Dismissed

Yogesh Pratap Singh v. the Director National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management

NGT1 May 2025Appeal No. 22/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal examined a challenge to the existence of a hazard line in a CRZ map and the location of an advertisement structure. It held that CRZ maps do not require hazard lines while CZMP maps do, and the site was landward of the road, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission as no ground was found to entertain it.

Yogesh Pratap Singh vs the Director National Centre for… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No.5

¶2

(Pune Bench)

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (with Hybrid Option)]

¶5

APPEAL NO.22 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶6

Yogesh Pratap Singh, 1501, Harisiddhi Heights, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan Road, Mumbai – 400 030 … Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Director, National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM) Anna University Campus, Kotturpuram, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 025

¶9

Member-Secretary, National Coastal Zone Management Authority, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,

¶10

Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,

¶11

Jorbagh Road, New Delhi – 110 003

¶12

Member-Secretary, Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority, New Administrative Building, Opp. Mantralaya,

¶13

Mumbai – 400 032

¶14

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Mumbai – 400 001

¶15

The Partner,

¶16

Mssrs. Bizlist Advertising LLP, Office No.202 – ABCD Fort Chamber, 2^nd Cross Land, Homi Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 … Respondents

¶17

APPEARANCE :

¶18

Appellant : Mr. Aditya Pratap, Advocate

¶19

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶20

================================================================= Reserved on : 29.04.2024 Pronounced on : 01.05.2024

¶21

=================================================================

¶22

Page 1 of 5

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This order is being passed in continuation of our earlier order dated 20.02.2025, whereby we had directed the appellant to submit authenticated copies of two maps, which are annexed at pages 26 and 27 of the paper-book and are not authenticated one, so that this Tribunal could form an opinion as to whether there is any manipulation done by the Government Authority i.e. National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM) or not. In pursuance of the said direction, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted a report of compliance dated 11.04.2025, which is annexed at pages 109 to 113 of the paper-book, wherein it is submitted that the appellant had moved an application dated 10.03.2025 under R.T.I. to procure information related to CZMP Map No.75. Copy of the said application is annexed at Annexure-A-3 to the said report. In Annexure-A-3, at serial No.3, the information required consisted the following particulars:

¶25

“Providing certified copy of CZMP – Map No. MH-75 (Mumbai area)”

¶26

The response to the above application is annexed as Annexure-A-4 i.e. communication dated 17.03.2025 issued by the Under Secretary & Public Information Officer, Govt. of Maharashtra, Environment & CC Department, Mumbai, which is at page 117 of the paper-book, wherein it is recorded that the copies of approved Coastal Zone Management Plans under CRZ Notification, 2019 were available on MCZMA Website i.e. http://mczma.gov.in. Pursuant to receipt of this reply, the appellant has downloaded soft copy of the said map, which is on the reverse side of page No.117 of the paper-book. In this map, after magnifying the same, we have noticed that a hazard line is shown by blue dotted line. It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that this line is not shown in CRZ map, which is annexed by him at page 108, in which there is no such

¶27

Page 2 of 5

¶28

hazard line shown by blue dotted line. So, it is the appellant’s contention that the CRZ map is erroneous because the hazard line is not shown in this map.

¶29

In this regard, we are of the view that in the procedure, which has been provided for CRZ clearance for permissible and regulated activities in Regulation No.8 of CRZ Notification, 2019, copy of which is annexed by the appellant at pages 30 to 56 of the paper-book and in Sub-Clause (e ) of Clause (i) of Regulation No.8, following is recorded:

¶30

“CRZ map in 1:4000 scale, drawn up by any of the agencies identified by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change vide its Office Order number J-17011/8/92-IA-III, dated the 14^th March, 2014 using the demarcation of the HTL or LTL, as carried out by NCSCM .”

¶31

While Regulation No.6 of the said Notification pertains to Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) in Clause (iii) thereof following is contained:

¶32

“The coastal States and Union territories shall prepare draft CZMP in 1:25,000 scale map identifying and classifying the CRZ areas within the respective territories in accordance with the guidelines given in Annexure-IV to this notification, which involve public consultation.”

¶33

Annexure-IV to the said Notification relates to the guidelines for preparation of Coastal Zone Management Plans and Sub-Clause (iii) of Clause (3) of the said Annexure provides as under:

¶34

“ Various regulatory lines viz. at a distance of 20 metres, 50 metres, 200 metres and 500 metres from HTL respectively, as applicable in various CRZ categories, and Hazard line shall be demarcated and transferred to the CZM maps .”

¶35

The above provisions, if read together, would indicate that CRZ map would require only HTL or LTL while CZMP would require hazard line as well. Because of this, there is a difference in the two maps, which have been cited by the learned counsel for the appellant above. This difference does not amount to suppression of any fact or any kind of manipulation

¶36

Page 3 of 5

¶37

having been done by the NCSCM. In view thereof, although we had already made it clear to the learned counsel for the appellant that in case his argument is found to be incorrect with respect to manipulation having been done by the NCSCM, we would impose cost but we spare him from the cost being imposed upon the appellant in this regard.

¶38

As regards the issue involved in the appeal in hand, we find that the challenge is made to the CRZ clearance granted to M/s Bizlist Advertising LLP – respondent No.5 by respondent No.3 – MCZMA. For this, we would like to mention here that Regulation No. 5 of the CRZ Notification, 2019 pertains to regulation of permissible activities in CRZ and Sub-Clause (ii) of Clause 5.2 CRZ-II contains as follows:

¶39

“Construction of buildings for residential purposes, schools, hospitals, institutions, offices, public places, etc. shall be permitted only on the landward side of the existing road, or on the landward side of existing authorized fixed structures …”

¶40

Having cited above provision, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that in the case in hand, respondent No.5 – M/s Bizlist Advertising LLP has been granted permission to set up Unipole Screen Arrangement for Advertisement at CTS No.908, Near Amarsons Garden, D-Ward, Mumbai. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, this is indicated in the CRZ map by red dot, which is shown at page 108 of the paper-book. We have seen the said map after enlarging the same to the maximum and find that this site is found to exist towards landward side (East) of the existing road. This is being disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant and it is being submitted that the same is towards seaward side. But we do not agree with the argument of learned counsel. Therefore, the very basis on which the CRZ clearance has been assailed seems to be erroneous.

¶41

Considering the above, at the stage of admission itself, we do not find any ground to entertain this appeal. We also do not find it necessary Page 4 of 5

¶42

to consider any other ground set out by the appellant in the memo of appeal. This appeal deserves to be dismissed at the very outset and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶43

No order as to costs.

¶44

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶45

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM May 01, 2025 APPEAL NO.22/2025 (WZ) npj

¶46

Page 5 of 5

Yogesh Pratap Singh v. the Director National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Pratap Singh v. the Director National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Stp Limited vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

M/S K K Industries ( Ice Plant) vs Union Territory of State of J & K

Prakash Narayan Singh Pro Shri Bajrang Stone Crusher vs State of Madhya Pradesh

1. Naresh Majhi S/O Baida Majhi About 43YEARS vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary

Azaan International through Its Proprietor vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Ekdant Structure Pvt. Ltd. vs Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas & Ors.

Isgec Heavy Engineering Ltd. vs Commission for Air Quality Management in Ncr

Reagan Rodrigues Represented by His Poa Rousseau Rodrigues vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Kapil Baliram Bomnale and Others vs Twenty One Sakhar Karkhana Unit NO3

M/S Achalare Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Marcelino Fernandes vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Balvant Parchure vs Mauresh Ashok Amburle

Mangesh Mahadev Parab vs M/S New Monarch Builders and Contractors

Suhas Prabhu vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority