failed to
establish by referring to any authentic material that there
has been an infraction of any provisions of the CRZ
Notification or the approved Management Plan of Goa nor is
there any illegality in the order of the Government of
India, granting environmental clearance as well as the order
of the State Authorities in sanctioning the project on the
basis of such environmental clearance.
This appeal, accordingly fails and is dismissed, but in
the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.