Goemkarponn Desk
PANAJI: The High of Bombay High at Goa today has quashed and set aside Blue Flag certification notification for Miramar beach.
The Division Bench of Justice Deshmukh and Justice M S Sonak order comes in response to a Public Interest Litigation filed by Kashinath Shetye and other activists challenging the notification issuance without public consultation.
As per details, on October 7, 2019; the High Court had stayed the notification dated July 12, 2019, inter alia, on the grounds that there were no reasons disclosed for dispensing the Public Consultative Process (PCP) which was required to be followed under the Environment Protection Rules, 1986.
“Government, could not have, in a most casual manner, dispensed with such requirement and deprived the public of an opportunity to object to the activities proposed in an eco-sensitive zone. No doubt Section 17 refers to urgency and the said rules refer to the public interest and therefore, there may be a wider latitude when it comes to dispensing with the public notice,” the HC said
Further, it said that the Central Government by dispensing with the public notice under clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the said Rules has deprived the stakeholders of valuable opportunity of filing their objections against the imposition of prohibition or restrictions on carrying on of processes or operations.
It added, “permitting several activities and facilities up to a distance of 10 meters from HTL. In the absence of the impugned Notification, it is quite doubtful whether several of the activities and facilities referred to in the impugned Notification could have been put up on the Miramar beach or at least in the area up to 200 meters from HTL on the Miramar beach and that too without prior clearance,”
HC further said the impugned Notification also purports to exempt the requirement of prior clearance under CRZ Notification of 2011. Therefore, unless there was genuine public interest or some urgency that did not brook the delay of even 60 days, the Central Government was not justified in dispensing with a public notice under clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the said Rules and depriving the stakeholders of opportunity to lodge their objections.
On January 19, 2021, the High Court had granted the petitioner relief to amend the petition and had also granted the opportunity to the respondents to file the reply within two weeks. However, with no appearance on behalf of the respondents nor any reply filed on behalf of the respondents explaining why the PCP was carried out, the Bench stayed the notification dated January 9, 2020, until further orders.
