MINUTES FOR THE 67TH MEETING OF THE GOA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY HELD ON 02 / 04 / 2012 (Monday) and on 10 / 04 / 2012 (Tuesday) (Sub-Committee) in the Conference Hall, 2nd Floor, Secretariat, Porvorim. 67.1 Minutes of the 60th, 61st, 62nd, 63rd, 64th, 65th & 66th Sub Committee meeting held on 14/07/2011, 21/07/2011, 03/08/2011 & 10/08/2011, 20/09/2011, 04/10/2011, 21/10/2011, 22/11/2011 respectively are hereby confirmed. 67.2 Personal Hearing in cases referred by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa 67.2.1 Ms. Sudarshan Dry Docks v/s GCZMA ……………… W.P. No. 761 of 2011 and MCA No. 192 of 2012 [Annexed, (i) Order of High Court in W.P. 761 of 2011 dated 15th December, 2011, (ii) Order of High Court in MCA 192 of 2012 dated 16th February 2012.] Proceedings: The matter was taken up by the Authority; for discussion in the 67th Meeting of the GCZMA held on 02/04/2012. Adv. R. Tamba was present on behalf of M/s Sudarshan Dry docks. Shri. Rudresh Naik, was also present, Adv. Tamba raised preliminary objection that the Notice for the personal hearing by the GCZMA was in respect of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 05/08/2011 and not for the SCN dated 09/07/2010. He was asked, whether he would like to defend his stand against the SCN dated 09/07/2010 also he responded that he is not prepared for the same and will defend his stand in SCN dated 05/08/2011 as and when notice is issued to him separately Adv. Tamba pointed out to the provision of Clause (8) of the CRZ Notification, 2011, which states that under CRZ-III, in notified port limits there is no NDZ. He relied on the notification of the CoP of the year 1967, which declares the river portion of the tributary of the Mandovi as part of port limits. As such the riverside portion would not come under the purview of NDZ as defined under CRZ Notification. Therefore he held that the GCZMA has no authority to decide in the matter and that to construct and develop jetties; he is well within his rights. He stated that he has been granted approval by the CoP and that SCN issued by the CoP has been decided in his favour. GCZMA pointed out the judgment in the matter of PIL W.P. No. 3 of 2011, Franky Monteiro v/s GCZMA, where the similar land was used by a barge repair unit at Rassaim. The Hon’ble High Court took the stand that even though the area may be within notified port limits, and even if NDZ is not applicable, any development would require the prior approval of the GCZMA under CRZ regulation. This was disputed by Adv. Tamba, by stating that the facts and circumstances of the case are different and this order cannot be made applicable here. The Chief Conservator of Forests (CCF), one of the Members of the GCZMA, sought to know the details about the trees and other type of vegetative cover cut at the site and whether there was any approval was taken for the same. Adv. Tamba replied that the area is pristine and that there is no record of the number of coconut trees existing in the said plot. Adv. Tamba, stated that he has nothing more to add and all questions have been answered in the reply to the SCN. Hearing concluded, with instructions that the petitioner would be informed about the next date of hearing to consider the SCN dated 09/07/2010 would be in the next week. Both Adv. Tamba along with Shri Rudresh Naik acknowledged the same. Decision: The GCZMA Members perused the details of the case, documentary evidence, the site inspection reports, the site photographs and the replies given by the petitioner. Members perused the CRZ Notification in detail vis-à-vis the contention of the petitioner that the CRZ rules do not apply to him. It is seen that, as per Clause (3), all types of industrial activity is prohibited, except that which requires foreshore or water front facility. Further according to Clause (4), the scope of permissible activities is defined. The petitioner’s activity is covered as peripheral activity to a harbour, jetty, ship repair yards etc.. For this activity one requires prior approval for development from the GCZMA. Page 1 of 11 Clause (8), under CRZ-III indicates that the NDZ is not applicable in notified port limits. That means the area can be developed as per the permissible activity allowed under the regulations. However since it is permissible activity, prior approval of the GCZMA is a must. The stand taken by the petitioner, that no approval is required from the GCZMA is untenable. The Members relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Franky Monterio v/s GCZMA, wherein the submissions made by the GCZMA in affidavit, that although the area concerned falls under notified Port Limits, prior approvals from authorities concerned including GCZMA has to be obtained and that the CRZ Notification is applicable; has been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court. As such, it is very much required that the prior approval of the GCZMA is essential under the law. The petitioner very well knows this fact; otherwise he need not have filed an application for dry dock / slipway /floating pontoon etc. before the authority. Hence, the petitioner ought to have taken prior approval of the authority. But he has proceeded to construct the dry dock without obtaining the permissions covered by law. Members took exception to the fact that the petitioner has misused the permission granted by the authority for temporary floating pontoon and has falsely used the same for cutting the land mass to suitable gradient to facilitate construction of a dry dock. This has caused, irreversible damage to the geological features at the site, thus affecting and damaging the coastal and riverine ecosystem. Thus the petitioner has violated the provisions of the CRZ regulation and in doing so has violated the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act (EPA), 1986. The petitioner is thus liable for issue of such direction under section 5 of the EPA, 1986; to make good the geological and ecological loss at site, by back filling the cut portion and the cavity formed in the property and restore the area back to its original status. The permission granted for floating pontoon and barge repair facility /activity should also be revoked. The matter also needs to be referred to the appropriate authority for inquiry under section 15 read with section 19 of the EPA, 1986. The GCZMA Members, decided that the aforesaid directions be issued and action taken against the petitioner as per the provisions of the EPA, 1986. Members further observed that the matter pertaining to the cutting of land mass and the hill beyond the permissible gradient be referred to the Town and Country Planning Department for action under the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 and that pertaining to the destruction of vegetative cover be referred to the Forest Department. 67.3 Site inspections for repairs / renovations/ other GCZMA matters, new projects and minor developmental works. Item No. 1 (Construction/Reconstruction/Development in CRZ-II Area). Case No. 1.1 Proposed NOC construction of Staff Quarters/Vaccination/Quarantine Centre in Chalta No. 8 of P.T. sheet No. 7 of Vasco city, Mormugao Taluka, by Directorate General of Health Services Port Health organization. (GCZMA/S/11-12/). DECISION: Approved from CRZ angle, permission for re-construction granted subject to the condition that the plinth and FAR remain the same and in accordance with TCP and local authority guidelines. Case No. 1.2 Proposed NOC construction of G+2 residential building in Chalta No. 6 of P.T. sheet No. 105 of Vasco city, Mormugao Taluka, by Mr. Mohammad Rafiq Katalsab Patwekar (GCZMA/S/11-12/). DECISION: Approved from CRZ angle, permission for re-construction granted subject to the condition that the plinth and FAR remain the same and in accordance with TCP and local authority guidelines Case No. 1.3 Proposed NOC construction of fellow Lab Chalta No. 02 of P.T. sheet No. 25 of Vasco city, Mormugao Taluka, by National Centre for Antarctic & Ocean Research (GCZMA/S/11- 12/). Page 2 of 11 DECISION: Approved from CRZ angle, permission for re-construction granted subject to the condition that the plinth and FAR remain the same and in accordance with TCP and local authority guidelines Case No. 1.4 Proposed NOC construction of residential house Chalta No. 71 of P.T. sheet No. 175 of Vasco city, Mormugao Taluka, by Mr. Jogi Thomas (GCZMA/S/11-12/). DECISION: Deferred, the GCZMA Members decided that the Show Cause Notice issued to the Party should be decided first, subsequently, based on the decision of the Show Cause Notice this request may be considered. Item No. 2 (Repair & Renovation/Development in CRZ-III Area). Case No. 2.1 Proposed NOC reconstruction to the existing house in Survey No. 17/1 of Village Velsao, Mormugao Taluka by Mr. Gospar Fernandes & Assiz Fernandes. (GCZMA/S/11-12/) DECISION: Approved from CRZ angle, permission for re-construction is granted subject to the condition that the plinth and FAR remain the same and in accordance with TCP and local authority guidelines. This permission granted is as per provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of the CRZ Notification 2011 and should be used only for bonafide personal use.