Case status of issues taken up by Goa Foundation

Case status of issues taken up by Goa Foundation - NGO for environment protection in Goa

Writ Petition (W.P.) case numbers (contains hyperlink to download the details) and details mentioned as Issues are taken from Goa Foundation website from link titled Public interests litigations repository :  http://goafoundation.org/pil/

For viewing Order / Judgement from Court website, kindly visit: Website of the Bombay High Court: http://www.hcbombayatgoa.nic.in/ and Supreme Court of India: http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/

Goa Foundation NGO...Case status PAGE 1 / PAGE 2

·         W.P. No. 145/1987 (Orders) (Challenge to the leases granted to the EDC to mine silica sand from Goa’s coastal areas) Issue:  In the late sixties the Government of Goa granted 16 leases to mine silica-sand from Goa’s coastal areas. However, within a decade, the Government realized it had made a serious error in granting these leases because excavation of the sand dunes was having a negative impact on the coastal ecology of Goa.  Due to the removal of the sand dunes, there was erosion of the beachfront and villages from swelling tides because no sand dunes or dune vegetation were there to save the land.  Intrusion of salt water was polluting the fresh water wells along the coast.  Therefore, S. 4-A of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Amendment Act, 1986 was amended on 10/1/1987 thereby permitting the premature termination of the silica-sand mining leases.  On 13/1/1987, the State Government prematurely terminated the existing six leases for mining silica-sand granted to private parties.  However, it awarded those leases to the Economic Development Corporation (EDC), which is a Government agency.  Three of the lessees challenged the amendment, urging malafides as they were not well connected and discrimination as allowing the continued mining of silica-sand would undermine the purpose of the amendment (WP 23/187, 24/1987 & 25/1987). The Goa Foundation then filed a writ petition in public interest challenging the decision to grant the six leases to the EDC because the beaches of Goa were already over exploited and further mining of sand would irreparably damage the coastal ecology. The petitions were heard together and a common judgment delivered directing the State of Goa not to renew or create any fresh leases in the areas covered under the existing six leases so as to stop the mining of silica-sand on Goa’s beaches altogether. The mining companies challenged the High Court’s judgment in the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment, and refused to permit the renewal or creation of any fresh leases for silica-sand mining on Goa’s beaches.

·         W.P. No.218/1988 (Orders) (Regarding the State Govt. violation of the Water {Prevention and control of pollution} Act) Issue:  The State Government of Goa failed to set up a Pollution Control Board, as mandated under Section 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, of 1994 until the Goa Foundation and the public put pressure on it.  Upon creating the Pollution Control Board, the State Government of Goa did so in violation of the mandate under the Water Act.  The Water Act requires the Pollution Control Board to consist of a full-time chairman with special knowledge relating to the use and conservation of water resources, or the prevention and control of water pollution.  The Chief Secretary to the Government of Goa was appointed as chairman, who having one full time job and no special knowledge, or experience as mentioned in the Water Act.  The Goa Foundation alleged that this appointment was illegal.  Furthermore, the State Government of Goa appointed only two persons from the local authorities, instead of the five persons as stipulated in sub-section (2)(c) of Section 4 of the Water Act.  The State of Goa then went on to appoint industrialist to other positions on the Pollution Control Board who failed to serve the interests of the agriculture and fish industries.

·         W.P. No.349/1988 (Orders) (Challenge to the construction of beach resorts within CRZ) Issue:  Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 constructed beach resorts within 500 meters of the High Tide Line (HTL) without obtaining the necessary environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests.   Some of these constructions were within the 200-meter no-development zone.  Additionally, ground water was tapped within 500 meters of the HTL for construction and hotel use without the proper authorization.  During the course of construction. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 destroyed several sand dunes, which caused great ecological harm to the beach. The Goa Foundation alleged that the Goa State authorities colluded in the massacre of the sand dunes system by permitting the beach resorts to come up without environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests. In the Interim Order dated 2/11/1988 Respondent No.2 was directed not to make any new constructions pending the disposal of the application for interim relief and Respondent No.3 was restrained from making further constructions on this site pending disposal in another writ petition.  However, on 13/3/1989 this interim order was vacated on the grounds that the decision in Writ Petition No. 367/1988 allowed construction beyond the 200-meter no-development zone, even if this construction took place on sand dunes.  Therefore, Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were allowed to continue construction beyond the 200-meter no-development zone, but not within it. In August of 1989 the Captain of Ports inspected Respondent Nos. 2’s and 3’s construction sites for location from the HTL.  As a result of the Captain of Ports’ inspection and indications of the HTL for the area, it became clear that Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 carried out numerous constructions within the 200-meter no-development zone. The Goa Foundation alleged that Respondents Nos.2 and 3 had no permission for construction under Section 44 of the Town and County Planning Act, 1974 and the Southern Planning and Development Authority issued a notice under Section 53, asking the Respondents to stop work.  Despite the stop work order construction continued unabated. On 10/7/1995 The Honorable Court directed that Writ Petition No. 349/1988 be placed on board for final hearing together with Writ Petition No. 72/1991

·         W.P. No.389/1988 (Orders) (Challenge to the construction of luxury hotel on Cavelossim beach) Issue:  Alcon Resort Holdings Ltd. began construction of a luxury hotel on Cavelossim beach without clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, as directed under the Environment Protection Act of 1986.  This construction, which was approved by the Union of India and the State of Goa, cleared away important sand dunes along the beach, thereby making it vulnerable to erosion. Additionally, The Union of India altered the condition established by the late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in a letter to all Chief Ministers on November 27, 1981 that decreed that no construction is to occur within 500 meters of the High Tide Line (HTL).  The Union of India reduced this to 200 meters of the HTL. The Goa Foundation challenged that this change by The Union of India and the construction on Cavelossim beach by Alcon Resort Holdings Ltd. was illegal under India Law.

·         W.P. No. 450/1988 (Orders) (Challenge to the pollution caused by Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd.) Issue:  The petitioners alleged that Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. (ZAC) was discharging untreated effluents into the sea and poisoning the local waters due to its fertilizer plant.  The Petitioners alleged that these effluents seeped through the sub-soil and polluted the drinking water, including Dorval Springs, owned and used by Petitioner No. 2 (Francisco Barreto) as well as the local population. The Goa Foundation also alleged that the rich fertile land near Respondent No.1’s plant was completely destroyed by its untreated effluents.  As a result the production of coconut and rice fell drastically.   Furthermore, the untreated effluents flowed through the storm water drains that emptied into Poim Creek, once a rich source of marine food, and completely contaminated it. These same effluents then flowed to Cola Bay in the Arabian Sea and decimated the fish populations.  The Petitioners alleged that the ZAC required approval from the authorities to discharge effluents into the sea.   Moreover, both the Central Pollution Control Board and the State Pollution Control Board failed in their statutory duty to prosecute ZAC for its failure to adhere to the Minimal National Standards (MINAS) for the discharge of effluents.   Additionally, the Central Board had permitted the ZAC to dismantle its two-kilometer effluent discharge pipeline into the sea to replace it with a mere seventy-meter pipeline without consulting the National Institute of Oceanography, on whose recommendations the two-kilometer pipeline was installed. To compound matters, no minimum national standards were set with regard to the emission of ammonia, so the Goa State Pollution Control Board arbitrarily set permissible limits for emission of ammonia that the petitioners alleged were unsafe. At any rate, Respondent No.1 did not comply with these standards. In 1987 the Goa Government requested the Karnataka Task Force on Safety in Hazardous Industries to survey the manufacturing and handling capabilities of ZAC.  The Task Force examined ZAC’s ammonia storage facilities and noted that a small pipe leading from the base of the hortonsphere, in which ammonia was stored, was covered with slime and a thick growth of algae.  The Task Force was unable to ascertain the condition of the piping, but noted that the rupture of the pipe would result in large quantities of ammonia being released.  Accordingly the Task Force recommended that a detailed examination of the hortonsphere was required.  Pursuant to the recommendation of the Task Force, the Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers (CIF) issued a notice dated 13/4/1987 to Respondent No. 1 under section 40 (2) of the Factories Act, 1948 to stop pumping ammonia to the hortonsphere; empty the hortonsphere; hydraulically test the hortonsphere and the fittings connected to it; and discontinue the secondary reformer from the process to repair it.   Instead of complying with the direction  ZAC commenced construction of a second hortonsphere without obtaining the requisite approval from the Chief Inspector, nor was an investigation by the Site Appraisal Committee, as mandated by Section 41-A of the Factories Act, 1948, conducted. Its explanation was that once the second one was commissioned the first one could be examined as per the direction of the CIF. The Goa Foundation alleged that ZAC built the second hortonsphere to enhance the capacity of liquid ammonia from 3,500 tons to 7,000 tons so as to double its production of fertilizer, rather than to provide an alternate storage tank, as falsely claimed by ZAC. Several applications were moved from time to time to obtain reliefs in regard to the operations of the fertilizer plant. Due to the petition the CPCB fixed the standards for discharge of ammonia for the whole country.

·         W.P. No.29/1989 (Orders) (Challenge to the State of Goa’s policy to allow tourist development up to 90m of the HTL) Issue:  On November 24, 1988,in the Official Gazette, Series III, No. 37, the State of Goa published a change to its policy of allowing no development within 200 meters of the High Tide Line (HTL), to allowing tourist development up to 90 meters from the HTL.  This change was in violation of the Central Government of India’s earlier decision to ban construction within 200 meters of the HTL.  The Goa Foundation challenged that the State of Goa cannot modify the policy decision of the Government of India unilaterally, particularly after the promulgation of the Environment Protection Act of 1986.

·         W.P. No. 72/1989 (Orders) (Regarding the governments negligence in monitoring and controlling the transportation of hazardous materials) Issue:  On November 1st, 1988 a tanker containing liquid chlorine from Ballarpur Industries, Karwar, Karnataka to Hindustan Ciba Geigy, in Goa overturned on the highway at Cortalim, releasing the poisonous liquid and gas over a radius of 300 to 500 meters.  The result was that 109 people residing in the vicinity suffered nausea, vomiting, dizzy spells, difficulty in breathing, and one man also died.  Additionally, the plantations nearby were burnt and household utensils and other household items were discolored and spoilt.  The petitioners alleged that the accident was waiting to happen as the Government was negligent in monitoring and controlling the transportation of hazardous materials, and two companies were specifically negligent in the transportation of the hazardous material on this occasion. The Court directed that the affected persons be examined at the Goa Medical College and medical assistance be provided to them and a report be placed before the Court for further orders. In the meantime the affected persons had claimed and received compensation for medical expenses incurred by them in accordance with the Public Liabilities Insurance Act, 1991. The Central Government had amended the Motor Vehicles Act & Rules in relation to the transportation of hazardous substances. The Goa government has appointed a Task Force in 1996 to review the status of major accident hazard units in Goa.  The High Court was thus informed by the petitioners that during the pendency of the petition the substantial reliefs claimed had already been taken care of.

·         W.P. No.399/1989 (Orders) (Challenge to the department of tourism’s 10 constructions on the coastline of Calangute within 200m of HTL) Issue:  The Department of Tourism put a cluster of ten large constructions on the coastline of Calangute, Goa, consisting of cottages and shopping areas.   These constructions were within 200 meters of the High Tide Line (HTL).  In 1981 the late Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, imposed a ban on construction within 500 meters of the HTL, which was modified to 200 meters in 1985.

·         W.P. No. 400/1989 (Orders) (Challenge to the resort at Mobor Beach by Leela Venture Pvt. Ltd.) Issue: The Petitioners alleged that the development of Survey Nos. 100/1-3 for a resort at Mobor Beach, Cavelossim, Goa by the Leela Venture Pvt. Ltd.  was contrary to the land use indicated in the Regional Plan for Goa, notified in the Official Gazette Series III, No. 37 dated 11/12/1986.  The land use as per the RP was green cover, which therefore did not allow construction of hotel.  Permission by the Southern Planning & Development Authority was therefore in violation of law. The petitioners also objected to S. 17 of the Town Planning Act which permitted the amendment/modification of the Regional Plan before the period of five years had elapsed and alleged that the amendment was arbitrary, ill conceived, mala-fide, unreasonable and was being effected solely to suit the vested interests of the Company at the expense of Goan society and ecology. The revised Regional Plan was not notified in the Official Gazette of the Government of Goa, as is mandatory under Sec. 15 of the Town & Country Planning Act, 1974.  Also, the modifications proposed were not notified for objections.  Therefore, the procedures laid out in Sections 9-15 of the Goa Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1972, were not adhered to.

·         W.P. No.225/1990 (Orders) (Challenge to the construction by Leela Venture Pvt. Ltd. at Cavelossim) Issue:  Leela Venture Ltd. was granted permission to construct a five-star hotel at Mobor, Cavelossim, Goa, subject to certain guidelines and conditions laid down by the Inter-Ministerial Committee setup by the Director General, Tourism and the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests under the Environment Protection Act (EPA), 1986.  Leela Venture Ltd. then proceeded to violate these conditions and was issued a stop work order under Section 5 of the EPA by the Director General, Tourism and a notice to remove the unauthorized constructions by the Southern Planning & Development Authority.  However, despite these orders Leela Venture Ltd. continued to carry on its illegal and ecologically destructive constructions. Mobor Peninsula is an ecologically fragile area that was reserved as a green-cover area under the Regional Plan for Goa.  However, in 1987 the Eco-Control Committee allowed construction on the Mobor Peninsula under the stringent conditions that follow: 1.      There will be no construction on the sandy stretch or within 200 meters of the high tide line (HTL); 2.      All structures in the immediate vicinity of the beach should be consistent with the landscape within violating aesthetic consideration and should not rise above the tree top level.  This should generally be of the ‘hut’ type and removable if necessary, without leaving any ugly scar on the ground; 3.      To the extent possible, the open area of the resort should be facing the beach; 4.       The maximum total plot coverage should not exceed 33% of the area with the promoter; 5.      The promoters shall take adequate measures to ensure sewerage disposal away for the sea; 6.      The promoters shall undertake to include reforestation and plantation programs that plant atleast two or three trees for every one cut down; 7.      The promoters shall undertake to implement whatever measures are considered necessary for preventing erosion of the beach and for safeguarding the environment, as prescribed by the Central or State Government; and 8.      The building should have sloping roofs.  The vacant land on the beach side should be planted with coconut and other trees.  Subsequently, the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests granted clearance to Leela Venture Ltd. to construct its beach resort with the additional environmental conditions: 1.      Change in the existing land use pattern for the proposed beach resort in the area must take into account the environmental considerations. 2.      The quality of treated effluents, solid wastes, emissions, and noise level must conform to the standards laid down by the competent authorities including the Central/State Pollution Control Board and under the EPA, 1986, whichever are the most stringent. 3.      Necessary arrangement for the treatment of the effluents and solid wastes must be made.  Along with the treatment facilities, it must be ensured that the effluents and solid wastes are not discharged into the sea or on the beach. 4.      Ground water must not be tapped for any purpose within 500 meters of the HTL.  Required water should be brought from beyond 500 meters of the HTL. 5.      The overall height of the construction (from the ground level to the highest ridge of the roof) must not be more than 9 meters and it must not go beyond the tree top line in the adjoining area. 6.      The construction must not exceed two floors (ground floor plus one upper floor). 7.      The construction should be of a light material with sloping roof in local architectural style.  The structure should be of hut type and removable, without leaving any ugly scar, and consistent with the landscape of the surrounding area. 8.      There must not be any construction within 200 meters of the HTL. This area should not be exclusively used for the beach resort by raising fencing or any such barrier to prevent access of general public to the area. 9.      Sand from the sand dunes in the coastal stretch must not be removed for any purpose. 10.  Adequate measures must be taken for preventing erosion of the beach. 11.  The plants for reforestation and plantation around the beach resort must be suitable for the local environmental conditions. The Goa Foundation alleged that Leela Venture Ltd. constructed several wells within 500 meters of the HTL, six cottages within 200 meters of the HTL, and caused extensive damage to the sand dunes through its construction of a lagoon after receiving permission from the Eco-Control Committee and the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests for the beach resort development. The Interim Order dated 4/9/1990 prohibited Leela Venture Ltd. from making any new construction within a 200-meter radius of the western edge of its property, yet it proceeded to make a new construction after this date, in violation of the injunction order.

·         W.P. No. 214/1991 (Orders) (Regarding public access to the records regarding approvals and permissions granted to builders) Issue:  It was the practice of the respondents to keep their files on building and development approvals confidential, which prevented people from effectively ascertaining whether a building’s permission had been granted in compliance with the requisite statutory provisions.  Besides, the Supreme Court itself had held that any person residing in the locality or social group desirous of obtaining such information was entitled to inspect any sanction granted or plan approved by such local authority in construction of buildings along with the related papers and documents, if so desired.  Goa Foundation argued that by not allowing the public access to the records regarding approvals and permissions granted to builders, illegal development would continue unabated and unchecked. Petitioners sought inspection of the records of Indian Hotels as interim relief. The Court granted the same, although it was strongly resisted by Indian Hotels citing trade secrecy of its plans, designs, etc.. By the time the petition was finally heard the Goa Government had itself passed the Right to Information Act, 1997.  The petition was therefore disposed of as infructuous.  Subsequently Right to Information is a Central Act available to citizens all over the country.

·         W.P. No. 221/1991 (Orders) (Challenge to the approvals granted for constructions within the CRZ) Issue:  Observing that a residential construction being constructed by V.M. Salgaoncar in the 200-meter zone in the Candolim Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) with permissions from the authorities, the Goa Foundation challenged the approvals granted to the construction as being in violation of the policy of the Government of India, which was in force since 1981 not to permit constructions in the 500 meter zone (modified to 200 meter in 1986).  The Goa Foundation also challenged the permissions as being mala fide since others who had approached the same authorities for similar permission had been denied the same in view of the Policy. Initial permissions were obtained in 1986 by one Dominic Rodrigues, who thereafter, in 1987, sold the license for construction and plot to V.M. Salgaoncar, who obtained development permission from the NGPDA in 1988.  On 8/12/1988 the State of Goa Government was directed, in Sergio Carvalho vs. State of Goa, [1989 (2) GLT], not to permit any constructions in the 200-meter zone on any beach in Goa.  Subsequently, in February 1991 the CRZ Notification declaring the 200-meter stretch as a no-development zone in CRZ-III areas (Candolim being classified as CRZ-III) was notified.  Hence the building could not be constructed now in the 200-meter zone.

·         W.P. No. 24/1992 (Orders) (Challenge to permission/regularization for deviation in construction by Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd.) Issue:  The hotel “Cidade de Goa” owned by Fomento Resorts is located on Plot No. 787 (246/1), near Vainguinim beach in Taleigao village, Goa, which is CRZ-III as per the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991.  Fomento was granted permission for additional construction to the existing building in 1988 and put up three additional floors on the existing building.  Fomento deviated from the plans by constructing an extension that went into an adjacent plot on which no construction was permitted.  When the CRZ came into force Fomento sought regularization of the extension and additional floors. The additional floors had not yet been constructed.  The Planning Authority regularized the deviation from the originally approved extension.  The Goa Foundation challenged the permission/regularization for the deviation, as it was in violation of CRZ Notification because no construction can occur within the 100-metere no-development zone, and sought a restraining order on the additional floors. Fomento Resorts gave an undertaking to the court that it would not make any new construction, including additional floors, during the pendency of the petition.  By the time the petition was taken for final hearing the categorization as CRZ III had been revised to CRZ II, which permits construction behind the existing structures as per local laws.

·         W.P. No. 36/1992 (Orders) (Regarding the construction by Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. which was obstructing public access to Vainguinim beach) Issue:  In 1983, when the Government acquired two plots of land (Sy No. 246/2 and 245/2) along Vainguinim beach in Taleigao village for the Cidade de Goa hotel, it signed an agreement with Fomento Resorts which contained certain conditions in order to protect the public access to Vainguinim beach.  Section 4 Clause (viii) of the Agreement stipulated that ‘the company shall never construct any buildings or structures in the acquired land.  Clause (ix) stipulated that, “the public access/road to the beach shall not be affected or obstructed in any manner.”  However, Fomento Resorts extended its hotel building on to the acquired plot in violation of the Agreement and further more it closed the traditional pathway to the beach. The Planning Authority and the Village Panchayat regularized the construction on the acquired land and turned a blind eye to the closure of the access. Hence the writ petition, to restore the public access and demolish the construction made in violation of the Agreement. This petition was heard along with two others filed by local residents, namely W.P. No. 141/1992 (Gustavo Renato) and W.P. No. 330/1991 (Miguel Martins). By interim order the Court directed an alternate access at one end of the property along the nullah to be kept open for the public. In its final order the Court restored the traditional access and directed demolition of the building. Fomento Resorts appealed the judgment.  The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High court judgment.

·         W.P. No. 76/1992 (Orders) (Regarding Beach Arc Hotels Pvt. Ltd. violation of CRZ notifications) Issue:  The Southern Planning & Development Authority issued an order u/s 5 of the Environment Protection Act to the Electricity Dept directing it to cut off the electricity of Beach Ark Hotels (the petitioner) as it had not demolished the illegal fencing around its property along the beach and the illegal basement, thereby violating the environment clearance that had been issued to it by the Ministry of Environment & Forests dated 10/5/1989 for the construction of the hotel. The order was carried out and the electricity cut off. This order was therefore challenged by Beach Ark praying that the electricity be restored and that it be permitted to retain the basement and the fencing. Goa Foundation intervened in the petition in order to support the directions issued as the CRZ Notification did not permit fencing in 200 meters and basement for buildings. During the pendency of writ petition Beach Ark Hotels undertook to demolish the fencing within 15 days and close down the basement permanently within a year. The undertaking was accepted.

·         W.P. No. 94/1992 (Orders) (Regarding the Failure of the respondents {GSPCB, and The Inspector of Factories and Boilers} to perform their duties to collect air and water samples from ZAC plant) Issue:  The polluted effluents of Zuari Argo Chemicals plant adversely affected the Dorvol Springs, and the air of the surrounding area.   The petitioners made several requests for the respondents to collect air and water samples from the Zuari Argo Chemicals plant.  Both respondents, authorities designated to take these samples under Section 11(i) of the Environment Protection Act (EPA), 1986, rejected or ignored their duties to collect the samples, which kept the petitioners from filing complaints against Zuari Argo Chemicals to enforce compliance with the pollution control acts.

·         W.P. No. 113/1992 (Orders) (Challenge to the lease granted to Chowgule and Co. to build an Iron ore beneficiation plant in a Primary Forest in the village Potrem in Sanquem taluka) Issue: The State of Goa granted Chowgule & Co., a mining firm, a lease of Survey No. 12 of village Potrem in Sanquem Taluka to build an iron ore beneficiation plant.  The Petitioners alleged that the site of the proposed beneficiation plant constituted one of the last remaining areas of primary forest in the ecologically sensitive region of the Western Ghats, having more than a 60% density of trees, thus making it a closed forest system.  The Goa Foundation alleged that when this lease was granted and the land changed to non-forestry use, the required permission under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was not obtained.  Also, during the process of constructing the beneficiation plant Chowgule Co. felled many trees without permission, in violation of Section 8 of the Goa, Daman & Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984. The Petitioners pointed out to the Court that once a forest is destroyed it cannot be replaced, but a beneficiation plant can be relocated. In 1992, by its interim order the High Court directed Chowgule Co. to halt all development and construction on Survey No. 12. During the pendency of the petition the Government of India gave post-facto approval to divert 4.44 ha of the forest for the beneficiation plant. However, in 2000, disposing of the writ petition the Court ruled that the lease was null/void, as permission under the Forest Conservation Act has to be prior and not post-facto. Therefore, it directed the State of Goa to restore the land to its original use. Chowgule Co. appealed the order but the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.

·         W.P. No. 115/1992 (Orders) (Challenge to G.S.C.C.E. modification of CRZ notifications, 1991) Issue:  The Goa State Committee on Environment (G.S.C.E.), later modified to become the Goa State Committee on Coastal Environment (GSCCE), was set up by the State of Goa to be the final authority to deal with matters concerning implementation of law in coastal areas. The GSCCE unilaterally modified and changed the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 1991, issued under the Environment Protections Act (EPA), 1986, by taking a decision that the CRZ Notification along rivers and creeks will apply only to areas 500 meters from the HTL demarcated along the sea coast and not the entire length of the river/creek affected by tidal action, as declared in the CRZ Notification.  The Goa Foundation challenged that the GSCCE had no authority to change the CRZ regulation and alleged that the GSCCE approved several projects in violation of the CRZ notification. The petitioner also contended that the Coastal Zone Management Plan had not been prepared by the State, although more than a year had elapsed since the Notification came into force. The Court granted interim relief restraining the GSCCE from granting approvals to any project except in terms of the CRZ Notification. During the pendency of the petition, pursuant to orders of the Supreme Court in another petition before it, the Coastal Zone Management Plan was prepared as per the CRZ Notification and approved by the Ministry of Environment in September 1996.  Both the grievances of the petition were thus adequately redressed, as the GSCCE’s decision could no longer subsist. During proceedings the Goa Foundation pointed out to the Court that the approved plan is not available to the public.  However, as the State referred to a booklet published by the petitioner wherein the Ministry’s approval order containing details of the approved plan are given and, which the State Government stated it was adopting, the Court held that this grievance too was redressed.

·         W.P. No. 507/1992 (Orders) (Challenge to the violation of CRZ notification by Garth De Souza in Cavelossim village) Issue:  The Goa Foundation alleged that Garth De Souza was constructing a beach resort and operating a restaurant within 200 meters of the High Tide Line (HTL) in Cavellossim village, a CRZ III area, where no development is allowed within 200 meters of the HTL.  The hotelier was also fencing the property within 200 meters of the HTL and sinking some wells in the area.  All these activities were done without permission from the authorities.  The Goa Foundation alleged that these activities violated the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification of 1991, which prohibit the sinking of wells within 500 meters of the HTL, new construction without permission within 200 meters of the HTL, erection of physical barriers preventing free access to the beach, and the operation of a restaurant within 200 meters of the HTL. By interim order the Court restrained the Excise Commissioner from granting any license for sale of liquor to the hotelier’s restaurant.  The court also prohibited the hotelier from altering the physical conditions of the structures that were challenged and directed status quo be maintained in regard to them. When the petition was taken up for final hearing,  the court being informed that the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority was constituted and  one of its mandates being to examine violations of the CRZ Notification, the Court decided to direct the GCZMA to decide this matter within three months.

·         W.P. No. 331/1993 (Orders) (Challenge to the permission granted to cut a large number of trees at Miramar)

·         W.P. No. 332/1993 (Orders) (Challenge to a ‘proposed road’ within the CRZ at Miramar)

·         W.P. No.333/1993 (Orders) (Challenge to the construction of hotel in the CRZ at Miramar as it violates the CRZ notification.)

·         W.P. No.391/1993(Orders) (Challenge to the lease deed handing over land in the CRZ at Miramar to a hotel company without the approval of the Captain of Ports, for construction of hotel.) Issues:Petitioner has challenged the lease deed handing over land in the CRZ at Miramar to a hotel company without the approval of the Captain of Ports, for construction of hotel.

·         W.P. No.633/1993 (Orders) Orders:  24/7/1995:  The Petition was dismissed.

·         W.P. No. 5/1994 (Orders) (Regarding the torture of maidservant by the police) Issue:  Rekha M. Kholkar, a maidservant, was taken into police custody for questioning, on a complaint made by her employers about some missing money.  Rekha was severely tortured, and the police abused her womanly dignity during her questioning in the Police Station, requiring her to be hospitalized for several days.  The newspapers reported the incident. Enclosing copy of the newspaper report, Adv Norma Alvares wrote a letter to the High Court that such incidents were a blot on the State, apart from being a violation of human rights and the dignity of the woman. The Court requested Ms Alvares to investigate the report and thereafter a formal petition was filed by her as Amicus Curiae. During the pendency of the petition, an enquiry was conducted by the police and several of the allegations of assault, torture and violation of procedure alleged by the petitioner were found to be true.

·         W.P.No. 16/1995, 18/1995, 19/1995 and 79/1995 (Orders)

·         W.P. No. 178/1995 (Orders) (Challenge to the construction of a factory by Binani Zinc Ltd. at Colvale) Issue: Binani Zinc Ltd. was constructing a factory on its premises at its Colvale site without permission from the Panchayat of Colvale, which is required under Section 68 of the Goa Panchayati Raj Act, 1993.  During the construction of its factory Binani Zinc Ltd. used explosives without proper authorization or safeguards, which lead to the damage of several houses nearby. During the process of this Writ Petition Binani Zinc Ltd. applied for and received the required permission from the Director of the Panchayat, granted under Sub-section (2) of Section 66 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

·         W.P. No. 202/1995 (Orders) (Regarding the deletion of mining lease areas from Netravalli Wildlife Sanctuary in Goa)

·         W.P. No. 368/1995 (Orders) (Challenge to the forest land acquired by The Goa Housing Board at Porvorim) Issue:  The Goa Housing Board sought to acquire forested land on Survey No. 55/1 of Porvorim belonging to the Pilerne commundade, for a housing colony without the permission of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, as required under the Forest Conservation Act of 1980.  The land acquired had a densely forested area with numerous wild species of plants, animals, and birds.  Building a housing colony would require the complete clearing of all trees and brush, leading to the loss of habitat for the wildlife, potential erosion of the hillside into the Mandovi River, and the community’s loss of access to the forested land. The Government made a statement that it would not use the land in question for non-forest purpose until the necessary permission is obtained under the FCA.

·         W.P. No. 102/1996 (Orders) (Regarding the Surveyor General of India demarcating the HTL 40 to 60m closer to the sea for the coast from Velsao to Cavelossim) Issue: The Government of Goa appointed the Surveyor General of India (SGI) to demarcate the High Tide Line (HTL) for a short stretch of the coast, from Velsao to Cavelossim.  Using the definition of High Water mark, the SGI demarcated the HTL 40 to 60 meters closer to the sea, thus enabling development to occur 40 to 60 meters inside the no-development zone. This HTL would legalize the unauthorized and illegal constructions of several hotels along this stretch of coast who had built within 200 meters of the HTL. The GF challenged the demarcation as being contrary to the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 1991. Moreover the SGI was not one of the authorities named in the CRZ Notification who are empowered to demarcate the HTL.  After a detailed examination of the SGI’s methodology for demarcation the Ministry of Environment concluded that the HTL was not in accordance with the CRZ Notification. The Goa Foundation argued that merely because money had been spent on the demarcation of a limited sector, was no reason to retain the said HTL as there could not be two different HTLs for the State of Goa, one based on the SGI’s method and the other as per the CRZ Notification. By its interim order in September 1996, the Court stayed the Government order by which the SGI’s HTL had been accepted and directed that until the appropriate authority marks the HTL in accordance with the CRZ Notification, the State shall use the Naval Hydrographic charts to determine the HTL. By its judgment in the year 2000, the court upheld the petitioner’s contentions and quashed the Government’s order.  The State appealed the order.  In 2009, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, and confirmed the High court order as the Government filed affidavit that the National Institute of Oceanography had already demarcated the HTL for the entire State in accordance with the CRZ Notification.

·         W.P. No. 126/1996 (Orders) (Challenge to the buildings constructed on Candolim-Calangute-Baga coastal stretch within 200m of the HTL) Issue: The Goa Foundation complained that several buildings were being constructed on Candolim-Calangute-Baga coastal stretch within 200 meters of the high tide line (HTL), in violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 1991, issued under the Environment Protection Act of 1986. The CRZ Notification bans development within 200 meters of the HTL in CRZ-III areas (i.e. rural, relatively undisturbed coastal areas). Calangute and Candolim are categorized as CRZ-III in the Goa State’s Coastal Zone Management Plan. The responsible authorities failed to perform their duties to prevent constructions. Additionally, the Panchayats gave licenses for several of the buildings, which were in violation of the CRZ.  The petitioner cited some examples of illegal constructions and stated that there were several more without any authorization. Interim stay of all constructions in the 200-meter zone was granted and the two Panchayats were further directed to undertake the exercise of reporting to the court on the number of illegal constructions in the 200-meter stretch. It was found that the figures ran into several hundreds.

·         W.P. No. 319/1996 (Orders)

·         W.P. No. 373/1996 (Orders) (Challenge to Penguin Alcohols Pvt. Ltd. factory at Shristal in Canacona) Issue:  The Penguin Alcohols Private Ltd. setup a factory to produce alcohol at the Industrial Estate at Shristal in Canacona in South Goa without prior environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment & Forests, as required under the Environment Protection Act, 1986.  Additionally, Penguin Alcohols Private Ltd. failed to receive the necessary consent to operate under Sections 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The company began to discharge its wastewater and molasses in the immediate surroundings, which caused widespread contamination of the drinking water.

·         W.P. No. 385/1996 (Orders) (Challenge to Water Sports Centre being constructed by Dolphin Adventure Sports Ltd.) Issue: In 1994 Dolphin Adventure Sports Ltd. purchased land at Hawaii Beach at Dona Paula in Tiswadi Taluka and began constructing a Water Sports Centre.  This land was demarcated as CRZ-III as per the CRZ Notification, and was along the river front 100-meter no-development zone.  Therefore no new construction was permitted in this area.  Additionally, Dolphin Adventure Sports Ltd. could not claim a residential right, a traditional right, nor customary usage for the construction.  The Goa Foundation alleged this construction was in blatant violation of the CRZ Notification. However, the Planning Authority, the Goa State Committee on Coastal Environment and the village Panchayat all approved the project.  The Goa Foundation and four residents of the area alleged that the approvals for construction were illegal. (WP No 349/96, filed by another resident of the locality, was heard together with the Goa Foundation petition). When the matter came for admission the authorities informed the Court that they had stopped the work and the GSCCE had asked for certain clarifications from Dolphin Adventures which had yet to be supplied.  Hence the Court decided not to entertain the petition since the authorities were seized of the matter.

·         W.P.No. 67/1997 (Orders) (Challenge to Goa Govt. signing a Power purchase agreement with M/s Reliance Salgaonkar Power Ltd.) Issue:  A letter petition from Dr. J.C. Almeida was converted into a Writ Petition and Goa Foundation was permitted to intervene. The Government of Goa had signed a power purchase agreement with M/s. Reliance Salgaonkar Power Ltd. who was constructing a mini power plant at Sancoale using naptha as fuel.   The petitioner alleged that naptha, being an expensive and imported fuel, would cause the costs of power from this plant to heavily burden the Goan consumer.  Additionally, the plant required a huge volume of water, a scarce commodity in the State and the power produced could not be synchronized to Govt’s power grid. Although Goa was allotted 380 MW of power, it only draws between 210 MW to 240 MW of power at a rate of Rs. 0.94/unit.  Also, Goa was allotted an additional 49 MW of power from Kakrapar and Gandhar which it did not use because the rate was Rs. 2.20/unit.  The cost of power from the Reliance power plant would be Rs. 2.69/unit.  Hence, it appeared that that the purpose of the agreement with Reliance was not in public interest.  Instead the petitioner urged that improvement in transmission & distribution instead would adequately serve the State’s needs. The writ petition was eventually dismissed because the Court held that it will not evaluate the merit of policy decisions of the Government except if the record shows that extraneous considerations have crept in. The Company assured the Court that new technology made it possible for the power generated by its power plant to be synchronized to Goa’s grid and that islanding the power would be the exception to the rule.  It also claimed that most of the water would be reused, and the consumer would not be burdened with increase in cost of electricity, which was the main concern of the petitioner.

·         W.P. 109/1997 (Orders) (Challenge to indiscriminate mining activities by Dempo Mining Corporation in Bicholim)

·         W.P. No. 273/1997 (Orders) (Challenge to the construction of a housing colony at village Penha De Franca of Bardez taluka by Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd. on the grounds that the land was forest land) Issue:  The Goa Foundation and Nirmal Vishwa, two environment NGOs challenged the construction of a housing colony on Survey No. 69/4 of Village Penha de Franca of Bardez Taluka by the Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd. on the grounds that the land was forest. The on-going construction was therefore contrary to the Forest Conservation Act as prior permission for non-forestry use had not been obtained from the Ministry of Environment. The construction was also in violation of the Supreme Court of India’s order dated 12-12-1996 in T.N.Godavarman v/s UOI directing that all activities in forest areas without mandatory clearance be halted forthwith.  Additionally, the Petitioners alleged that the alteration of Survey No. 69/4 from A1 (Agricultural and Orchard Natural Reserve Zone) and A2 (Agricultural and Natural Reserve Zone) to S2 (Settlement Zone) in the Outline Development Plan, under the Goa, Daman and Diu Town & Country Planning Act, 1974, was illegal. The Court appointed an Expert Committee headed by Shri Sadanand Sawant and also comprising three Deputy Conservators of Forests and a scientist to determine whether the land was forest.  The Committee opined that the land was forest.  Accordingly the High Court of Bombay held that the plot was forest and therefore quashed all the permissions granted to the Company and directed that the land be restored to its original status. The Company appealed the judgment. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and permitted the development.

·         W.P. No. 124/1998 (Orders) (Challenge to the construction of a railway siding that was being constructed on the land of ZAC Ltd.) Issue: The petitioners challenged the construction of a railway siding that was being constructed in the property of the Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. as the land in question fell in CRZ-III as per the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, which is no-development zone.  Petitioner alleged that the purpose of the siding was solely to benefit the company with the railways merely acting on their behalf.  At any rate permission of the Ministry of Environment was required. The Court accepted the submission of the respondents that the construction of the siding was a railway activity and that no permission of Ministry of Environment was required.

·         W.P.No. 150/1998 (Orders) (Challenge to the constructions along Goa’s beaches which violate CRZ notifications) Issue:  Several constructions along Goa’s beaches had been and were being raised within the 200-meters no-development zone, which is in violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 1991.  Additionally, temporary structures were constructed during the tourist season, but they were taken down promptly at the end of the season, and the beach was thus getting damaged. The Court directed the demolition of all the structures that were built in the 200-meter zone as these did not have and could not have been granted permissions. Subsequently, an application was filed by persons who had put up temporary structures, pleading that they should not be required to remove them as they use them every year during the tourism season. The Court therefore issued directions in regard to construction of temporary structures (shacks) in the NDZ. The respondents appealed the judgment.  However, it was dismissed.

·         W.P. No. 364/1998 (Orders) (Challenge to conversion of residential complex to a commercial tourist resort in Calangute) Issue: A residential complex at Calangute was converted to a commercial tourist resort.  The complex was immediately adjacent to the high school premises, which were also the residential abode of the Christian nuns running the school. There was severe noise pollution at night, and music disturbance and distraction to the school students during the day.  This area was zoned as residential under the Town and Country Planning Act of 1974.  The Planning Authority had approved the construction of the complex strictly for residential purposes.  However, on completion it was converted into a hotel, ‘Brisa Leisure Resorts,’ with the approval from the Deputy Sarpanch but without the resolution of the Panchayat.  Additionally, a liquor license was granted to it by the Excise authority, which petitioners alleged violated the Goa Excise Rules, 1964, as the Rules do not permit issuance of a liquor license to any place within 100 meters of a school.  Brisa Leisure Resort was within 100 meters of Little Flower of Jesus High School.  The petition was dismissed at the admission stage as being without substance, since the Planning & Development Rules permit both residences and hotels in the settlement zone.  The court however made it clear to the Excise Authority that it could take action appropriate legal proceedings against the resort. The petitioners appealed the judgment on the grounds that the writ petition was dismissed in haste and without giving the petitioners a fair opportunity to present their case.  No affidavits were filed by any of the statutory authorities, including the Panchayat and the government.  Nor was the government even heard on the matter.  Further, Brisa Resorts had not yet received permission from the government to run a hotel/resort on the premises.  However, the Apex court held that there were disputed questions of fact and therefore dismissed the SLP, granting liberty to the petitioners to file a suit if so advised.  It also recorded that the observations made in the High Court’s judgment are to be treated as tentative and not as final or conclusive. In separate proceedings, the Excise authority subsequently cancelled the liquor license. The cancellation of the liquor license dramatically altered the nature of tourist activity on the premises and brought relief to the school.

W.P. No. 414/1998 (Orders) (Challenge to the company guesthouse being constructed by United Breweries Ltd. at Candolim, a CRZ-III zone) Issue: The Goa Foundation challenged the construction of a company guesthouse on Survey No. 112/19 at Candolim, a CRZ-III zone, by United Breweries Ltd. because it was not permissible under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification.  The Goa Foundation argued that in CRZ-III areas, a new structure is permitted within 200 to 500 meters of the HTL “so long as it is within the ambit of traditional rights and customary uses such as existing fishing villages and gaothans.”  Thus, a guesthouse could not be within the traditional or customary rights of the gaothan and therefore the permissions granted by the Goa State Committee on Coastal Environment, the Town Planner, and the Sarpanch were in violation of the CRZ Notification.  Guesthouses, like hotels could be constructed in the CRZ-III only after obtaining permission from the Ministry of Environment, which UB had neither applied for, nor received.  The Goa Foundation also alleged that the quota of constructions permitted in Candolim village had already been exceeded, so no new constructions could be permitted in the Candolim CRZ.  Finally the Goa Foundation showed photographs of massive destruction of sandy stretches of beach and sand dunes by UB within 200 meters of the HTL, which was in violation of the CRZ law. At interim stage, after viewing the photographs on record, the show cause notice issued by the village panchayat to UB for destruction of sand dunes and the documents which showed that the application for construction was made by the Company specifically for a guest house, the court stayed any further development and directed status quo. During the pendency of the petition UB wrote to the CTP that it had erroneously termed the building as company guesthouse in its applications, and requested change of nomenclature to residential accommodation.  It also filed an affidavit that the building would be not be used for commercial purpose or as a guesthouse or hotel, but would be used only as residential accommodation for the Chairman of the Company.  One year later UB filed an application to vacate the stay on the ground that it was ready to give an undertaking that the construction will be used only for the residence of the Chairman.  However the court declined to vacate its order on the ground that a distinct purpose was sought to be achieved by the CRZ Notification in respect of dwelling units which fall within traditional rights and a prima facie view having been taken that the construction did not fall within that scope, the court saw no reason to take a different view now.  The village panchayat followed up its show cause notice with a site inspection and came to the conclusion that the plot did not have sand dunes and therefore withdrew its show cause notice. During the final hearing the undertakings and affidavit were relied upon to show that in effect the construction was for residential use and not a guesthouse.  As the issue of ‘doubling’ i.e., that the constructions in Candolim had exceeded the limit permitted formed the subject matter of another petition by Goa Foundation, the court decided not to adjudicate that issue in this petition but left the fate of this construction subject to further orders of the court.

·         W.P. No. 420/1998 (Orders) (Challenge to the construction of the Teksid Foundry at Navelim) Issue:  The construction of the Teksid Foundry at Navelim began without the mandatory approval from the Ministry of Environment and Forest under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification of 1994. Teksid informed the court that all construction work had been halted following receipt of a show cause notice from the Pollution Control Board.  It also undertook not to recommence work without obtaining environment clearance from the Ministry of Environment.

·         W.P. No. 422/1998, 99/1999 (Orders) (Challenge to the permission granted to new buildings in CRZ-III zones) Issue: The State of Goa and the Chief Town Planner gave permission to construct new buildings within the CRZ-III in violation of The Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification of 1991, specifically Annexure – 1, 6(2) CRZ-III(iii) which requires that the construction of new dwellings between 200 and 500 meters of the Hide Tide Line(HTL) not to exceed twice the number of dwellings as were in existence on the date of the notification and that the total coverage of the constructions permitted shall not exceed 33% of the plot size.  The Goa Foundation alleged that the buildings approved were in fact not dwelling units, and that in any case, the number of buildings approved had far exceeded the total number permitted. By interim order the court stayed the grant of any further permissions not just in the two panchayats, but all across the State. By its judgment the court passed far reaching directions that included a survey to be conducted in the entire State to find out the number and nature of buildings constructed, demolition of those in violation of the CRZ Notification and also directions regarding the construction of hotels in the CRZ.

·         W.P. No. 427/1998 (Orders) (Challenge to permission granted to Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd. to construct a beach resort) Issue:  The Goa Foundation alleged that Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd was given permission by the State Authorities to construct a beach resort on Survey Nos. 28/1, 29, 33/1, and 33/2 of Nagorcem Beach, in violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 1991.  During construction Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd. destroyed several sand dunes on the property by constructing a new road, and flattening an area to construct the beach resort. The CRZ Notification strictly forbids the dressing or flattening of sand dunes in CRZ-I Zones because they play a very important role in stabilizing the beach by preventing erosion and acting as wind barriers.  The Goa Foundation alleged that Survey Nos. 28/1, 29, 33/1, and 33/2 of Nagorcem Beach fell within the CRZ-I Zone, therefore the destruction of the sand dunes was illegal under the CRZ Notification. The High Court of Bombay at Goa issued an Interim Order dated 11/2/1999, that prevented Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd from proceeding with any development or construction pending the final disposition of the Writ Petition.  Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd. appealed the Interim Order to the Supreme Court of India in a Special Leave Petition.  However, on 6/04/1999 the council for Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd.  withdrew the Special Leave Petition and the Supreme Court of India directed the High Court of Bombay at Goa to dispose of the Writ Petition expeditiously. The High Court of Bombay at Goa dismissed the Writ Petition because it held that the authorities that approved Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd.’s proposal were aware of the sand dunes and took their preservation into consideration when they approved the project.  Additionally the High Court Held that the sand dunes outside the area within 200 meters of the HTL were able to handle the stressors of construction with no damage to the ecology of the beach.  Therefore it rejected the Petitioners arguments and dismissed the Writ Petition.

·         Suo Moto W.P. No 109/1999 (Orders) (Regarding the proper disposal of garbage by state authorities) Issue: The High Court of Bombay at Goa took cognizance of newspaper reports on proliferation of garbage all over the State and there not being any arrangements for its proper disposal.  In the light of the Goa Non-Biodegradable Garbage (Control) Act, 1996, and the Goa Non-Biodegradable Garbage (Control) Rules, 1997, it was necessary for the Government to create a scheme to deal with the biodegradable and non-biodegradable garbage in the state of Goa.  Four NGOs from different parts of Goa were permitted to intervene in the matter to assist the court in this petition. During the pendency of the petition the Court issued directions to all Municipalities and Panchayats to file affidavits on how they are disposing of the garbage from their areas. In January 2000 the Government constituted a committee under chairmanship of Secretary (Urban Development) to look into all aspects or solid waste management in the State. The Committee submitted its detailed report in April 2000. However, before the court could give directions in regard to implementation of the report the Advocate General informed the Court that the Central Government had notified the Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000, under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, which are to be complied with by municipalities and other local authorities within the time frame specified in the rules.  Hence, the Government according to those rules would deal with the subject matter of this petition.  The court therefore disposed of the petition in January 2001.

·         W.P. No.   55/1999 (Orders) (Challenge to the holding of food festivals on the beaches of Goa) Issue:  The Herald newspaper was organizing a ‘kiddies’ festival on the Miramar beach that advertised the sale of food and liquor. The Tourism Department had issued licenses for holding the festival. However the stalls being erected far exceeded the permission granted. Despite the fact that the Herald informed the Court that no liquor would be served at the festival the Excise Commissioner granted permission for sale of liquor.  Additionally, sponsorship for the festival was from United Breweries.  The monitoring done by the Petitioners of the kiddies festival showed large scale degradation of the beach, as food remains, glass pieces, etc. were strewn all over the sands. The Petitioners thereupon challenged the holding of annual food festivals on the beaches of Goa because they cause extreme degradation to the beach from the discharge of large amounts of raw food waste, ash/cinders, broken glass from liquor sales, and human defecation due to the lack of inadequate trash bins, restrooms, and drainage for the food stall waste. In addition many vehicles were driven on the beach before, during, and after the festivals to carry equipment and supplies to the food stalls.  Subsequently the Petitioners drew to the attention of the court that the Department of Tourism failed to maintain the cleanliness of the beaches throughout the year as the Goa State Government has no mechanism in place for keeping the beaches clean, which lead to oil deposits by vessels off the coast, food waste and other garbage especially around the shacks, and the beaches being used as public toilets, particularly by migrant construction workers. On 8-4-1999 the Director of Tourism informed the court that the Government had taken a policy decision not to allow any food festivals to be organized anywhere on the beaches, nor permit any other activities which tend to make them dirty or create unclean and unhygienic atmosphere. In its affidavits (dated 10/6/1999; 26/7/1999; 10/8/1999; 8/10/1999; 23/2/2000; 13/3/2000) the Director of Tourism set out the following scheme for maintaining the cleanliness of beaches: 1.      Supervision: The Department of Tourism (DoT) has two Zonal Offices, one in North Goa and the other in South Goa headed by Information Assistants (IA) who will be responsible for supervising the beach cleanliness arrangements. One IA will be posted at Calangute beach (for North Goa) and the other at Colva beach (for S.Goa). Miramar beach will have one IA from Head Quarters, exclusively responsible for the cleanliness of Miramar beach. The IA will be accountable for the cleanliness of the beaches, attendance of the staff, timely removal of any garbage, and other matters relating to the cleanliness of the beaches in their respective zone. Sightings of tar balls and oil seepage will be reported immediately by the IA to the Coast Guard. The IA will liaison with NGOs/N.S.S./schools and colleges to promote beach cleanliness. The IAs will be supplied with two/four-wheelers in order have mobility and keep constant supervision. If necessary, an additional IA will be deployed to see that garbage is properly collected and removed from the beaches. As regards Baina beach, two tourist police will be placed on the northern side. An official of the DoT at Vasco will visit Baina beach weekly and submit a report to the Director of Tourism. 2.      Staff: Five supervisors and forty-nine sweepers will be appointed for the thirteen main beaches of Goa. 3.      Records: The following records will be maintained by the IAs and submitted in a monthly report to the Head Offices: (i)     Muster roll and check attendance of supervisors, life-guards, sweepers, and tourist police; (ii)   Log book to record the time of removal of the garbage by the local authorities. (iii) In regards to far away beaches, such as Palolem, the muster roll for the sweepers will be maintained in the office of Municipal Council at Canacona.  4.      Equipment: (i)     Ninety-two cement dustbins and seventy-two eco friendly dustbins will be placed throughout the thirteen main beaches of Goa. (ii)   Two extra dustbins will be placed near each shack on all beaches where shacks are permitted, to enable them deposit their garbage. (iii)  Collection of the garbage from the dustbins will be the duty of the local bodies, and will be monitored by the Department of Tourism. (iv)  Beach Cleaners: The Government will purchase one large beach cleaner and two mini beach cleaners (for Miramar beach). The mini-beach cleaners will be operated from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., and 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. daily, except during the monsoon. 5.      Public Defecation: (i)                 Police personnel will be posted at Miramar beach for two hours daily in the early morning, when the beach tends to be used for defecation, to prevent the same. Contractors along and near the beach must provide toilets for their workers. (ii)               A study is being conducted on portable toilets manufactured by Shramik Sanitation System.  Four toilets will initially be purchased if found to be suitable. (iii)             Sulabh Thermophilic Aerobic Composter (STAC): STACs will be used on an experimental basis at Colva and Calangute for conversion of biodegradable garbage into manure. This proposal was subsequently dropped. 6.      Hotels: Hoteliers will be responsible for disposal of the garbage created by their respective hotels. 7.      Shacks: Shack owners will be responsible for cleanliness in and around the shacks. The services of a contractor will be engaged by DoT, one each for North and South Goa, who will be responsible for the removal of the garbage twice daily. 8.      Illegal constructions: The DoT will ensure that no illegal construction occurs on Goa’s beaches. Assistance of the local police station / tourist police will be taken. Two tourist police will be posted on each beach to enforce the laws and orders governing the beaches. 9.      Public Awareness (i)                 Two signboards will be deployed at the main entrance of each beach in four languages (Konkani, Marathi, Hindi, and English) informing the public to keep the beach clean by depositing waste in dustbins.  The signboards will not have advertisements. (ii)               DoT will publish & distribute leaflets to bring awareness to locals and tourists of the importance for maintaining of general hygiene and cleanliness of the beaches. The leaflets will not be distributed on the beach. (iii)             DoT will initiate a cleanliness drive in collaboration with NGOs and schools to bring public awareness. Being satisfied with the Government’s unequivocal policy not to permit food festivals on beaches and the scheme for maintaining cleanliness of the beaches, the court disposed of the petition while recoding strict adherence to the same.

·         W.P. No. 123/1999 (Orders) (Regarding Curchorem air quality)

·         W.P. No. 136/1999 (Orders) (Challenge to the construction of Golden Peace Hotels in Penha De Franca village) Issue: Can the Deputy Collector, acting under the Land Revenue Code, issue a Conversion Sanad for conversion of a forested land, or plot, for non-forestry purposes without first receiving prior approval from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980?  This issue arose out of the construction of the Golden Peace Hotels on Survey No. 104/1, of Penha de Franca village.  The Sawant Committee, set up by the Goa Government to identify forests in the State of Goa, in accordance with directions of the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India [ (1997) 2 SCC 267], had identified Survey No. 104/1 as partly forest. The Deputy Collector gave permission to Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. without receiving consent from the Ministry of Environment and Forests.  To clear way for the construction large trees were felled on the plot for some years prior to obtaining sanad and offences for tree felling had been registered (later compounded) by the Forest Department under the Preservation of Trees Act. The Petitioner also urged the court to direct the Government to physically demarcate on the ground those areas that had been identified by the Sawant Committee as forest. While admitting the petition the Court permitted the construction to continue but restrained the premises from being occupied or used without the permission of the court. At the final hearing of the petition the Court called for the reports and plans from the State Government and after perusing them it took the view that as the Sawant Committee had not demarcated which part of the survey number is forest as distinct from the part that is not forest, and since in the case of Survey No. 104/1 the part that is forest was not clearly discernible, the court concluded that the part where the hotel was constructed was not forest.

·         W.P. No. 204/1999 (Orders) (Challenge to the construction of a residential bungalow by M.M. Caculo within CRZ in Candolim Village) Issue:  This petition was filed to challenge the construction of a residential bungalow by M.M. Caculo, part of which was within 200 meters of the High Tide Line (HTL) on Survey No. 123/1 of Candolim village, an area zoned as CRZ-III under the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification of 1991.  In CRZ-III the area up to 200 meters from the HTL is earmarked as ‘No-Development Zone.”  No Construction is permitted within this zone except for repairs of existing authorized structures. The construction that was approved by the authorities went beyond 200 meters, and therefore was within the no development zone.  Mr. Kamal Morarka was subsequently joined as respondent as he claimed to be the new owner of the building. The court directed interim stay and also prohibited occupation of the premises. On 15 January 1999, the Goa Coastal Management Zone Authority rejected the application of Mr. Morarka for regularization of the revised plan as the building had changed substantially from the one designated on the approved plan and the actual construction of the building violates the 200-meter no development zone.  The GCZMA also found that the floor area was higher than approved. The petitioner’s claims were thus fully substantiated by the GCZMA. The builder/owner informed the Court that they had appealed the decision of the GCZMA before the National Coastal zone Management Authority. Hence the court decided to dispose of the matter as the NCZMA was now hearing the issue.  However it kept its interim order intact until the NCZMA decided the issue and for a period of six weeks thereafter with liberty to all parties in the petition to challenge the order of the NCZMA if it is adverse to them. On 21 December 2001 the NCZMA heard the review petition and ruled that a portion of the building was falling within the 200-meter no development zone and the same had to be demolished.

·         W.P. No. 302/1999 (Orders) (Challenge to the shrimp agriculture project in the village of Tuem, Pednem) Issue:  A shrimp aquaculture project in the village of Tuem, Pendem, Goa polluted the water supply of Tuem village with saline water, destroying the paddy fields.  The operation of the shrimp aquaculture project led to noise pollution from firecrackers used to scare birds and animals away.  The aquaculture tanks were also within the 100-meter no-development zone along the riverbank, in violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification. Additionally no permissions to operate had been obtained from the Aquaculture Authority of India, as directed by the Apex Court in its judgment dated 11/12/1996 in S. Jagannath v/s UOI (W.P 561 / 1994).

·         W.P. No. 265/1999 (Orders) (Challenge to the construction by Ramesh Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. in Utorda) Issue:  Ramesh Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. reconstructed a residential house on Survey No. 41/1 and Survey No. 41/2 in Utorda village within the 200-metre no-development zone and used it as a guesthouse.  The Costal Regulation Zone-III (CRZ-III) orders, “The area up to 200 meters from the High Tide Line (H.T.L.) is to be earmarked as ‘No Development Zone’ provided that such area does not fall within any notified port limits or any notified Special Economic Zone.  No construction shall be permitted within this zone except for repairs of existing authorized structures not exceeding existing FSI, existing plinth area and existing density, and for permissible activities under the notification including facilities essential for such activities.” Ramesh Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. went beyond the plinth of the old structure (later determined by The High Court of Bombay at Goa to have had a plinth area of 245 square meters on the ground floor) by reconstructing 300 square meters residence.

·         W.P. No. 384/1999 (Orders) (Challenge to the appointment of Mr. Arecio D’Souza as Chairman of the Goa State Pollution Control Board) Issue:  This petition was filed for a writ of quo warranto seeking to quash the appointment of Mr. Arecio D’Souza, MLA as Chairman of the Goa State Pollution Control Board.  The Goa Foundation alleged that the appointment, made in 1999, was solely on political considerations and that Arecio D’souza did not have any of the qualifications required as per law for the post.  Under the provisions of the Water Act of 1974, and the Air Act of 1981, the Chairman must possess certain qualifications.  Section 4 (2)(a) of the Water Act requires the Chairman to have “special knowledge or practical experience in respect of matters relating to environmental protection or a person having knowledge and experience in administering institutions dealing with the matters aforesaid.”  Arecio D’Souza was a teacher and the best qualification he could offer in his affidavit in reply was that he taught subjects related to the environment to school students (i.e. children under 15 years of age).  Petitioner challenged that this experience cannot qualify a person to be appointed as Chairman of the Board. By interim order the court restrained the Chairman from taking any major decisions in the Board. By the time the matter was taken up for final hearing Arecio D’Souza had already been removed from the post.

·         W.P. No. 196/2000 (Orders) (Regarding the disposal of waste by Meta Strips Ltd.) Issue:  In 2000 the State Government’s High-Powered Coordination Committee approved in principle the construction of a secondary copper smelter by Meta Strips Ltd.  The State Pollution Control Board took the views that that the Hazardous Waste Rules did not apply to the copper smelter plant and gave consent to establish/operate it. The Goa Foundation was concerned that the waste from the plant would be treated as ordinary waste and would be stored without a secure landfill allowing the waste to leach into the soil and contaminate the ground water.  Hence, the Goa Foundation filed this Writ Petition and alleged that:         i.      the requisite permissions under the Hazardous Waste (HW) Rules, 1989 (issued under the Environment Protection Act) had not been obtained by the Company;       ii.      no environmental impact studies had been done by the authorities prior to site selection, as is mandatory;     iii.       the approved project proposal indicated import of copper scrap (which is HW) in the form of PVC coated cables as raw material for the factory; and,     iv.      the approved project proposal indicated use of large quantity of water from the Public Works Department (PWD) for factory operation. (In a petition filed by the company earlier the High Court had refused to direct the Government to consider sanctioning increase in water supply for the plant). The HW Rules:         i.      The unit must be registered with the Ministry of Environment.       ii.      The unit must have authorization from the State Pollution Control Board.     iii.      The unit must have a secure landfill for disposal of HW. In PIL Writ Petition No.657/1995 the Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 14/10/2003 issued directions for strict compliance with the HW Rules and setup the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee (SCMC) to monitor the implementation of its directions.  On 3/2/2003 the State Pollution Control Board granted authorization under the HW Rules to the Meta Strips plant for 5 years.  In March 2004, the SCMC visited the Meta Strips factory and affirmed that the HW Rules covered the unit, therefore it needed to be registered with the Ministry of Environment.  Meta Strips subsequently applied for registration.  Additionally, the SCMC observed that the unit did not have a secure landfill and directed the accumulated HW to be sent to any unit registered with the Central Pollution Control Board for recycling of non-ferrous waste.  Meta Strips subsequently sent a letter of compliance with this direction to the State Pollution Control Board.  Meta Strips also informed the SCMC that it was not importing scrap PVC cables and decided to eliminate the use of PVC coated cables altogether.  The SCMC Report also observed that Meta Strips had installed a large water-harvesting unit at its plant. Apparently its water requirement needs could be met from the same. Relying on the report of the SCMC the petitioner informed the Court that all the grievances raised in the petition were redressed. The day to day operations were also being monitored by the Pollution Control Board as per the Hazardous Waste rules. Hence, the High Court disposed of the writ petition as infructuous.

·         W.P. No. 212/2000 (Orders) (Regarding the fishing ban during the monsoons) Issue:  A letter petition addressed by a citizen to the High Court drawing to its attention that the recent decision of the Goa Government to reduce the ban on mechanized fishing during the monsoons was contrary to good fisheries policy and would further accelerate the already fast-depleting fish resources (as the monsoon season is the breeding season for most of the common fish species and the mechanized vessels, i.e. the trawlers, bottom-trawl the sea-bed, netting all the newly spawned fish) was converted into a PIL. The ban which originally was from June to September had now been reduced so as to end on 24th July instead.  Goa Environment Federation was subsequently substituted as petitioner.  Goa Foundation is a member of GEF. Supporting the petition were the traditional fisher folk.  Opposing the petition were the trawler owners who claimed that a species of fish, namely the solar prawn made its appearance for a fleeting period of a fortnight only in mid-July, and this being a highly priced export, the income from it enabled them to pay off the bank loans taken for purchase of trawlers.  However, there were no studies to prove the same.  The National Institute of Oceanography, whose expert advice was sought by the Court, opined that minimum ban of three months during the monsoon is required if the common varieties of fish are to continue to be available to the coastal population.  The Ministry of Agriculture which holds the portfolio of fisheries was subsequently joined as respondent. At the final hearing, the Government of Goa informed the Court that it had taken a decision regarding the ban period for the State of Goa and the Court accepted this decision.  The Ministry of Agriculture informed the Court that the Central Government had been trying to impose a uniform ban on fishing along the West coast of India and to that end it had held several meeting with the west coastal states during the past few years. While disposing of the petition the Court fixed the dates of the ban for the State of Goa and also directed the Central Government to impose a uniform ban on fishing for all the coastal state on the west coast before the monsoon of the following year.   Subsequently the Goa Environment Federation filed a petition in the Supreme Court (WP 393 / 2005) praying that the uniform ban of 67 days imposed by the Ministry of Agriculture from 10th June to 15th August be followed by all the Western Coastal States. The States of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka and Kerala were named as respondents. The Supreme Court by interim order in 2005 imposed ban on mechanized fishing as per the Central Govt’s decision i.e from 10th June to 15th August.  However, when in 2007, the Ministry of Agriculture issued a Notification fixing the outer limit of the ban as 31st July, the Supreme Court modified its interim order likewise.  The petition is presently pending in the Supreme Court.

·         W.P. No. 228/2000 (Orders) (Challenge to constructions around Dossoxir spring in Assagao village) Issue:  The residents of the community around Dossoxir Spring in the Assagao Village of Bardez Taluka, requested the Communidade of Assagao to reserve land bearing Survey No. 237/14, around the spring for utility purposes.  However, in 1995 the Communidade of Assagao decided to sell the land to private persons for housing purposes.  Construction by Manohar Keni was permitted to take place within three meters of the spring.  The potential for the spring to become polluted by the construction’s septic tank was very real.  Additionally, a temple was constructed on Plot No. 3, of the Survey No. 237/14, which the Communidade demolished on 20/4/1998.  Two days later two more temple structures were constructed on Plot No. 2 and No. 3, of Survey No. 237/14 by Shri Jaiwant Marathe, Shri Ghanashyam, and Shri Pramod Walke.  These Respondents played music from a loudspeaker every Monday until 12:00pm, which created noise pollution.  The responsible authorities failed to take further action against these Respondents. On 8/3/2000, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, revoked the license for construction granted to Manohar Keni and directed that the construction be stopped.  Additionally, in 2000 the Collector of North Goa issued notice to Respondents No. 10 to 12 that their constructions were illegal. Thus, after the filing of the petition the construction was halted by the authorities.

·         W.P. No. 309/2000 (Orders) (Challenge to the appointment of members of the board of GSPCB) Issue:  The Government of Goa had issued a notification in 1999 to the Goa State Pollution Control Board, wherein the members of the Board (other than Chairman and Member-Secretary) were appointed by the offices they held rather than by names as was required under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Section 4(2) and the Air (Preventions and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, section 5(2). The petitioner further showed that the attendance at different Board meetings showed a wide variety of names, thus making it amply clear that there were in fact no fixed appointments of persons to the Board. The purpose of constituting the Board was thus defeated as the same persons did not attend all meetings, the members qualifications could not be scrutinized as their names were unknown, and the Board members could not be held accountable for their actions as they were members of the Board by virtue of the posts they held in government service.  All this was entirely contrary to the statute. In 2003, the Government issued another notification superseding the previous notification, wherein it appointed all the members of the Board by name as required by law. The petitioner thus succeeded in its efforts.

·         W.P. No. 257/2001 (Orders) (Regarding to the Panjim Outline Development Plan changing the zoning areas from nature reserve/settlement to commercial zones) Issue: In 2000, the Panjim Outline Development Plan (ODP) changed the zoning of Chalta Nos. 18-32, 171 of PTS 76, and Chalta No.198 of PTS No.44, of the Panjim City Survey from nature reserve/settlement to commercial.  There were already directions issued under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974  by the State Pollution Control Board (pursuant to a PIL) prohibiting increase in Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) in Panjim city till new sewage treatment plant was constructed.  The zoning of these plots as commercial would automatically lead to increase in the FAR. Additionally the new Development Regulations 2000 deleted the clause (which existed in the earlier Regulations 1989) banning construction on steep hill slopes (gradient of 25% and above) in 2000.  Thus construction of buildings on the steep slopes of Chalta Nos. 18-32, 171 of PTS 76, and Chalta No. 198 of PTS No. 44, of the Panjim City Survey would be permitted, despite the fact that it was well known that the aforesaid hill was fragile and prone to cracks and landslides. During the pendency of the petition the authorities decided to revert to the earlier Regulations in so far as ban on slopes above 25% was concerned.  Further Chalta Nos. 18-32, 171 of PTS 76, and Chalta No. 198 of PTS No. 44, were reverted to their original use i.e. recreational conservation/settlement.  A new sewage treatment plant was also constructed in Panaji and made operational.  All the reliefs claimed by the petitioners were thus met.

·         W.P. No.344/2003 (Transferred to NGT{Application No. 25[THC]/2013})

·         W.P. No. 28/2003 (with W.P. No.417/2000) (Orders) (Regarding the disposal of waste in Calangute village and Saligo village) Issue:The Sonsorddo site was being used for dumping bio-degradable and non-bio-degradable wastes consisting of plastics; bio-medical/clinical waste, include syringes, needles, and damaged mercury instruments; carcasses of dead animals; and septic tank waste.  The burning of this waste caused noxious smoke to travel the radial distance of two to three kilometres and caused severe health hazards, including skin allergies and various breathing problems.  Additionally, Survey No.47, of Calangute Village, and Survey No. 112 in Saligo village of Bardez Taluka, were proposed to be used for the purpose of disposing of garbage in violation of the Municipal Solid Waste Rules (MSW), 2000, issued under the provision of the Environment Protection Act, 1986.  The two sites are located above several springs, including Salmona Springs, which would be in danger of destruction if the sites were used for disposing garbage.

·         Suo Moto W.P. No. 297/2003 (Orders) (Regarding the pollution of Lake Carambolim) Issue:  In 2003, a local newspaper reported that the noxious Salvinia weed had overwhelmed Lake Carambolim, a wetland of considerable significance and a natural habitat for local and migrating birds. This infestation by the Salvinia weed went unchecked by the local and state authorities. The High Court of Bombay at Goa took suo moto cognizance of this report and departing from normal practice, the two judges visited the area. It was observed that because the Konkan railway station was nearby, plastic waste and other pollution from the railway was also entering the lake. Some of the local associations represented that they used the waters of the lake for agriculture, for fishing and that they also immersed Ganesh idols in the lake. The Goa Government informed the Court that the Forest Department had decided to take up the de-weeding of the Carambolim lake and that a proposal for 6 crores for maintenance of Carablim and 5 other lakes had been proposed to Ministry of Environment. The court thereafter issued detailed directions for steps to be taken to complete the protection of the lake as a bird site.

·         W.P. No. 485/2004 (Regarding the disposal of waste by the cities of Panaji and Mapusa) Issue:The cities of Panjai and Mapusa were using a dumping site at Curca to dispose of their biodegradable and non-biodegradable waste.  The waste was then burned, which contributed to the poor air quality in the Curca Village.  The dumpsite was located on a hill, during the monsoon the rain flowed through the garbage and down the hill to the Curca Village.   As a result the sole well in Curca Village was contaminated by the dumping site, making the water unfit for human consumption.  In 2004 the well water was examined by the Primary Health Center and Colyoim organism was found.  Therefore the Primary Health Center directed the village Panchayat of Curca, Bambolim and Talaulim to stop the dumping of garbage at the site.  In July 2004 the local MLA wrote a letter to the Honorable Chief Minister of Goa requesting a water tank be constructed to supply piped water to the residents of Curca. The Honorable Chief Minister of Goa directed the technical assessment for laying pipeline for supplying drinking water be carried out and be forward for approval by 31/8/2004.  The Goa State Government did nothing to undertake the assessment, so the Petitioner filed this Writ Petition on 21/10/2004. In 2006 the Writ Petition was disposed of based on agreement between the parties involved in a signed accord called the “Minutes of Order.” Subsequently, in 2008 the Corporation of the City of Panaji filed an application for relief to temporarily allow it to use the site and Curca to dispose of its garbage because it claimed it had no other sites to use because its temporary landfills had been stopped.   The Corporation claimed that the failure of the waste processing plant at Patto left it with no place to deal with its garbage and on account of the IFFI festival temporary arrangements to dump garbage at the Curca was required.

·         Suo Moto W.P. No.1/2005 (Regarding the lack of drinking water in Goa) Issue: An editorial about the lack of drinking water in Goa was published in the Navhind Times on 24/3/2005 titled, “Rain and Dry Taps.”  The article reported that Goa’s base level demand of water was 503 MLD, yet the Goa State Government was only providing 394 MLD.  The article sparked The High Court of Bombay at Goa to take SuoMoto cognizance of the issue in order to bring the situation under control.   A large portion of drinking water was being lost to leaky pipes, taps, and overflowing tanks.  Additionally, many water meters were not working properly, causing a loss of revenue for the Public Works Department.

·         W.P. No. 393/2005  (Challenge to the Fisheries Minister of Goa’s decision to reduce the fishing ban during the monsoon season) Issue: From June 10th to August 15th every year along the West Coast States of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, and Kerala various fish species breed in the Arabian Sea.  However, due to the continued fishing practices during this time by mechanized boats and trawlers the fish breeding process was disturbed, which lead to the reduced size of fish caught and decreases in the fish populations. On 24/9/2002 the High Court of Bombay, Goa Bench passed a judgment in PIL Writ Petition No. 212/2000 banning fishing from June 10th to August 15th, or NaraliPoornima, whichever is earlier, and directed the Central Government to impose a uniform fishing ban in West Coast States for the same dates.  On 9/12/2002 a copy of the High Court’s judgment was sent to all the West Coast States.  On 3/2/2003 during the State Ministers’ Conference on Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fishing a consensus was arrived at to have a uniform fishing ban in the West Coast States from June 10th to August 15th for all deep-sea fishing vessels in the Exclusive Economic Zone of the West Coast States/Union Territories.  Then on 12/5/2003 the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture directed the same fishing ban. However, in 2005 the Government of Karnataka reduced the days of the fishing ban and set its dates from June 15th to July 29th.  Later that same year the Fisheries Minister of Goa issued a statement about issuing an ordinance to have a ban like Karnataka and Maharashtra from June 15th to July 29th instead June 10th to August 15th. The present Writ Petition was filed on 19/7/2005 to the Indian Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking a uniform ban on fishing by mechanized boats and trawlers in all the West Coast States and Union Territories from June 10th to August 15th every year. On the April 10th, 2007 the Ministry of Agriculture Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying, and Fisheries gave notification that a uniform ban on fishing by all deep-sea fishing vessels in the Indian Exclusive Economic Zone on the East Coast, including Andaman & Nicobar Islands, and the West Coast, including Lakshadweep Islands, for conservation and effective management of the fisheries would be from:             East Coast:  April 15th to May 31st, 2007 (both days inclusive) | 47 days| West Coast:  June 25th to July 31st, 2007 (both days inclusive) |47 days|

·         W.P. No.434/2006 (Transferred to NGT{Application No. 37[THC]/2013} )

·         W.P. No.465/2006 (Transferred to NGT{Application No. 24[THC]/2013} )

·         W.P. No.403/2007 (Challenge to Aldeia de Goa project at Bambolim)

·         W.P. No.476/2007 (Challenge to operation of stone crushers at Saleli)

·         W.P. No.136/2008 (Challenge to mining lease operation of Hiralal Khodidas at Colomba)

·         W.P. No. 334/2008 (Regarding the completion of the exercise of demarcation of the private forest areas in the State of Goa)

·         W.P. No.673/2008 (Transferred to NGT{Application No. 18[THC]/2013} )

·         W.P. No.722/2008 (Challenge to mining lease operations at Caurem/Salim Shaikh)

·         W.P. No. 174/2009 (Regarding the dumping of solid waste at Sonsoddo by the Margao Municipal Council) Issue:  The Margao Municipal Council has been dumping its solid waste at Sonsoddo for 40 to 50 years and the accumulated waste had become a mountain of garbage nearly five-meters high covering three-fourths of the area, emitting a foul smell and attracts crows, rodents and stray dogs.  Leachate from the dump pollutes the water sources in the vicinity and the fires which break out every now and then envelope the entire area in smoke and other poisonous gases, posing a serious health hazard to the nearby residents. In 2003, the Goa Foundation filed a PIL for closure of a dumpsite in North Goa (W.P. No. 28/2003), which was clubbed together with another PIL (W.P. No. 417/2002) dealing with the Sonsoddo dumpsite.  Both petitions were disposed of on 30/7/2003 by a detailed common judgment wherein the Court had directed that Sonsoddo would not be used for waste disposal as soon a waste treatment plant for the South Goa district was established.  However, subsequently the Government decided instead to make each municipal council responsible for the disposal of its solid waste and the Margao Municipal Council was permitted to use Sonsoddo as its waste disposal site. In 2008, the Goa Government approached the GF for assistance to deal with the old accumulated waste at Sonsoddo and eventually it approved the GF’s proposal to construct a landfill and clear out all the accumulated waste by 31 May 2009 at a cost of approx. Rs. 4 crores. In January 2009 the Govt disbursed over Rs. 3 crores to the MMC for the purpose and constituted a Monitoring Committee to oversee the work.  However, the MMC did not permit GF to start the work and hence GF filed the PIL in March 2009 seeking a direction from the Court to the MMC to complete the permanent rehabilitation and closure of the dump within a time bound period. By interim order the Court directed the MMC to keep a fire brigade permanently stationed at Sonsoddo and to arrange to cover the garbage with tarpaulin immediately after the commencement of the monsoons. Following an assurance from the MMC that it will complete the permanent rehabilitation of the accumulated waste and construction of landfill by 31/01/2010, the Court directed accordingly.

·         W.P. No.277/2009 (transferred to NGT{Application No. 19[THC]/2013} )

·         W.P. No.330/2009 (Challenge to mining lease activity of Sesa Goa, Advalpal)

·         W.P. No.500/2009 (Petition filed by Total Composites/CRZ Matter; GF Respondent)

·         W.P. No.651/2009 (Challenge to the mining lease of Lithoferro, Advalpal)

Continued on PAGE 2