Dismissed

Fishing Boat Owners Association v. Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority

NGT9 Sept 2026IA No. 87/2023 in Appeal No. 11/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal challenging the CRZ Clearance for a bridge at Munambam Kayal. The court held the clearance was valid, noting the project serves public purpose, complies with IWAI and Port norms, and that construction was nearly complete with no proven violation of conditions.

What did the court decide?

The appeal, challenging the CRZ Clearance, was dismissed. The Original Applications were closed.

Fishing Boat Owners Association vs Kerala Coastal Zone… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item Nos.2 to 4:

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Wednesday, the 09^th day of September, 2026.

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

¶5

Appeal No.11 of 2023 (SZ) & I.A. Nos.86 & 87 of 2023 (SZ)

¶6

WITH

¶7

Original Application No.139 of 2023 (SZ) WITH Original Application No.47 of 2024 (SZ)

¶8

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶9

Appeal No.11 of 2023 (SZ):

¶10

1. Fishing Boat Owners’ Association,

¶11

Registration No. ER 176/91, Palliport P.O., Munambam, Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 515. Represented by its President (P.X. Stanly, S/o Xavier, Aged 63, Pulikkal House, Palliport PO, Munambam, Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 515.)

¶12

2. Deepsea Fishing Boat Operators Association,

¶13

Registration No. ER 502/98, Palliport P.O., Munambam, Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 515 Represented by its President (K.B. Kasim S/o Basheer, Aged 54, Kaniyamparambil, Mannam P.O., Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 520.)

¶14

3. Munambam Fresh Fish Traders Association Private Limited, Palliport P.O., Munambam, Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 515. Represented by its Director (K.J. Nirmal, S/o John, Aged 45, Kavalamkuzhi House, Palliport PO, Munambam, Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 515.)

¶15

4. Munambam Model Fishing Harbour Fish Trade Services Private Limited,

¶16

Palliport P.O., Munambam, Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 515. Represented by its Managing Director (K.B. Rajeev, S/o Bhaskaran, Aged 58, Kuzhippilly House, Palliport PO, Munambam, Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 515).

¶17

Page 1 of 14

¶18

5. Munambam Mini Fisheries Harbour Tharak Agents Private Limited,

¶19

Palliport P.O., Munambam, Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 515 Represented by its Managing Director (P.J. Ancily, S/o Joseph, Aged 76, Padamattummal House, Palliport PO, Munambam, Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 515).

¶20

6. Unnikrishnan K.K.,

¶21

S/o Kaladharan, Aged 51 years, Korassery House, Kovilakathumkadavu, Palliport P.O., Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 515. (Korassery Boatyard, Palliport P.O.).

¶22

7. K.S. Andavan,

¶23

S/o Sreedharan,

¶24

Aged 67 years, Kaithakattu House, Near Ravindra Bridge, Palliport P.O., Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 515. (M.M. Engineering Workshop, Market Road, Munambam).

¶25

8. Ratnakaran T.A.,

¶26

S/o Achuthan,

¶27

Aged 58 years, Thayattuparambil House, Palliport P.O., Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 515. (Sudhas Engineering Workshop and Boat Yard, Market Road, Munambam).

¶28

9. P.K. Prakasan,

¶29

S/o Kumaran,

¶30

Aged 74 years, Puthenpurackal House, Maliankara P.O., Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 516. (Aroma Boat Yard, Near Mini Harbour, Market Road).

¶31

...Appellant (s)

¶32

Versus

¶33

1. Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, Thampanoor,

¶34

KSRTC 4^th Floor Building,

¶35

Thiruvananthapuram District – 695 001.

¶36

2. State of Kerala,

¶37

Represented by the Secretary to Government, Environment Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram District – 695 001.

¶38

3. Executive Engineer,

¶39

Office of the Executive Engineer, KRFB-PMU Ernakulam/Thrissur District, 2^nd Floor PWD Buildings Division, Mamangalam, Ernakulam District – 682 024.

...Respondent(s)

WITH

Page 2 of 14

O.A. No.139/2023 (SZ):

¶44

…Applicant(s)

¶45

Simla E.S, Aged 44 years, W/o. Ramesh, Kozhikkal House, Sathar Island, Moothakunnam PO, Ernakulam District – 683 516.

¶46

Versus

¶47

1. Union of India,

¶48

Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Represented by its Secretary, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan Jorbagh Road, New Delhi – 110 003.

¶49

2. State of Kerala, Represented by the Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001.

¶50

3. Public Works Department,

¶51

Represented by the Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001.

¶52

4. The District Collector, Civil Station Rd, Kakkanad, Ernakulam – 682 030.

¶53

5. Kerala State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Represented by its Secretary, Pallimukk, Kammammoola Rd, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001.

¶54

6. The Executive Engineer, Kerala Road Fund Board, Ernakulam, Thrissur Division, Manmangalam, Edappally – 682 024.

¶55

7. Vadakkekkara Grama Panchayat, Represented by its secretary, Paravur Taluk, Ernakulam District, Kerala – 683 522.

¶56

...Respondent(s) WITH

¶57

O.A. No.47/2024 (SZ):

¶58

1) The President,

¶59

Fishing Boat Owners’ Association, Registration No. ER 176/91, Palliport P.O., Munambam, Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 515. (P.X. Stanly, S/o Xavier, Aged 63, Pulikkal House, Palliport PO, Munambam, Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 515.)

¶60

Page 3 of 14

¶61

2) The President,

¶62

Deepsea Fishing Boat Operators Association, Registration No. ER 502/98, Palliport P.O., Munambam, Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 515. (K.B. Kasim S/o Basheer, Aged 54, Kaniyamparambil, Mannam P.O., Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 520.)

¶63

3) The Director,

¶64

Munambam Fresh Fish Traders Association Private Limited, Palliport P.O., Munambam, Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 515. (K.J. Nirmal, S/o John, Aged 45, Kavalmkuzhi House, Palliport PO, Munambam, Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 515.)

¶65

4) The Managing Director,

¶66

Munambam Model Fishing Harbour Fish Trade Services Private Limited, Palliport P.O., Munambam, Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 515. (K.B. Rajeev, S/o Bhaskaran, Aged 58, Kuzhipilly House, Palliport PO, Munambam, Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 515).

¶67

5) The Managing Director,

¶68

Munambam Mini Fisheries Harbour Tharak Agents Private Limited, Palliport P.O., Munambam, Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 515. (P.J. Ancily, S/o Joseph, Aged 76, Padamattummal House, Palliport PO, Munambam, Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 515).

¶69

6) Unnikrishnan K.K.,

¶70

S/o Kaladharan, Aged 51, Korassery House, Kovilakathumkadavu, Palliport P.O., Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 515. (Korassery Boatyard, Palliport P.O.).

¶71

7) K.S. Andavan,

¶72

S/o Sreedharan, Aged 67, Kaithakattu House, Near Ravindra Bridge, Palliport P.O., Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 515. (M.M. Engineering Workshop, Market Road, Munambam).

¶73

8) Ratnakaran T.A.,

¶74

S/o Achuthan,

¶75

Aged 58, Thayattuparambil House, Palliport P.O., Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 515. (Sudhas Engineering Workshop and Boat Yard, Market Road, Munambam).

¶76

9) P.K. Prakasan,

¶77

S/o Kumaran,

¶78

Aged 74, Puthenpurackal House, Maliankara P.O., Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District – 683 516. (Aroma Boat Yard, Near Mini Harbour, Market Road).

...Applicant(s)

Versus

Page 4 of 14

1) Union of India,

¶83

Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jorbagh Road, New Delhi – 110 003.

¶84

2) State of Kerala,

¶85

Represented by the Secretary to Government, Environment Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram District – 695 001.

¶86

3) Secretary to Government,

¶87

Public Works Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram District – 695 001.

¶88

4) Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority,

¶89

Thiruvananthapuram, Thampanoor, KSRTC 4^th Floor Building, Thiruvananthapuram District – 695 001.

¶90

5) Executive Engineer,

¶91

Office of the Executive Engineer, KRFB-PMU Ernakulam/Thrissur District, 2^nd Floor PWD Buildings Division, Mamangalam, Ernakulam District – 682 024.

¶92

6) National Wetlands Committee,

¶93

Wetlands Division, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jorbagh Road, New Delhi – 100 003 Represented by its Chairperson.

¶94

7) State Wetland Authority,

¶95

Directorate of Environment & Climate Change, Overbridge, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram District – 695 001 Represented by its Chairperson.

¶96

...Respondent(s)

¶97

Appeal No.11/2023 (SZ): For Appellant (s): Ms. Shreya represented Dr. V.N. Sankarjee. For Respondent(s): Mr. G. Vignesh represented Mr. G. Prabhu for R1. Mr. Jerin Asher Sojan for R2 & R3. O.A. No.139/2023 (SZ): For Applicant(s): M/s. Bharath Murali & Chetan Prakash. For Respondent(s): Mr. Jerin Asher Sojan for R2 to R4 & R6. Mr. G. Vignesh represented Mr. G. Prabhu for R5. O.A. No.47/2024 (SZ): For Applicant(s): Ms. Shreya represented Dr. V.N. Sankarjee, V.N Madhusudanan, R. Udaya Jyothi, Keerthi B. Chandran & P.K. Vijayan Pillai.

¶98

Page 5 of 14

¶99

For Respondent(s): Dr. Kuna. Suryanarayana for R1. Mr. Jerin Asher Sojan for R2, R3 & R5. Mr. G. Vignesh represented Mr. G. Prabhu for R4.

¶100

Judgement Reserved on: 01^st September, 2026.

¶101

CORAM :

¶102

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶103

HON’BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶104

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶105

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member

¶106

O.A. No.139 of 2023 (SZ):

¶107

1. The Applicant, a permanent resident of Sathar Island, has filed the present Original Application stating that the island, spread over approximately 150 acres, is inhabited by more than 100 families and is rich in flora and fauna. The Periyar River flows on either side of the island, making it ecologically sensitive and vulnerable to changes in water flow, which may affect its habitability and the livelihood of its residents.

¶108

2. The Applicant alleges that the 3^rd Respondent, Public Works Department ( PWD ), has proposed to construct a bridge across Munambam Kayal (Backwaters) to connect Azhikode as part of the proposed Kasargod–Thiruvananthapuram Coastal State Highway. The bridge is proposed near the sea mouth where the Periyar River meets the Arabian Sea, immediately east of Sathar Island. The Applicant apprehends that the proposed dredging and installation of bridge pillars would alter the existing water flow, cause soil erosion and vertical instability, and adversely affect the island and the livelihood of its inhabitants, potentially resulting in the destruction of Sathar Island.

¶109

3. The Applicant further contends that the proposed project falls within the CRZ-III zone and is covered under Item 7(f) of the Schedule to the EIA Notification, thereby requiring prior Environmental Clearance. It is alleged that no such clearance has

¶110

Page 6 of 14

¶111

been obtained. The Applicant also contends that the proposed bridge is unnecessary, as an existing bridge connecting Azhikode and Munambam is located approximately 1 kilometre from the proposed site. Though the Applicant submitted representations before the concerned authorities, no effective action was taken, compelling him to approach this Tribunal seeking a direction to conduct an EIA study for the proposed project and to shift the location of the bridge.

¶112

Appeal No.11 of 2023 (SZ) & O.A. No.47 of 2024 (SZ):

¶113

4. In Appeal No.11 of 2023 (SZ) and in O.A. No.47 of 2024 (SZ) , the Appellants and the Applicants are the same, who are opposing the construction of the proposed bridge across Munambam of Ernakulam District and Azhikode of Thrissur District, where the Periyar River ends. The appeal is focused on challenging the CRZ Clearance granted by the Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority ( KSCZMA ) dated 27.05.2023 and quashing the same.

¶114

5. The major apprehension of the Appellants/Applicants is that the proposed bridge, which is to be constructed across the sea mouth or Port Kodungallur in such a manner that it will cause obstruction to the navigation of river sea vessels. There is also an island called Sathar Island, which is spread over 150 acres, forming part of Vadakkekara Panchayat in Ernakulam District, said to be situated between the Munambam and Azhikode areas. The river Periyar flows on either side of Sathar Island. On the southern side of Sathar Island, there are berthing areas all throughout. There are berthing areas all throughout the shore of Munambam and Maliankara over a total length of 15 kms. Munambam Fishing Harbour is situated 100 metres east of the proposed bridge. At all places of the berthing area referred to above, all types of vessels, including ships of average size and all types of boats, can be navigated and landed. Boats navigating in these areas are having more than 30 metres in length and 12 metres in height above the Water Floating Level ( WFL ). Hence, it is alleged that the navigational path on either side of the river and the middle portion

¶115

Page 7 of 14

¶116

of the river do not have enough depth due to the accumulation of alluvial soil. Therefore, the middle portion of the river cannot be used as a navigational path for boats of any size. The proposed unscientifically designed bridge is shown to have a height of 12 metres from the Maximum Flooding Level ( MFL ) and does not facilitate navigation of river sea vessels, as the depth of the river in the middle portion is less than that on the sides of the river. The dredging of the river in the middle portion also may not be scientifically correct, as such dredging may cause damage to or destroy Sathar Island.

¶117

6. According to the Appellants/Applicants, the Inland Waterways Authority of India ( IWAI ) Act, 1985, and the rules and regulations framed thereunder are inapplicable to the proposed bridge. However, the Director, Inland Waterways Authority of India, Kochi, recommended and granted the NOC for construction of the proposed bridge as early as in 2013. Though it is alleged that the recommendation made by the IWAI is illegal and unauthorized and is also said to be without jurisdiction, the same has not been challenged.

¶118

7. The Appellants/Applicants have further alleged that there is a proposal for establishing a new shipyard by one Smt. Jency Gills. The said proposal of putting up a shipyard, for which Social Impact Assessment ( SIA ) Study and the Detailed Project Report ( DPR ) are being prepared, will become impossible if any such bridge is constructed across the sea mouth.

¶119

8. The Appellants/Applicants herein preferred writ petitions [W.P. (C) No.13648 of 2022 and W.P. (C) No.37523 of 2022] before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala against the construction of the bridge across the port waters of Kodungallur Port. However, during the pendency of the same, the KSCZMA had granted the clearance on 08.06.2023. In view of the same, the above-said writ petitions were disposed of by granting liberty to move this Tribunal to challenge the CRZ Clearance. Accordingly, the above appeal is filed.

¶120

Page 8 of 14

¶121

9. The Appellants have assailed the impugned CRZ Clearance on the following grounds:

¶122

a. The proposed construction is through the No Development Zone and beyond the High Tide Line ( HTL ) through tidal water, which is nothing but the port waters in CRZ–IV B, a critically vulnerable coastal area.

¶123

b. The CRZ Clearance does not show anything as to the navigation of the river sea vessels through the port waters and the obstruction that will be caused due to the construction of the proposed bridge.

¶124

c. The CRZ Clearance does not refer to the Kodungallur Port, which is 500 metres away from the proposed bridge.

¶125

d. The KSCZMA failed to consider the maximum vertical clearance above the navigational channel on either side.

¶126

e. The bridge proposed is constructed across the backwaters, for which the construction shall be done through the area between the Low Tide Line ( LTL ) and HTL and through the water area of the tidal influenced waterbody. Hence, the bridge proposed is within CRZ–I B and CRZ–IV B.

¶127

10. Upon notice, the respondents have entered appearance and filed their respective pleadings.

¶128

11. In Appeal No.11 of 2023 (SZ) , in the counteraffidavit filed by the Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority (KSCZMA) , it is stated that the Project Proponent was directed to make a detailed presentation on the proposed construction of the bridge between Azhikode and Munambam across Munambam Kayal. The KSCZMA has categorically stated that it has jurisdiction only to regulate development activities, which are permitted and restricted based on the CRZ Notification, 2011, and is not authorized to comment on the structural part of the construction. It is only the IWAI which has to grant the NOC on the structural part of it. As the Project Proponent had submitted the NOC from the IWAI to construct the bridge across NW-3, the KSCZMA had granted only the CRZ Clearance as per the CRZ Notification, 2011. The KSCZMA has also stated that it has considered those survey numbers which come under the purview

¶129

Page 9 of 14

¶130

of the CZMP, 2011, and not those survey numbers which are outside the CRZ limit. The KSCZMA also had specified the condition that the fishing activity and the movement of fishing boats shall not be disturbed or affected due to the construction activity and the impact should be monitored and addressed. The KSCZMA also directed the Project Proponent to furnish a compliance report of the conditions stated in the CRZ Clearance issued.

¶131

12. In Appeal No.11 of 2023 (SZ) , the Public Works Department (PWD) , which is carrying out the project, has filed a reply stating that the Kodungallur Port is about 40 km north of Cochin Port. It is a riverine port at the mouth of the Periyar River. The southern bank is Munambam, which is in Ernakulam District, and the northern bank is Azhikode, which is in Thrissur District. Both Munambam and Azhikode are as such accessible from NH 66. The proposed project is constructed across Munambam Kayal to connect Azhikode in Kaipamangalam LAC in Thrissur District and Munambam in Vyppinkara LAC in Ernakulam District.

¶132

13. It is also stated that the link between Vyppin and Kodungallur is an absolute necessity since the Gosree Bridge is open to traffic and Vallarpadam Container Terminal was functioning in its commercial operation. Since NH 66 is having a high traffic volume, the construction of the proposed bridge would reduce the traffic congestion substantially. The proposed bridge across the Periyar River is designed based on the IWAI and Port norms and is having a vertical clearance of 12 metres. The proposed bridge will not affect the movement of the vessels.

¶133

14. It is further stated in the reply that, at present, the jankar service is used across Munambam Kayal, which gets disrupted often, and a huge amount is required for repairing the jankar boats, resulting in the people of the locality facing difficulties in crossing the Kayal when the jankar gets under repair. Hence, the proposed bridge will solve the issue of connectivity between Munambam in Ernakulam District and Azhikode in Thrissur District. The new link also will be useful for people of northern Kerala, and they can have easy access to reach Kochi city

¶134

Page 10 of 14

¶135

by making use of this bridge, which would also be a part of the coastal highway. The construction of this bridge would save the construction of an underwater tunnel, which would be more expensive. In fact, the DPR of the proposed bridge is prepared after conducting a detailed investigation. The height of 12 metres provided at the central span is from the Maximum Flood Level of the river for the smooth passage of river sea vessels. Therefore, the proposed bridge will not be an obstruction or hindrance to the navigation of vessels, ships, boats, etc. The clearance to the said effect is also obtained from the Director of Ports on 13.04.2018. The dredging cost has also been earmarked as per the direction of the Port Authorities.

¶136

15. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides in all the three matters, considered the pleadings and also perused the materials available on record.

¶137

16. The common point to be answered in all the above three matters is about the proposed bridge between Azhikode and Munambam, for which the KSCZMA has granted the CRZ Clearance.

¶138

17. From the replies filed by the respondent authorities, it is made clear that there is a proposal for the coastal highway continuously along the coastal belt of Kerala extending from Thiruvananthapuram to Kasargod. But the missing link was at Munambam in Ernakulam District and Azhikode in Thrissur District due to Munambam Kayal. Hence, it was decided to include the Azhikode–Munambam Bridge under consideration in the proposed coastal highway, which is now part of the prestigious coastal highway. Both Munambam and Azhikode are accessible from the State Highway. Munambam is an important place in Vyppinkara Island, which is connected to Ernakulam through the Gosree Bridge. The small country town of Kodungallur is situated 35 km south of Thrissur. The construction of the bridge across the port waters will not affect the berthing area and will not obstruct or hinder the navigation of all vessels, ships, and boats of various sizes to the berthing area, since it is complying with the IWAI and Ports specifications.

¶139

Page 11 of 14

¶140

18. The clearance from the Director of Ports was obtained on 13.04.2018. The NOC was also issued considering the clearance as per the IWAI norms as suggested by the Director of Ports. The horizontal clearance of 45 metres and vertical clearance of 12 metres from the Maximum Flooding Level was also approved by the KSCZMA, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 08.06.2023. The KSCZMA also granted the clearance subject to the following conditions:

¶141

a. The land reclamation is strictly prohibited.

¶142

b. The flow of the tidal influenced waterbody shall not be disturbed or altered.

¶143

c. The fishing activity and movement of fishing boats shall not be disturbed/affected due to construction activity; the impacts should be monitored and addressed.

¶144

d. No construction waste shall be dumped/discharged in the CRZ area.

¶145

19. Thus, from the above replies of the respondent authorities, it can be seen that the construction of the proposed bridge would be more economical than constructing an underwater tunnel. The respondent authorities have also given the technical clearance that the height of 12 metres provided at the central span is from the Maximum Flooding Level of the river for the smooth passage of the river sea vessels. Additionally, the dredging cost is also earmarked in the estimate as per the directions received from the Port Authorities. The said bridge across the port waters will not be an obstruction or hindrance to the navigation of all vessels, ships, and boats to the berthing area, as they are in compliance with the IWAI and Port specifications. The IWAI also imposed specific conditions to be followed while undertaking the construction of a structure across the coastal waterway. The Director of Ports also had specifically mandated that sufficient span and vertical clearance be provided at the channel for easy operation of barrages while constructing the bridge. This may be as per the IWAI norms or even higher in order to move big container barrages also.

¶146

Page 12 of 14

¶147

20. When the matter was taken up for final hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the KSCZMA furnished photographs taken in the month of July 2026, showing that 80% of the bridge work has already been completed, and it is also not the case of the Appellants/Applicants herein that during the construction of the proposed bridge work, their day-to-day work was totally disturbed or that the movement of the fishing boats was restricted.

¶148

21. The Original Applications, which are filed after issuance of the CRZ Clearance, also have not highlighted any of the conditions given in the CRZ Clearance as having been violated by the Project Proponent. Further, the authorities have categorically stated that this is part of the coastal highway and the completion of the above bridge would provide a continuous flow of traffic from Thiruvananthapuram to Kasargod; besides, it will ease out the traffic on NH 66.

¶149

22. Considering the public purpose, which would save considerable time and distance for transportation of goods from Vallarpadam, the proposed bridge is deemed as a prestigious project for the coastal highway.

¶150

23. So, the CRZ Clearance granted is in accordance with the CRZ Notification, 2011, and the challenge made to the same cannot be sustained, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

¶151

24. Further, the Applicants in both the Original Applications have not established that the flow of the tidal influenced waterbody will be disturbed due to the construction. To be noted is that the matter is pending from the year 2023 and the construction of the bridge was in progress; none of the allegations made in both the Original Applications are established to be true even during the construction of the bridge.

¶152

25. As the CRZ Clearance from the KSCZMA, which regulates development activities within the permitted and restricted zone, and also the NOC obtained for the structural aspect of the construction of the bridge from the IWAI are in place

¶153

Page 13 of 14

¶154

and are not challenged by the Applicants herein, and further, the construction is almost completed, the Original Applications have to be closed.

¶155

26. In view of the foregoing discussions and observations, the appeal [Appeal No.11 of 2023 (SZ)] is dismissed , confirming the order of the Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority. Consequently, the Original Applications [ O.A. Nos.139 of 2023 (SZ) and 47 of 2024 (SZ)] are closed .

¶156

27. The pending interlocutory applications [I.A. No.86 & 87 of 2023 (SZ) in Appeal No.11 of 2023 (SZ)] shall stand closed.

¶157

Sd/-
Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM
Sd/-
Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM
Internet – Yes/No
All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No
Appeal No.11/2023 (SZ) &
I.A. Nos.86 & 87/2023 (SZ)
WITH
O.A. No.139/2023 (SZ)
WITH
O.A. No.47/2024 (SZ)
09 th September, 2026. Mn.

¶158

Page 14 of 14

Fishing Boat Owners Association v. Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fishing Boat Owners Association v. Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipak Dhansukhbhai Patel vs State of Gujarat

Dipak Dhansukhbhai Patel vs State of Gujarat

Dipak Dhansukhbhai Patel vs State of Gujarat

Twilight Craft Papers Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Gujarat

S Vanjinmuthu vs the District Collector

Brahmanand vs the State of Madhya Pradesh

Puru Sharma vs Union of India

Tapeshwar Singh Bhati vs Director Resonanat Wealth Consultancy P Ltd.

Vivasayeegal Mattrum Suthrusuzhal Paathukapu Sangam Erode Represented by Vijayakumar vs Sunraja Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Ahmed Riyas vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Its Principal Secretary Environment Forest and Climate Change Department Secretariant Complex Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai

Vivasayeegal Mattrum Suthrusuzhal Paathukapu Sangam Erode Represented by Vijayakumar vs Sunraja Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Fishing Boat Owners Association vs Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority

Fishing Boat Owners Association vs Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority

1. the President Fishing Boat Owners Association vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change