Judgment Dr. CHANDRACHUD D.Y., J.:---Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal. The challenge 2.The Fishery Survey of India is in the process of constructing a building consisting of a ground floor and four storeys on reclaimed land near Sassoon Dock, Mumbai. The building is situated at a distance of 150 metres from the High Tide Line. The project is sought to be implemented for a Facilities Centre of the Fishery Survey of India ("F.S.I."). The construction is sought to be impugned, inter alia, by two Associations representing residents interested in preserving ecology and the environment. The contention of the petitioners before the Court is that the construction is within the prohibition of the Coastal Regulation Zone notification dated 19th February, 1991 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests of the Government of India ("M.O.E.F.") and on the ground that it violates the conditions stipulated by the Ministry in a permission granted on 23rd October, 1991. The Sassoon Dock Fishery Harbour: 3.The construction which is being carried on by F.S.I. in on Plot No. 2-A of Unit No. 12, which is a part of a larger piece of land that was reclaimed from the sea for a project of a fishing harbour. The project was undertaken by the Bombay Port Trust (B.P.T.") and the entire reclaimed area is stated to admeasure 15.27 hectares. On 15th March, 1977, the Government of India in the Ministry of Agriculture, conveyed to the Chairman of the B.P.T. an administrative approval of the Government of India for the construction of a Fishing Harbour at Sassoon Dock at an estimated cost not exceeding Rs. 405.72 lakhs under a Central Scheme for the provision of landing and berthing facilities for fishing craft at Major Ports. The sanction was subject to the condition that one hectare of land in the newly reclaimed area at Sassoon Dock will be allotted to the Exploratory Fisheries Project, Bombay (the precursor of F.S.I.). The Botanical Garden: 4.B.P.T. commenced the project in 1979-80, but it came to be challenged in proceedings before this Court by the Bombay Environmental Action Group. The petition was dismissed by this Court. An appeal as well as a special leave petition thereafter, were also rejected. The Botanical Garden: 4.B.P.T. commenced the project in 1979-80, but it came to be challenged in proceedings before this Court by the Bombay Environmental Action Group. The petition was dismissed by this Court. An appeal as well as a special leave petition thereafter, were also rejected. B.P.T. has stated in these proceedings that the Bombay Environmental Action Group sought the intervention of the then Prime Minister, who ordered that a study be conducted. On the report of the study being submitted, it was directed that while the project may be proceeded with, this would be subject to the condition that 50% of the area required for the project would be converted into a botanical garden. This directive of the then Prime Minister, it has been stated, was conveyed in a letter dated 12th September, 1980 to Admiral Cursetjee. The Draft Development Plan: 5.On 19th October, 1988, the Urban Development Department of the State Government addressed a communication to F.S.I. in response to its request for permission to construct a building in a half hectare plot allotted to it by B.P.T. in the Sassoon Dock Area for construction of a building. The letter stated that the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority had cleared the proposal for the construction of a building that would house among other things a Facility Centre, Reference Collection, Computer Centre, Laboratory and Museum; and the Municipal Corporation had been advised to approve the building plan for the said construction pending sanction of the Revised Development Plan. The letter recorded that the question as regards restrictions on constructions within 500 metres from the sea had also been examined and the Municipal Corporation had been informed of the Governments clearance of the construction in accordance with the Rules. The Rejection of the Proposal by M.O.E.F.: 6.On 7th June, 1989, the Secretary in the Ministry of Food Processing Industries, that being the parent Ministry of F.S.I. at the material time, addressed a letter to the Secretary in the Ministry of Environment and Forests seeking clearance "with regard to construction of office building/Facility Centre for the Fishery Survey of India Headquarters, Bombay". On 30th June, 1989, the Secretary in the M.O.E.F. responded stating that it was not possible for the Union of India "to make an exception from the general policy governing such constructions". On 30th June, 1989, the Secretary in the M.O.E.F. responded stating that it was not possible for the Union of India "to make an exception from the general policy governing such constructions". The proposal was turned down on the ground that "no construction of buildings within 500 metres of the High Tide Line, can be allowed." The letter, however, stated that construction "required for operation of harbours essentially required to be located on sea front could be considered for exemption." Consequently, it was stated that "if this is an office building, there is no justification for exemption". Modification of the Development Plan: 7.On 20th July, 1990, two notifications were issued by the Urban Development Department of the Government of Maharashtra, the first under section 31(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 sanctioning part of the revised draft development plan for A to G Wards excluding 9.60 hectares out of foreshore land located at Sassoon Dock. (According to the petitioners, this exclusion was because less than the stipulated area of 50% had been shown as reserved for a recreation ground or botanical garden). By the second notification, the State Government invited suggestions and objections in respect of a proposed modification that would show 50% of the aforesaid excluded land of 9.60 hectares as reserved for a botanical garden. The plot of land to be leased to F.S.I. was shown on the South-Western part of the land abutting the sea. C.R.Z. Notification: 8.On 19th February, 1991, the Union Government issued a notification in exercise of powers conferred by section 5(3)(d) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 declaring coastal stretches upto 500 metres from the High Tide Line and the land between the Low Tide Line and the High Tide Line as the Coastal Regulation Zone. (This notification is in accordance with the common usage for convenience referred to as the C.R.Z. Notification). The notification prohibits several activities in the C.R.Z. area and lays down parameters for the regulation of permissible activities. Fresh Proposal for Development: 9.After the C.R.Z. Notification was issued. F.S.I. once again approached M.O.E.F. for its permission for the construction of an office building. This time, F.S.I. stated that when the Sassoon Fishery Harbour was sanctioned, it was a condition of the sanction that one hectare of land should be provided to F.S.I. for its office building. Fresh Proposal for Development: 9.After the C.R.Z. Notification was issued. F.S.I. once again approached M.O.E.F. for its permission for the construction of an office building. This time, F.S.I. stated that when the Sassoon Fishery Harbour was sanctioned, it was a condition of the sanction that one hectare of land should be provided to F.S.I. for its office building. F.S.I. claimed that this was obviously because its activities are closely connected with the activities of the Fishery Harbour. F.S.I. claimed that it had a large number of vessels that are used for catching fish and, in fact, its original requirement was reduced to half a hectare in order to meet the requirement of land for a botanical garden. Once again a plan of the area showing the plot in question, was sought to be annexed which reflected the position of the plot which had been leased out to F.S.I. The plan was in accordance with the draft development plan notification dated 20th July, 1990 which has already been referred to earlier. 10.On 7th June, 1991, the Secretary M.O.E.F. requested the parent Ministry of F.S.I. to forward information on (i) the original layout plan together with a report on the present implementation of the directives which were issued in regard to the Sassoon Fishery Harbour Project and (ii) the implications of the proposal on the directives earlier imposed. 11.On 29th June, 1991, the parent Ministry of F.S.I. responded by stating that B.P.T. had taken over the project for the construction of an Environmental Park comprising 50% of the area of the Fishing Harbour Project and that the new plan of F.S.I. did not provide for fish drying or for a fish meal plant. Approval was specifically sought for the construction of an office building for F.S.I. stating that the complex would include a museum, computer centre, laboratory, reference collection facility etc. F.S.I. stated that besides having no impact of environmental aspects, the clearance would enable F.S.I. to carry out its function of surveying marine resources more efficiently. Moreover, it was stated that since the original sanction of the Sassoon Dock Project envisaged the allotment of land to F.S.I. the linkage between the project and F.S.I. was recognised even then. Appended to the letter were copies of old and new layout plans in which the area leased out to F.S.I. was shown in the South Western portion of the land in question. Appended to the letter were copies of old and new layout plans in which the area leased out to F.S.I. was shown in the South Western portion of the land in question. The Revised Proposal: 12.Subsequently, on 19th August, 1991, the Government of India in the Ministry of Food Processing Industries (Fisheries Division), submitted a revised preliminary plan for the construction of a Facility Centre for the headquarters of F.S.I. This, it was noted, was in continuation of the earlier letter dated 29th June, 1991 and subsequent discussions held with the M.O.E.F. This time, it was recorded that the proposal for a Museum, computer room etc. had been eliminated and activities had been restricted only to foreshore operations. The revised preliminary plan contained a pictorial representation as well as a drawing on the basis of which the approval of the M.O.E.F. was sought. The plan showed that the proposed building would consist of a ground floor and one upper storey. The site plan similarly showed the exact location of the plot on which construction was to be carried out as abutting the sea. The plan set out the specified facilities which would be provided by F.S.I. on the ground floor and on the first floor of the proposed building. On the ground floor, it stipulated that the premises would be utilised for (i) a maintenance workshop; (ii) a gear repair room; (iii) two sorting rooms; (iv) a chill room; (v) stores; (vi) rest room and toilet; and (vii) a fish freezing, processing and preserving room. (Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of F.S.I. has stated before the Court that F.S.I. voluntarily gives up the proposed room for fish freezing, processing and preserving as it is not in accord with the C.R.Z. Notification dated 19th February, 1991). In so far as the first floor was concerned, it envisaged the demarcation of areas for: (i) a demonstration hall; (ii) a laboratory; (iii) a store for laboratories; (iv) a library for laboratories; (v) a laboratory dark room; (vi) rooms for scientists and (vii) publication and extension services to the fishing industry. The Approval of M.O.E.F.: 13.The Ministry of Environment and Forests communicated its approval on 23rd October, 1991 to the revised proposal submitted by F.S.I. on 19th August, 1991. The subject of the approval was the "construction of facilities by Fishery Survey of India requiring water frontage". The Approval of M.O.E.F.: 13.The Ministry of Environment and Forests communicated its approval on 23rd October, 1991 to the revised proposal submitted by F.S.I. on 19th August, 1991. The subject of the approval was the "construction of facilities by Fishery Survey of India requiring water frontage". The approval stipulated that it was subject to the implementation of various safeguards. These safeguards, inter alia, envisaged that the publication and extension services should be located beyond 500 metres from the High Tide Line. Other safeguards were stipulated in regard to liquid effluents, organic wastes and solid wastes and in regard to noise levels from the workshop. In paragraph 3 of its approval, M.O.E.F. made the following stipulation: "In case of any deviation/alterations in the project proposal from those submitted to this Ministry, the above stipulations may be modified and/or new ones imposed for ensuring environmental protection." Modification of the location: 14.The genesis of the dispute relates to the relocation of the proposed construction from a location immediately abutting the sea to an adjacent location. On 1st October, 1993, a letter was addressed on behalf of F.S.I. to the Secretary in the Ministry of Food Processing Industries recording that B.P.T. had insisted upon a modification of the layout. The Ministry was informed that the new plot would be taken possession of by F.S.I. and the construction of the compound wall thereon would be commenced as soon as the modified layout was approved by the Urban Development Department of the State Government. On 1st October, 1993, the State Government in a communication to the Chairman of B.P.T. accepted the proposal for the relocation of the site inter alia for F.S.I. as proposed by the Port Trust. On 20th September, 1994, representatives of B.P.T. and of F.S.I. recorded in a possession certificate that the earlier plot admeasuring 4972 sq.mtrs. which was handed over to F.S.I. on 9th May, 1985 had been taken over by B.P.T. and in lieu thereof, another plot bearing Plot No. 2-A had been handed over to F.S.I. Approvals and Commencement of Construction: 15.F.S.I. in its affidavit filed before this Court has stated that construction of a compound wall together with fencing was completed in April, 1995. According to F.S.I., the casting of piles was completed on 12th April, 2001 and the construction of the plinth level took place by 21st January, 2002. According to F.S.I., the casting of piles was completed on 12th April, 2001 and the construction of the plinth level took place by 21st January, 2002. In the meantime, according to F.S.I., it was in receipt of an approvals from the B.M.R.D.A. (26th June, 1992), B.P.T. (19th March, 1999). Heritage Conservation Committee of the Municipal Corporation (12 April, 1999), the Fire Department of the Corporation (28th April, 1999) and of the Executive Engineer, Building Proposals of the Municipal Corporation (23rd December, 1999). On 2nd May, 2001, the Port Trust communicated its approval to the construction of a Facility Centre on Plot No. 2-A subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The Petition: 16.The writ petition before this Court challenging the construction was instituted on 9th August, 2002 by which stage, according to F.S.I., the construction work had commenced. F.S.I. has stated in these proceedings that the construction had already progressed by the time this Court passed an order on 22nd August, 2002, after hearing the parties, requiring F.S.I. to stop all further construction activities on the plot and on the construction in dispute. By its interim order, this Court directed M.O.E.F. to file an affidavit clarifying whether the construction undertaken was in accordance with the C.R.Z. Notification and the Coastal Zone Management Plan ("C.Z.M.P.") and to produce before the Court original papers relating to the permission dated 23rd October, 1991, including the application submitted by F.S.I. The scope of the challenge: 17.In these proceedings, the challenge urged before the Court on behalf of the petitioners is that (i) The construction in question is prohibited by the C.R.Z. Notification dated 19th February, 1991 and in violation of the Coastal Zone Management Plan approved on 27th September, 1996 by M.O.E.F. and (ii) The construction is in breach of the clearance granted by M.O.E.F. on 23rd October, 1991; the violation of the clearance being in respect of (i) the location of the plot, (ii) the height of the structure and (iii) the number of storeys. Consequently, it was urged that all the other permissions which have been granted by the local authorities, including the Municipal Corporation must necessarily stand invalidated since they are based on the clearance which has been granted by M.O.E.F. on 23rd October, 1991. Consequently, it was urged that all the other permissions which have been granted by the local authorities, including the Municipal Corporation must necessarily stand invalidated since they are based on the clearance which has been granted by M.O.E.F. on 23rd October, 1991. The Defence: 18.Though the nuances of the submissions would be considered while dealing with each head separately, it would at this stage be appropriate to note that the respondents in their defence urge that (i) the petition is devoid of any element of public interest; (ii) the petition suffers from delay and laches; (iii) there is no breach of the C.R.Z. Notification dated 19th February, 1991 and (iv) there is no breach on the part of F.S.I. of the approval granted by M.O.E.F. on 23rd October, 1991. The Provisions of the C.R.Z. Notification: 19.Before considering the merits of the issues which arise for adjudication in these proceedings, it would be necessary to advert to the provisions of the C.R.Z. Notification dated 19th February, 1991 issued by M.O.E.F. in exercise of powers conferred upon it by the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Rules framed thereunder. The notification declares that the coastal stretches of seas, bays, estuaries, creeks, rivers and backwaters which are influenced by tidal action in the landward side upto 500 metres from the High Tide Line (H.T.L.) and the land between the Low Tide Line and the H.T.L. as the Coastal Regulation Zone. The notification then prescribes restrictions on the setting up and expansion of industries, operations or processes in the C.R.Z. area. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that the plot of land in question is in close proximity to the sea since in its affidavit dated 19th August, 2002, F.S.I. has adverted to the fact that "this facility is being constructed about 150 metres from the High Tide Level". Paragraph 2 of the notification contains a list of prohibited activities. Amongst the activities which are prohibited is the setting up of new industries and the expansion of existing industries, except those directly related to the water front or directly needing foreshore facilities (Clause (i) of paragraph 2) and the setting up and expansion of Fish Processing Units (Clause (iii) of paragraph 2). Amongst the activities which are prohibited is the setting up of new industries and the expansion of existing industries, except those directly related to the water front or directly needing foreshore facilities (Clause (i) of paragraph 2) and the setting up and expansion of Fish Processing Units (Clause (iii) of paragraph 2). Paragraph 3 of the Regulation is entitled, "Regulation of Permissible Activities" and it provides that all other activities, except those prohibited in paragraph 2 will be regulated as provided therein. Clause (1) of paragraph 3 enunciates that clearance shall be given for any activity within the Coastal Regulation Zone only if it requires water front and foreshore facilities. Clause (2) of paragraph 3 lays down certain activities which will require environmental clearance from M.O.E.F. These include in sub-clause (iv) all other activities with an investment exceeding rupees five crores except those activities which are to be regulated by the concerned authorities at the State/Union Territory level in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 6, sub-paragraph (2) of Annexure I of the notification. Under paragraph 3(3)(i), the Coastal States and Union Territory Administrations had to prepare Coastal Zone Management Plans (C.Z.M.P.) within a period of one year from the date of the notification identifying and classifying the C.R.Z. areas within their respective territories in accordance with the guidelines specified in Annexures I and II of the notification and obtain approval of the M.O.E.F. All development and activities within the C.R.Z. other than the prohibited activities specified in paragraph 2 and the activities specified in paragraph 3(2) for which environmental clearance from the M.O.E.F. is required are to be regulated by the State Governments or the Union Territories or the local authorities, as the case may be, in accordance with the guidelines contained in Annexures I and II of the notification. In the meantime, until a C.Z.M.P. has been prepared and approved, all development and activities were to be such as would not violate the provisions of the notification. Annexure I to the notification provides for a classification of the C.R.Z. into four categories for regulating development activities. In the meantime, until a C.Z.M.P. has been prepared and approved, all development and activities were to be such as would not violate the provisions of the notification. Annexure I to the notification provides for a classification of the C.R.Z. into four categories for regulating development activities. C.R.Z.-I consists of ecologically sensitive and important areas; C.R.Z.-II of areas within Municipal limits or in other legally designated urban areas which have been developed upto or close to the shore-line; C.R.Z.-III of areas which are relatively undisturbed other than those in C.R.Z.-I and II while C.R.Z.-IV consists of coastal stretches in the Andaman Nicobar, Lakshadweep and small Islands. In so far as C.R.Z.-II areas are concerned, it has been laid down that buildings shall be permitted only on the landward side of the existing road (or roads proposed in the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan of the area) or on the landward side of existing authorised structures. The Approval of the Coastal Zone Management Plan and subsequent clarifications by M.O.E.F.: 20.By a communication dated 27th September, 1996, M.O.E.F. approved the Coastal Zone Management Plan submitted by the State of Maharashtra on 22nd November, 1995, subject to certain conditions and modifications. Amongst the significant conditions are stipulations that (i) all the relevant provisions of the C.R.Z. Notification of 1991 as amended in 1994 shall be strictly incorporated in the C.Z.M.P.; (ii) no activity which has been declared as prohibited in paragraph 2 of the notification shall be carried out within the Coastal Regulation Zone and (iii) the approval of the C.Z.M.P. would not imply approval of any proposed project including jetties, ports, harbours and buildings indicated in the plan/map. 21.On 27th March, 1998 M.O.E.F. in a clarificatory communication to the Chief Secretary to the State Government inter alia stated that in areas categories as C.R.Z. II, construction of buildings can be permitted on the landward side of the imaginary line drawn along existing authorised structures. On 8th September, 1998, this was followed by a further clarification by M.O.E.F. in regard to the manner in which the imaginary line should be drawn. On 8th September, 1998, this was followed by a further clarification by M.O.E.F. in regard to the manner in which the imaginary line should be drawn. The clarification was in the following terms: "I. Construction of new buildings/reconstruction/expansion of existing authorised buildings shall not be permitted in the seaward side direction in the C.R.Z.-II area of Mumbai Municipal Corporation, unless the following conditions are satisfied: i. The C.R.Z.-II area should be within the territorial jurisdiction of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation as it existed on 19-2-1991, i.e. the date of coming into effect of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991. ii. This construction/protrusion towards the seaward side should not go beyond the imaginary line drawn from the seaward side of the existing authorised structure on the adjoining plot. iii. The imaginary line will be parallel to the High Tide Line. iv. The building(s) to be constructed will be restricted to the single plot (plot boundary as on 19-2-1991) immediately abutting/adjoining the existing authorised structures between which the imaginary line is drawn. v. The imaginary line to be drawn should not cut across any river, creek, backwater, estuary, water body, sandy beach or mangroves. vi. In case of reconstruction, change in the existing use of the building shall not be permitted. Further any permissible extension of the plinth in seaward direction vis a vis the existing plinth limits will be governed by the stipulation mentioned in the above paras." The submissions considered: 22.In this background, the submissions which have been urged on behalf of the petitioners can now be considered. (1) Breach of the clearance dated 23rd October, 1991: The admitted fact in the present case is that the clearance by M.O.E.F. is after the C.R.Z. Notification was issued; the notification was issued on 19th February, 1991 while clearance to F.S.I. was granted on 23rd October, 1991. Another admitted position that emerges from the facts of the present case is that the construction involves an investment in excess of Rs. 5 crores since it has been admitted in paragraph 5 of the affidavit of F.S.I. dated 8th October, 2002 that the financial expenditure came to be sanctioned in 1998 for a sum of Rs. 9.09 crores. 23.The C.R.Z. Notification contains in paragraph 2 a list of prohibited activities and in paragraph 3 a statement as regards regulation of permissible activities. 5 crores since it has been admitted in paragraph 5 of the affidavit of F.S.I. dated 8th October, 2002 that the financial expenditure came to be sanctioned in 1998 for a sum of Rs. 9.09 crores. 23.The C.R.Z. Notification contains in paragraph 2 a list of prohibited activities and in paragraph 3 a statement as regards regulation of permissible activities. Those activities which are prohibited within the C.R.Z. include the setting up of new industries and expansion of existing industries except those directly related to the water front or directly needing foreshore facilities. The test, therefore, is whether an industry is directly related to the water front or directly needs foreshore facilities. In (S. Jagannath v. Union of India)1, 1997(2) S.C.C. 87 , for instance, the Supreme Court held that the shrimp culture industry is neither directly related to the waterfront nor does it directly need foreshore facilities since the requirement of brackish water could be met from any source and was not necessarily confined only to sea water. Clause (1) of paragraph 3 of the C.R.Z. Notification then specifies that clearance can be given for an activity within the C.R.Z. only if it requires water front and foreshore facilities. 24.M.O.E.F. has filed an affidavit in these proceedings setting out the basis on which it issued an environmental clearance on 23rd October, 1991. In paragraph 2 of the affidavit, M.O.E.F. states thus: "The Ministry has accorded environmental clearance vide its letter dated 23-10-1991 for construction of certain facilities by fisheries Survey of India. This clearance is in accordance with para 3(1) of the C.R.Z. Notification of 1991 which provides for constructions requiring water front and foreshore facilities." (Emphasis supplied) M.O.E.F. has in its affidavit stated that the State Government submitted its Coastal Zone Management Plan for the State of Maharashtra to which an approval was granted on 26th September, 1996. According to M.O.E.F., the categorization of coastal stretches came into operation only in 1996. In the absence of such categorization, it has been stated, the Ministry while processing the proposal of F.S.I. relied on Clause 3(1) of the C.R.Z. Notification which contemplates the grant of clearance to activities within the C.R.Z. subject to such activities requiring water front and foreshore facilities. In the absence of such categorization, it has been stated, the Ministry while processing the proposal of F.S.I. relied on Clause 3(1) of the C.R.Z. Notification which contemplates the grant of clearance to activities within the C.R.Z. subject to such activities requiring water front and foreshore facilities. M.O.E.F. has explained that it was, therefore, provided as part of its conditions for approval that the publication and extension services are to be located beyond 500 metres from the High Tide Line since such services do not require water front. M.O.E.F. then states thus: "The Fisheries Survey of India should ensure that the above condition including the other conditions listed in the above clearance letter are complied with while taking up developmental activities in the area." (Emphasis supplied). M.O.E.F. then reiterates that clearance can be accorded for any activities within the C.R.Z. if the activities require water front and foreshore facilities and clearance was accordingly granted since the Facility Centre of the Fishery Survey of India constituted permissible activity. M.O.E.F. states that it accorded clearance to the facilities of F.S.I. "as their activities are foreshore requiring facilities which are permissible under the C.R.Z. Regulations". 25.F.S.I., in the course of the affidavits which have been filed before this Court described the nature of the activities undertaken by it and the range of its functions. F.S.I. was established in 1946 as a Pilot Project with the object of augmenting the food supply by the development of deep sea fishing. The institution attained the status of a survey institute in 1974 under the name of "Exploratory Fishery Project". On the enactment by Parliament of the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976, the Institution was reorganized in 1983 as a national institute and named as the Fishery Survey of India. According to F.S.I., with the declaration of the 200 nautical miles legal regime in the year 1976, India acquired sovereign rights with attendant responsibilities to explore, utilize and manage Marine Living Resources over 2.02 million sq. kms. of the Exclusive Economic Zone. F.S.I. has stated that it plays a significant role in the development of fisheries and the management of activities in relation thereto. kms. of the Exclusive Economic Zone. F.S.I. has stated that it plays a significant role in the development of fisheries and the management of activities in relation thereto. Fishing operatives, it has been stated, require practical sea service for appearing for the competency examinations and for this purpose training is imparted on board the vessels of F.S.I. F.S.I. also states that it has vital linkages with several national agencies and institutions associated with ocean studies and fisheries development. F.S.I. has seven bases located at Porbandar, Mumbai, Marmugao, Cochin, Chennai, Visakhapatnam and Port Blair and operates 13 vessels for survey and stock assessment of Marine Fishery Resources within the Exclusive Economic Zone. 26.According to F.S.I., the Facilities Research Centre is being constructed on plot No. 2-A, admeasuring about 4972 sq.mtrs. with a carpet area of 3254 sq.mtrs. 84% of the area is to be utilised to house facilities relating to the operation of survey vessels. Of the 13 survey vessels in the fleet of F.S.I., 2 are presently based in Mumbai and a few more are likely to be added to the fleet in the ensuing year. F.S.I. thus contends that the Facilities Centre would include a Marine Engineering Workshop, Laboratory, Store Rooms, a Display/Demonstration Section, Conference Hall, Library, Electronic and Radio Telephone section and such facilities which are directly related to the water front and to the foreshore. F.S.I. has stated that it proposes also to construct certain guest rooms for the use of Scientists and Engineers who return back in the odd hours of the night often after 20 days of voyage on high seas. These rooms, it has been stated, are not meant for public use or to accommodate officers of other departments. According to F.S.I., all its activities are related to the welfare of fishermen and fisherwomen and the fishing harbour activity requires water front with its ancillary facilities. 27.In this background, the grant of permission by M.O.E.F. of 23rd October, 1991 cannot be regarded as falling within the zone of prohibited activities contained in paragraph 2 of the C.R.Z. Notification or as outside the fold of permissible activities stipulated in paragraph 3(1) thereof. 27.In this background, the grant of permission by M.O.E.F. of 23rd October, 1991 cannot be regarded as falling within the zone of prohibited activities contained in paragraph 2 of the C.R.Z. Notification or as outside the fold of permissible activities stipulated in paragraph 3(1) thereof. The documentary material on record shows that as far back as on 15th March, 1997, the Government of India in the Ministry of Agriculture had communicated its administrative approval for the construction of a Fishing Harbour at Sassoon Dock, subject, inter alia, to the condition that one hectare of land in the newly reclaimed area of Sassoon Dock would be allotted to the Exploratory Fisheries Project, Bombay. The Exploratory Fisheries, Project has now grown into a full-fledged institution, the Fishery Survey of India. As originally envisaged, the requirement of F.S.I. was of one hectare of land, but that was subsequently reduced to half a hectare in view of the directive of the then Prime Minister of India that 50% of the area required for the Fishing Harbour Project should be converted into a Botanical garden. Meeting the requirement of F.S.I. was thus, an integral part of the project for the development of the Fishing Harbour at Sassoon Dock, which ultimately led to the grant of the administrative sanction on 15th March, 1977. The material which has been placed on the record by F.S.I. is sufficient to enable the Court to accept the submission of F.S.I. that there is indeed, a close nexus between the activities of F.S.I., the water front and the foreshore. Equally, M.O.E.F. while granting its permission of 23rd October, 1991 could not have been unmindful of the fact that the notification of 19th February, 1991 was conceived with the salutary public purpose of preserving the ecology in mind. The notification, therefore, stipulated that even if an activity is not prohibited, clearance shall be granted for locating it within the Coastal Regulation Zone only if it requires water front and foreshore facilities. The mandate is that the activity must require water front and foreshore facilities. That requirement would not be met by a remote or indirect connection with the water front or foreshore. Only if the activity requires a water front or foreshore, could it be permitted. The mandate is that the activity must require water front and foreshore facilities. That requirement would not be met by a remote or indirect connection with the water front or foreshore. Only if the activity requires a water front or foreshore, could it be permitted. The correspondence between the Ministry of Food Processing Industries and M.O.E.F. prior to the grant of the sanction emphasised the concern of M.O.E.F. which led to the formulation of its position that it would not grant approval for an office or administrative building. Even prior to the issuance of the notification dated 19th February, 1991. M.O.E.F. had declined to permit the construction of an office building for F.S.I. within 500 metres of High Tide Line. A distinction was, however, made as regards such constructions required for operation of the harbour which are essentially required to be located on the sea front. Again, on 29th June, 1991, the Ministry of Food Processing Industries revived the proposal for the construction of an office building for F.S.I. stating that the complex would now include inter alia, a museum, computer room, laboratory, reference collection facility etc. Discussions took place between the parent Ministry of F.S.I. and M.O.E.F. in pursuance whereof, the letter dated 19th August, 1991 recorded that a revised preliminary plan was being submitted for the construction of a Facility Centre for F.S.I. In this letter, it was stated that the proposal for the construction of a museum, computer room etc. had been eliminated and activities to be located were restricted only to foreshore operations. It was on the basis of this revised proposal that F.S.I. granted its approval on 23rd October, 1991. While granting its approval F.S.I. made it clear that it was not granting clearance for the location of publication and extension services to Fishing Industries. 28.The approach of M.O.E.F. to the problem is thus clear both from the correspondence on the record and the affidavit which has been filed in these proceedings. M.O.E.F. made it abundantly clear that an office building within a distance of 500 metres of the High Tide Line could not be sanctioned. Similarly, what would be sanctioned and permitted was a Facilities Centre relatable to those activities of F.S.I. which required water front and foreshore facilities. Consistent with the approach, even the publication and extension services were to be excluded from the proposal. Similarly, what would be sanctioned and permitted was a Facilities Centre relatable to those activities of F.S.I. which required water front and foreshore facilities. Consistent with the approach, even the publication and extension services were to be excluded from the proposal. Indeed, that if how F.S.I. understood the position of M.O.E.F. because its letter dated 19th August, 1991 stated that it was eliminating various activities from the ambit of the proposal and was restricting the proposal to foreshore operations only. Subsequent letters addressed by M.O.E.F. on 4th December, 1992, 5th July, 1993, 3rd July, 1995, 6th May, 1996, 27th January, 1997 and 18th January, 2001 expressly referred to the construction of a facility by F.S.I., "requiring water front". 29.A perusal of the revised preliminary plan submitted by F.S.I. to M.O.E.F. would reveal the following salient features: (i) The structure was to consist of a ground floor and one upper storey; (ii) The structure would be located on a portion of the reclaimed land which abutted on the water front and it was shown in the site plan as being in the South-Western portion of the reclaimed land; and (iii) The activities that would be carried on in the proposed building would be: (a) A Maintenance Workshop, (b) A Gear Repair Room, (c) Laboratories, (d) Store Rooms, (e) A Fish Processing Section, (f) Demonstration Hall, (g) A Library, (h) Rooms for Scientists, (i) Rest Rooms for the Staff, and (j) Sorting Rooms. 30.Now, the admitted position in the present case is that instead of a construction consisting of a ground floor and one upper floor, the proposed construction that is being carried out by F.S.I. is of a ground floor and four upper floors. The construction which is actually being carried on is not at the same location as originally envisaged but on an adjacent plot. F.S.I. has sought to place reliance on paragraph 3 of M.O.E.F.s letter dated 23rd October, 1991 which provides that any deviation or alteration in the project proposals from those submitted to the Ministry may warrant an imposition of new or modified conditions. F.S.I. has sought to place reliance on paragraph 3 of M.O.E.F.s letter dated 23rd October, 1991 which provides that any deviation or alteration in the project proposals from those submitted to the Ministry may warrant an imposition of new or modified conditions. This is not a charter to F.S.I. to make deviations or alterations from the plan submitted to M.O.E.F. without the written approval of M.O.E.F. Paragraph 3 of the permission granted by M.O.E.F. cannot in any circumstances be construed as conferring liberty upon F.S.I. to construct a structure of a nature and character different from that which was envisaged in the original permission dated 23rd October, 1991. The contention of Counsel for M.O.E.F. is that the height of the structure, the number of storeys and location is a matter for the Planning Authority and not for M.O.E.F. This cannot be accepted. The acceptance of the proposition which was urged on behalf of F.S.I. would have serious ramifications for it would then permit a developer having obtained a restricted permission from M.O.E.F. to alter the conditions by constructing a building in violation of those stipulations. Indeed, what paragraph 3 of the permission would mean is that there shall be no deviation or alteration in the project proposal and that if there was any intention to deviate therefrom M.O.E.F. would modify the stipulations which it had already imposed or impose new conditions. The question of M.O.E.F. modifying its conditions or imposing new conditions would arise if it were to be informed in advance of the proposed modification of the plan on the basis of which permission was sought and granted. A developer cannot confront M.O.E.F. with a fait accompli by a unilateral modification of plans. 31.M.O.E.F. in its letters dated 4th December, 1992, 5th July, 1993, 3rd July, 1995, 6th May, 1996, 22nd January, 1997, 18th January, 2001 and 28th January, 2002 continued to insist that there must be a compliance with all the conditions which it had stipulated for the grant of its permission. As late as on 31st October, 2002, the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forests, wrote to F.S.I. drawing attention to an earlier letter dated 28th January, 2002, recording that information which had been sought had not been submitted till then. As late as on 31st October, 2002, the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forests, wrote to F.S.I. drawing attention to an earlier letter dated 28th January, 2002, recording that information which had been sought had not been submitted till then. The letter dated 31st October, 2002 which was addressed by an Additional Director in the Regional Office of M.O.E.F. at Bhopal, adverts to the earlier letter. The plinth level was completed in January 2002, according to F.S.I. Between then and October, 2002, there was an obvious failure to keep M.O.E.F. apprised of the construction, as would be borne out by M.O.E.F.s letter dated 31st October, 2002. 32.We have repeatedly enquired both of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of F.S.I. and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of M.O.E.F. as to whether F.S.I. informed M.O.E.F. of the change in its plans which would warrant the increase in the hight of the structure, the change in the location of the building and the increase in the upper storeys from one, as originally envisaged, to four. Counsel for F.S.I. and M.O.E.F. have not been able to produce any such letter on the record. There is only a solitary letter of 29th November, 2002 by which F.S.I. has purported to inform the Additional Director of M.O.E.F. that the work of construction was in progress and had reached upto the second floor of the super structure. Significantly, this letter has been addressed after the petition was filed in this Court; after the order of injunction was passed by this Court on 22nd August, 2002 and, indeed after M.O.E.F. had filed its affidavit dated 6th September, 2002 in these proceedings. 33.All these circumstances, are sufficient for us to hold that F.S.I. had failed to inform M.O.E.F. of the change in its plans submitted to M.O.E.F. on 19th August, 1991 which originally envisaged a structure consisting only of a ground and first floor. 33.All these circumstances, are sufficient for us to hold that F.S.I. had failed to inform M.O.E.F. of the change in its plans submitted to M.O.E.F. on 19th August, 1991 which originally envisaged a structure consisting only of a ground and first floor. We also find it impossible to accept the contention of F.S.I. that the clearance under Regulation 3(1) of the C.R.Z. Notification was only in respect of the activity to be undertaken and that once clearance was granted, the builder or developer would be free to locate the construction at any location or to construct a building of a height or dimensions at variance with what had been approved by M.O.E.F. There is merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that the C.R.Z. Notification would indicate that the location, height and the number of storeys of a proposed building/development within the C.R.Z. is of crucial environmental importance. This is more so in respect of a clearance under Regulation 3(1) which can be granted only where a waterfront and foreshore facility is required. F.S.I. has in a passing reference in one of its affidavits suggesting that the project was being monitored by the M.O.E.F. There is, however merit in the submission of the petitioners that once an environmental clearance has been granted, any monitoring can only be in aid of the enforcement of the environmental clearance and, that a written clearance which had been granted cannot be construed to have been modified or altered on the basis of silence or acquiescence on the part of M.O.E.F. Be that as it may, the successive letters addressed on behalf of M.O.E.F. to F.S.I. would reveal that in the present case, M.O.E.F. repeatedly called upon F.S.I. to inform it as regards compliance with the conditions which had been imposed on 23rd October, 1991. 34.Counsel for F.S.I. submits that the location of the building was altered to an adjoining plot so as to accommodate the requirement of B.P.T. Similarly, as regards the increase in the height of the structure and the number of storeys, it has been stated that this was occasioned due to the building regulations of the Municipal Corporation which required certain open spaces and that as a result of the increase in height, the built up area would be marginally less than what has been originally envisaged. The crux of the matter, however, is that the construction which is being carried out at present by F.S.I. is neither at the specific location that was originally envisaged in the approval granted by M.O.E.F., nor in conformity with the height or the number of storeys envisaged in the plan submitted by F.S.I. on the basis of which approval was obtained from M.O.E.F. 35.In so far as the user of the building is concerned, the Court would have to take due notice of the fact that while submitting the revised proposal on 19th August, 1991, F.S.I. made an express representation to M.O.E.F. that it was restricting its activities "to foreshore operations only" and that consequently, the proposal for housing a museum, computer rooms etc. had been eliminated. On the other hand, the approvals which were granted by the local authorities to F.S.I. on the basis of applications submitted by F.S.I. after 19th August, 1991, would belie the representation made by F.S.I. in its letter dated 19th August, 1991. On 26th June, 1992, the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority granted its approval to the proposed development of a structure which would be used as a Facility Centre, reference collection, lecture hall, computer centre, laboratory, museum, auditorium etc. This was on the basis of applications dated 30th March, 1992 and 27th April, 1992 submitted by F.S.I. Therefore, even after an express representation to the M.O.E.F. on 19th August, 1991 that F.S.I. was eliminating the proposal for a museum, computer room etc. and was restricting its proposal to those activities which require foreshore operations, the approval of the Municipal Corporation and local authorities was taken for the activities at variance with those referred to in the letter dated 19th August, 1991 addressed to M.O.E.F. The approval granted by the Heritage Conservation Committee of the Municipal Corporation on 12th April, 1999, refers to a proposal for construction of a Facility Centre building consisting of a ground floor and three upper storeys and the central wing with a ground floor and four upper storeys. The approval specified that the Facility Centre will house a laboratory, computer centre, library, and connected office space. Similarly, the approval granted by the Fire Department of the Municipal Corporation on 28th April, 1999 would show that on the second floor of the proposed building, F.S.I. proposed to house an administrative office and cabins for officers. The approval specified that the Facility Centre will house a laboratory, computer centre, library, and connected office space. Similarly, the approval granted by the Fire Department of the Municipal Corporation on 28th April, 1999 would show that on the second floor of the proposed building, F.S.I. proposed to house an administrative office and cabins for officers. The third floor would be used as a Canteen and for cabins for officers, while the fourth floor would be used for Guest Rooms. This course of conduct on the part of the F.S.I. leaves much to be desired for it would be apparent therefrom that while on the one hand an express representation was made to M.O.E.F. that the activities which were being envisaged were "restricted to foreshore operation only", the approval of the local authorities was being taken to a much wider range of activities, many of which do not require a waterfront or foreshore. Confronted with these difficulties, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of F.S.I. has made a statement before the Court that F.S.I. will ensure that the use to which the proposed building is employed will abide by the terms enunciated by M.O.E.F. on 23rd October, 1991. 36.The provisions of the C.R.Z. Notification dated 19th February, 1991 have been conceived keeping in mind the high public purpose to be subserved in protecting the ecology and conserving the environment. The notification constitutes a recognition of the fact that coastal stretches of seas, bays, estuaries, creeks, rivers and backwaters especially those influenced by tidal action upto 500 metres from the H.T.L. and land between the L.T.L. and H.T.L. are ecologically vulnerable and require special measures of protection against environmental degradation. The natural resources of the community are held in trust by the community for the benefit of not merely the present generation, but for succeeding generations as well. The uncontrolled march of urbanization poses serious dangers to the preservation of the environment. Policy makers undoubtedly have to preserve the balance between the urgent need for economic development and the prosecution of the natural resources against rapacious denudation. The C.R.Z. Notification dated 19th February, 1991 makes that balance and dwells upon a specific part of the environment, and an important one at that, which is defined as the Coastal Regulation Zone. Policy makers undoubtedly have to preserve the balance between the urgent need for economic development and the prosecution of the natural resources against rapacious denudation. The C.R.Z. Notification dated 19th February, 1991 makes that balance and dwells upon a specific part of the environment, and an important one at that, which is defined as the Coastal Regulation Zone. Within the Coastal Regulation Zone any development either by a private or a public body must be in accordance with the provisions of the notification. The burden must lie on the developer to establish before the authority before whom he seeks a sanction that the development which he proposes to undertake is in strict compliance of the parameters set out in the notification. The law must impose an absolute and unconditional obligation upon the developer to make a full, fair and candid disclosure to the sanctioning authority of all the features of the proposed development and to demonstrate that the development will not have a deleterious effect on the environment. The material disclosed to the authority (in the present case, M.O.E.F.) constitutes the basis for the grant of a sanction or permission. Consequently, a failure to disclose all relevant material and information will invalidate the grant of sanction. Furthermore, once a sanction has been granted, it is the written sanction which must operate at all times unless it is modified by a subsequent order having the force of law or by the operation of a legislative provision. The basis on which the sanction has been granted or the conditions subject to which the sanction has been granted, cannot be altered by the developer at his option. If the developer were to be permitted to alter the nature of the construction which is proposed after the sanction has been issued that would have far reaching ramifications which the law cannot possibly countenance. M.O.E.F. is vested with the duty and power of protecting the environment in its diverse aspects-aspects as unique as the manifold hues of nature itself and against all possible sources of pollution and contamination. These sources, as contemporary history would tell us, are infinite, if not insidious, and, therefore, a developer who is in breach of the basis on which an approval was granted by M.O.E.F. cannot be heard in law to say that he was after all relying upon M.O.E.F. to monitor the project. These sources, as contemporary history would tell us, are infinite, if not insidious, and, therefore, a developer who is in breach of the basis on which an approval was granted by M.O.E.F. cannot be heard in law to say that he was after all relying upon M.O.E.F. to monitor the project. Caveat emptor is not a principle known to the law of environmental protection. That M.O.E.F. has a statutory power to monitor the implementation of its approval does not dilute from the obligation of the developer to discharge the duty of complying both with the C.R.Z. Notification and the permission which has been granted by M.O.E.F. Provisions such as the C.R.Z. Notification of 19th February, 1991 are conceived in the public interest, the interest which protects the welfare not merely of the society as it exists, but the society of the morrow. In the present case, F.S.I. has in our view, failed to discharge its bounden obligation of ensuring that its development would be strictly in accord with the permission granted by M.O.E.F. Whatever the reasons would be on the basis of which F.S.I. sought to alter the location, height, number of storeys or use of the structure beyond what was envisaged in the permission granted by M.O.E.F., it ought to have brought this to the attention of M.O.E.F. The modification ought to have been drawn to the attention of M.O.E.F. and its permission sought thereto. This was evidently not done. A breach by any person or authority whatsoever, be it a private or public body, is a serious matter, but it is even more so in a case such as the present, where a public body must be expected to enforce the law correctly and scrupulously. (ii)Imaginary line: 37.The petitioners have urged before the Court that the development which has been undertaken by F.S.I. is in violation of the restrictions imposed in Annexure-I of the notification dated 19th February, 1991 which prescribes that in C.R.Z.-II areas, buildings shall be permitted only on the landward side of the existing road (or roads proposed in the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan) or on the landward side of existing authorised structures. 38.In the C.R.Z. Notification, the following restriction has been imposed in relation to development in the C.R.Z.-II areas: "C.R.Z.-II (i) Buildings shall be permitted only on the landward side of the existing road (or roads proposed in the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan of the area) or on the landward side of existing authorised structures. Buildings permitted on the landward side of the existing and proposed roads/existing authorised structures shall be subject to the existing local Town and Country Planning Regulations including the existing norms of floor space index/floor area ratio. Provided that no permission for construction of buildings shall be given on landward side of any new roads (except roads proposed in the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan) which are constructed on the seaward side of an existing road. (ii) Reconstruction of the authorised building to be permitted subject to the existing F.S.I./F.A.R. norms and without change in the existing use. (iii) The design and construction of building shall be consistent with the surrounding landscape and local architectural style." 39.While approving the C.Z.M.P. submitted by the State of Maharashtra, M.O.E.F. stipulated on 27th September, 1996 that all the relevant provisions of the C.R.Z. Notification of 1991 as amended in 1994 after incorporating the directions contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court of 18th April, 1996 shall be strictly incorporated in the C.Z.M.P. On 27th March, 1998, M.O.E.F. clarified the provisions of the C.R.Z. Notification in a letter addressed to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra thus: "8. New Constructions along Waterfront: In the areas categorised as C.R.Z.-II, construction of buildings can be permitted on the landward side of the imaginary line drawn along the existing authorised structures." (Emphasis supplied) Thereafter, there was a further clarification dated 8th September, 1998 which has already been adverted to earlier. That clarification was to the effect that new constructions, reconstruction and expansion of existing buildings shall not be permitted in the seaward side direction of the C.R.Z.-II area under the Bombay Municipal Corporation unless several conditions were satisfied. That clarification was to the effect that new constructions, reconstruction and expansion of existing buildings shall not be permitted in the seaward side direction of the C.R.Z.-II area under the Bombay Municipal Corporation unless several conditions were satisfied. Important amongst those conditions were: (i) The construction towards the seaward side should not go beyond the imaginary line drawn from the seaward side of the existing authorised structure on the adjoining plot; (ii) The imaginary line should be parallel to the High Tide Line; (iii) The building to be constructed should be restricted to the single plot immediately abutting or adjoining the existing authorised structures between which the imaginary line is drawn; and (iv) The imaginary line to be drawn should not cut across any river, creek, backwater etc. 40.A Division Bench of the Madras High Court in a judgment delivered on 14th December, 1995 in (K.V. Ramanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu)2, Writ Appeal No. 1287 of 1995, had construed the provisions of the notification dated 19th February, 1991, as not requiring the presence of an existing authorised structure or road directly between the impugned construction and the sea. The Madras High Court held that once the area was a developed area, the construction could be said to be on the landward side of the existing roads/structures. Though a special leave petition against the judgment of the Madras High Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 12th February, 1998, the Court made it clear that the questions of law argued before and decided by the High Court were left open to be decided in an appropriate case, by the Supreme Court. When a matter came up for consideration before this Court in (Sneha Mandal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Union of India)3, 2000(1) Bom.C.R. 395 , a Division Bench of this Court consisting of the learned Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal (as he then was) and Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia noted that the judgment of the Madras High Court had been delivered prior to the preparation of the Coastal Zone Management Plan. Moreover, the Central Government had subsequently issued several guidelines which were not in existence when the Madras High Court delivered its judgment. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal (as he then was) and Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia noted that the judgment of the Madras High Court had been delivered prior to the preparation of the Coastal Zone Management Plan. Moreover, the Central Government had subsequently issued several guidelines which were not in existence when the Madras High Court delivered its judgment. This Court, therefore, noted that the issue would have to be considered in the context of the C.R.Z. Notification of 1991 as well as in view of the subsequent directions issued by M.O.E.F. and the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan of the State of Maharashtra. The Division Bench held that the test which had been laid down by the Madras High Court with regard to a structure falling in a developed area could be usefully applied in a restricted sense. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has fairly accepted the position that in view of the judgment of this Court in the Sneha Mandal case, it is a settled principle that an imaginary line does not required to be anchored at both ends. The judgment of the Division Bench was delivered on 1st October, 1999. 41.In the present case, in the affidavit filed by M.O.E.F., there is no reference to the imaginary line at all. According to M.O.E.F., the C.Z.M.P. submitted by the State was approved on 27th September, 1996 and the categorisation of coastal areas came into operation only 1996. M.O.E.F. has sought to defend the permission which was granted by it on the basis that in the absence of categorisation of coastal stretches, the permission was issued under para 3(1) of the C.R.Z. Notification. M.O.E.F. is not correct in asserting that there was no categorisation of coastal stretches prior to 27th September, 1996 or, when its permission was granted. M.O.E.F. approval was granted on 23rd October, 1991 which is after the C.R.Z. Notification dated 19th February, 1991. The C.R.Z. Notification had provided a categorisation of coastal stretches into C.R.Z.- I, II, III and IV which would apply even pending the sanction of the Coastal Zone Management Plan. M.O.E.F. permission in the present case is after the C.R.Z. Notification. The actual construction began after the approval of the C.Z.M.P. on 27th September, 1996 and after M.O.E.F. had issued its clarifications of 27th March, 1998 and 8th September, 1998. M.O.E.F. permission in the present case is after the C.R.Z. Notification. The actual construction began after the approval of the C.Z.M.P. on 27th September, 1996 and after M.O.E.F. had issued its clarifications of 27th March, 1998 and 8th September, 1998. However, M.O.E.F. has not stated in its affidavit before the Court whether an assessment was at any stage carried out of the proposed construction which was yet to commence in the light of the approved C.Z.M.P. of 27th September, 1996, and the subsequent clarifications of 27th March and 8th November, 1998. Consequently, there is no material in the affidavit of the M.O.E.F. which would enable the Court to deduce as to whether M.O.E.F. considered that the construction in question was on the landward side of existing authorised structures. 42.F.S.I. in the first affidavit which was filed before this Court on 19th August, 2002 stated thus in justification of the construction with reference to the imaginary line: "Between the setting up of the Facility Centre and the sea the Bombay Port Trust have set up a facility called "fishing auction halls 1 2" for the economic welfare of the fishermen and thereafter there is a pump house, an overhead water tank, a truck parking facility and thereafter there is a 12.20 mtr. wide road and it may be noted that for constructing the fishing auction halls 1 and 2, together with pump house and a overhead tank a permission was granted to the Bombay Port Trust by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai by a communication dated 6-11-1995." (Emphasis supplied). Then again, it was averred as follows in the same affidavit: "I further say that there are two auction halls, i.e. auction hall Nos. 1 and 2, and that the said auction halls are authorised structures and that the same has been constructed by the Bombay Port Trust after obtaining permission from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and that in an area categorised as C.R.Z.-II, new construction along the water front can be permitted on the landward side of the imaginary line drawn along the existing authorised structure. In other words if there exists authorised structures along the water front, then an imaginary line parallel to the High Tide Line is required to be drawn between two existing authorised structures and that the new construction is permissible behind the imaginary line connecting the two authorised structures because it would fall on the landward side of the imaginary line parallel to the High Tide Line." Now, it is an admitted position that all the structures which have been referred to in the aforesaid affidavit of F.S.I. have come up after the C.R.Z. Notification dated 19th February, 1991. The C.R.Z. Notification refers to "existing authorised structures" and, therefore, necessarily refers to those structures which were authorised and in existence on the date of the notification. This principle of law is now, indeed, well-settled in view of the judgment of Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna (as the learned Judge then was) speaking for a Division Bench of this Court in (Overseas Chinese Cuisine (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay)4, 2000(1) Bom.C.R. 341 . The Division Bench of this Court held that the C.R.Z. Notification embodied the principles of "containment" and "toleration" and that building activity permitted under the notification in C.R.Z.-II areas "shall be frozen to the laws and norms existing on the date of the notification". (paras 69 and 70 pages 365 and 366). Constructions made after 19th February, 1991 are, therefore, not "existing authorised structures". 43.Confronted with this difficulty, in the subsequent affidavit filed by F.S.I. before this Court on 8th October, 2002, the position which has been taken is that clearance was granted by M.O.E.F. on 23rd October, 1991 under Clause 3(1) of the Notification for the construction of a building requiring water front and foreshore facilities. Consequently, it has been urged that no question would arise of drawing an imaginary line to decide on the area of the plot falling on the landward side. According to F.S.I., the building has to be constructed "near the portion of the land adjacent to the sea which is alternately covered and left dry by the ordinary flux and reflux of the tides and since Facility Research Centre requires foreshore facilities, this has to be within the harbour". According to F.S.I., the building has to be constructed "near the portion of the land adjacent to the sea which is alternately covered and left dry by the ordinary flux and reflux of the tides and since Facility Research Centre requires foreshore facilities, this has to be within the harbour". 44.During the course of the submission which has been urged before the Court, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of F.S.I. has submitted that the restrictions contained in Annexure-1 to the notification dated 19th February, 1991 will not be attracted to a case where permission has been granted by the M.O.E.F. under Clause 3(1) of the Notification. Paragraph 2 of the Notification deals with prohibited activities while paragraph 3 deals with regulation of permitted activities. Paragraph 3 provides that all other activities except those which are prohibited in paragraph 2 will be regulated as therein provided. Clause (1) of paragraph 3 provides that clearance shall be given for any activity within the Coastal Regulation Zone only if it requires water front and foreshore facilities. Clause (1) of paragraph 3, does not speak of clearance by a particular authority. On the contrary, it speaks of clearance for any activity within the Coastal Regulation Zone. Clause (2) of paragraph 3 stipulates that certain activities will require environmental clearance of M.O.E.F. These include construction related to defence requirements, operational constructions for ports and harbours, thermal power plants and all other activities with investment exceeding rupees five crores. Under sub-clause (iv) of Clause (2) of paragraph 3, permission of the M.O.E.F. is required for "all other activities with investment exceeding rupees five crores except those activities which are to be regulated by the concerned authorities at the State/Union territory level in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 6, sub-paragraph (2) of Annexure 1 of the notification". In para 6(2) of Annexure 1, specific provisions have been made in certain cases where either the State Government or a designated authority of that Government may permit the construction of specified structures such as community toilets, water supply, drainage, sewerage, roads and bridges. Under Clause (3) of paragraph 3 of the Notification, the Coastal States and Union Territories were to prepare Coastal Zone Management Plans identifying and classifying the C.R.Z. areas within their respective territories in accordance with the guidelines given in Annexures-I and II of the Notification. Under Clause (3) of paragraph 3 of the Notification, the Coastal States and Union Territories were to prepare Coastal Zone Management Plans identifying and classifying the C.R.Z. areas within their respective territories in accordance with the guidelines given in Annexures-I and II of the Notification. Clause (3)(ii) of paragraph 3 then provides that within the framework of such plans as approved by M.O.E.F., all development and activities within the C.R.Z. other than those covered in para 2 and para 3(2) shall be regulated by the State Government in accordance with the guidelines contained in Annexures-I and II. Counsel for F.S.I. relies on the expression "other than those covered in.... para 3(2)". M.O.E.F. has, while approving the Coastal Zone Management Plan of the Government of Maharashtra clarified that all the relevant provisions of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification of 1991 as amended in 1994 shall be strictly incorporated in the C.Z.M.P. Moreover, the approval of the C.Z.M.P. contains the following stipulation: "The permissible activities shall be regulated in accordance with section 3 and follow the norms for regulation as indicated in section 6(2) of the C.R.Z. Notification, 1991 as amended in 1994." (para 2-A iii of letter dated 27th September, 1996). M.O.E.F. also clarified that the approval of the C.Z.M.P. would not mean the approval of any proposed project including jetties, ports and harbours and buildings. Neither the affidavit of M.O.E.F. nor the submissions of its Counsel before this Court throws any light on these issues. In that view of the matter, it would be inappropriate for this Court to express a final or conclusive opinion on this aspect of the matter since, in view of the final order which we propose to pass, it would be necessary for M.O.E.F. to re-examine the issue. In the submissions of F.S.I. at the Bar, it was urged that the plan annexed at Exhibit-A to the writ petition would show that in the North-Eastern direction of the construction in question, there are authorised structures which are in existence prior to 1991. On the other hand, the submission of the petitioners is that the expression "drawn along" when used in the context of the imaginary line means "through the length of." The reclaimed land is bordered by the sea on three sides. On the other hand, the submission of the petitioners is that the expression "drawn along" when used in the context of the imaginary line means "through the length of." The reclaimed land is bordered by the sea on three sides. It was urged that an imaginary line drawn to cover one side cannot save the construction on the other sides because such a line would then be drawn to allow several new developments in Mumbai which would render nugatory the provisions of C.R.Z.-II and the M.O.E.F. directions dated 27th March, 1998. 45.In the state of the record as it stands, we are of the view that it would be appropriate and proper if the issue is directed to be re-examined by M.O.E.F. F.S.I. has been anything but consistent in its affidavits. The first affidavit relies on structures constructed by B.P.T. after 19th February, 1991 on the seaward side. The second affidavit adopts the position that the question of assessing whether the construction was on the seaward side of the imaginary line would not arise where the permission of M.O.E.F. is under para 3(1). M.O.E.F. in its affidavit is silent on this issue. M.O.E.F. was silent on this issue in its submissions before the Court. M.O.E.F.'s submission in the affidavit that in the absence of a categorisation of coastal stretches, permission was granted under para 3(1) does not take into consideration the admitted position that (i) the permission was in the present case granted after the C.R.Z. Notification; (ii) the C.R.Z. Notification contains a categorisation of coastal stretches and (iii) that in any event, actual construction commenced after the Coastal Zone Management Plan was approved on 27th September, 1996 and after the clarifications of M.O.E.F. of 27th March and 8th September, 1998. Moreover, even if the alternate submission of F.S.I. with regard to para 3(1) of the notification is accepted, the major premise articulated in para 3(1) is that the activity can be cleared only if it requires waterfront and foreshore facilities. We have found earlier that while on 19th August, 1991, F.S.I. represented to M.O.E.F. that it was eliminating several activities from its proposal and confining itself to foreshore operations, permissions were sought from the Municipal Corporation and B.M.R.D.A. on the basis that the structure would house activities, several of which did not require waterfront or foreshore facilities. We have found earlier that while on 19th August, 1991, F.S.I. represented to M.O.E.F. that it was eliminating several activities from its proposal and confining itself to foreshore operations, permissions were sought from the Municipal Corporation and B.M.R.D.A. on the basis that the structure would house activities, several of which did not require waterfront or foreshore facilities. If the articulated major premise of para 3(1) is not fulfilled, namely that the activity must require waterfront and foreshore facilities, then the assertion of F.S.I. would in any event require re-examination by M.O.E.F. We are, hence of the view that M.O.E.F. will have to re-examine the matter particularly since the correspondence on the record reveals that in successive letters culminating on 31st October, 2002, M.O.E.F. stated that F.S.I. had not furnished to it the information that was sought. The Bombay Port Trust has appeared before us in these proceedings. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Port Trust stated that the Port Trust may be prejudicially affected if this Court were to make a final determination to the effect that the construction of F.S.I. falls on the seaward side of the existing authorised structures since that would affect the future developments by the Port Trust in the area. We have indicated to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Port Trust that the Court would not in these proceedings expand the nature of the controversy strictly beyond what was necessary for the adjudication of the present case. We, therefore, do not express opinion on the position of the Bombay Port Trust which is left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings when the issue arises. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has also in the submissions accepted this course of action. Since, however, we propose to direct M.O.E.F. to re-examine the issue, we grant liberty to B.P.T. should it be so advised so to do, to submit a written memorial explaining its position on the matter of M.O.E.F. Locus: 46.Counsel for F.S.I. has sought to challenge the locus of the petitioners to move this Court. The submission that was urged before the Court was that this petition has not been filed in the public interest and that it was filed in order to subserve the interest of the petitioners who reside in a nearby building by the name of Bakhtavar. The submission that was urged before the Court was that this petition has not been filed in the public interest and that it was filed in order to subserve the interest of the petitioners who reside in a nearby building by the name of Bakhtavar. According to Counsel for F.S.I., it was the view of the occupants of Bakhtavar Building which would be affected by the impugned construction. Counsel for F.S.I. has also sought to urge that the second petitioner (Colaba (P.O.) Advance Locality Management) was formed only for the purpose of pursuing the present proceedings. Having considered the submission urged on the part of F.S.I., we do not find any merit therein. First and foremost, Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has produced material on record to establish that the second petitioner is an association comprising of the residents of Colaba, Mumbai. The petitioners have stated that the second petitioner has a membership of about 75 buildings extending from Cuffe Parade to Colaba Cause Way. The Court has been informed that the second petitioner has in fact been formed in the year 2000. Correspondence has been produced on record which would show that the second petitioner had corresponded with the Municipal Corporation as far back as in September, 2000. The association has hence been formed much before the petition was filed and there is nothing on the record to question its bona fides. The judgment of the Supreme Court in (Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa)5, 1991(4) S.C.C. 54 , is an authority for the proposition that the residents of the locality have a sufficient interest to move the Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution for the protection of the environment. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has also produced photographs of the construction in question before the Court in order to demonstrate that the view of the residents of Bakhtavar Building is in fact, not affected by the present site of the construction, but that in fact, it would be somewhat affected if the original site of the construction as approved by the M.O.E.F. had been built upon. To the extent to which the petitioners complain of a breach of the terms and conditions of the original permission granted by the M.O.E.F., and the change in the location, we are of the view that Counsel for the petitioners is justified in submitting that there is no want of bona fides on the part of the petitioners. Besides in none of the affidavits filed on behalf of F.S.I. has the locus or bona fides of the petitioners been questioned. We, therefore, do not find any merit in that submission. Delay: 47.Counsel for F.S.I. has submitted that the petition filed before this Court, suffers from delay which has been unexplained. Reliance is sought to be placed on paragraph 5 of the affidavit dated 8th October, 2002 in which it has been stated that the construction of the compound wall commenced in 1995 and in paragraph 22 of the affidavit dated 23rd September, 2002 in which it has been stated that the construction of the building began on 23rd August, 2000. The writ petition was filed on 9th August, 2002 and an interim order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 22nd August, 2002. 48.In so far as the question of delay is concerned, it is now well-settled that a petitioner, who files a petition in the public interest, must move the Court with despatch. Delay is liable to cause serious prejudice in the implementation of a public project and may lead to an escalation of costs. This aspect was emphasized in the judgment of the Supreme Court in (Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd.)6, 1999(1) S.C.C. 492 . The question of delay was also taken into consideration in the judgment of this Court in the Sneha Mandal, 2000(1) Bom.C.R. 395 , at paragraph 9 page 408. Ultimately, whether there has been delay on the part of the petitioner in moving the Court must depend upon a given set of facts. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. 49.In this case, F.S.I. In its affidavit dated 19th August, 2002 has stated that the construction of the plinth level was completed on 21st January, 2002. Ultimately, whether there has been delay on the part of the petitioner in moving the Court must depend upon a given set of facts. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. 49.In this case, F.S.I. In its affidavit dated 19th August, 2002 has stated that the construction of the plinth level was completed on 21st January, 2002. In their submissions before the Court, the petitioners have drawn attention to the fact that there is a wall about 15 to 20 feet in height between the botanical garden and the plot of land on which the construction is being carried on and there are several trees which grow higher than the said wall. The petitioners have stated that they have no access to the impugned construction and became aware of the construction only when it became visible beyond the wall and tree line. The petitioners have placed reliance on photographs taken from the flat of the first petitioner on the 8th floor of the neighbouring building to demonstrate that it is only in July/August, 2002 that the impugned construction which by then reached the level of the third floor became visible above the tree line. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners also submitted that the statement contained in paragraph 22 of the affidavit dated 23rd September, 2002 in which it has been averred that on 23rd August, 2000, the word had commenced and was in full swing is inconsistent with the record. The permission of the Port Trust was granted for the proposed construction only on 2nd May, 2001 and the letter in that regard required compliance with such additional conditions as its Chief Engineer may impose before the construction is taken in hand. In the present case, having regard to the fact that the construction upto the plinth level had been completed only towards the end of January, 2002, we are of the view that the delay in the present case is not of such a nature as would oust the petitioners from the benefit of the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The case raises important issues relating to the environment and we have already noted that it has been instituted bona fide in the public interest. In (Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. The case raises important issues relating to the environment and we have already noted that it has been instituted bona fide in the public interest. In (Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur)7, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 802, the Supreme Court held that the principle on which relief to a party is denied on the ground of laches or delay is that rights which have accrued to others by reason of a delay in filing the petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is reasonable explanation for the delay. The real test, the Supreme Court held, is that the petitioner should come to the writ Court before a parallel right is created and the lapse of time should not be attributable to any laches or negligence. 50.In the present case, the petitioners represent the interests of the residents of the locality who have come to the Court with a significant grievance which is that the construction which is being carried on by F.S.I. is in breach of the permission granted by M.O.E.F. We find that there is no inaction, want of bona fides or negligence on the part of the petitioners and no delay of a magnitude that would warrant the dismissal of the writ petition. Conclusion: 51.In the circumstances, we are of the view that F.S.I. has, in failing to draw the attention of M.O.E.F. to the modification of the plan on the basis of which the approval was sought for the proposed construction and in failing to obtain the approval of M.O.E.F. in respect thereof acted in breach of the permission granted on 23rd October, 1991. We are of the view that F.S.I. ought to have drawn the attention of the M.O.E.F. to the proposed change in the location, the number of storeys, height and the use as originally envisaged, and to the impact, if any, that this would have on the requirement of paragraph 3(1) of C.R.Z. Notification that clearance should be given within the C.R.Z. only if the activity requires waterfront and foreshore facilities. We have also come to the conclusion that F.S.I. is not justified in contending that the change in the dimensions of the structure from a ground floor and one additional floor as proposed to M.O.E.F., to a structure comprising of a ground floor and four upper floors is a matter which did not relate to M.O.E.F. but only to the local planning authority. We hold that this ought to have been placed before the M.O.E.F. by seeking a modification of the approval granted on 23rd October, 1991. Finally, as we have noted in the course of the judgment, while on the one hand F.S.I. had represented to M.O.E.F. on 19th August, 1991 that it was confining its proposal for constructing a Facility Research Centre only to those activities which require a foreshore location, permission was sought from the local authorities including B.M.R.D.A. and the Municipal Corporation for the construction of a structure which would house activities which were not strictly in accord with the permission granted by M.O.E.F. and the C.R.Z. notification. 52.Having come to this conclusion, we are of the view that this is not a case where an order of demolition should presently be passed. We are conscious of the principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the judgment in (M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shayam Sahu)8, 1999(6) S.C.C. 464 . The Supreme Court held there that no consideration should be shown to a builder or to any other person where a construction is unauthorised. An unauthorised construction, it was been held, if it is illegal and cannot be compounded has to be demolished. In the present case, we are of the view that the appropriate order to be passed would be to direct that F.S.I. shall now once again move the M.O.E.F. with a complete set of documentary material in order to seek a modification of the proposal which was approved by the M.O.E.F. on 23rd October, 1991. F.S.I., in our view, should be directed to provide a statement of justification of the basis upon which change in the location of the structure, of the height of the structure, the number of storeys and the use, if any, is sought. F.S.I., in our view, should be directed to provide a statement of justification of the basis upon which change in the location of the structure, of the height of the structure, the number of storeys and the use, if any, is sought. In fairness, it must be stated that before the conclusion of the hearing before the Court, learned Counsel for F.S.I. has stated that his client has no reservation about moving M.O.E.F. so as to obtain a modified permission incorporating such terms and conditions as M.O.E.F. may impose. In holding that this is a not a fit case for ordering a demolition in the meantime, we have been guided by several circumstances. Amongst them is the fact that right from 1977, the project for the construction of Sassoon Dock Harbour envisaged housing a facility for F.S.I. on the reclaimed plot of land. F.S.I. originally required 1 hectare of land which was subsequently reduced to half a hectare in order to accommodate a Botanical garden which has already come up in the area. There can be no gainsaying the fact that a significant part of the activities of F.S.I. are related to the exploration of the sea and some of those activities would require a waterfront or foreshore facilities. This is not a case where the construction has been carried out without any colour of authority at all because admittedly after detailed correspondence in this regard, permission came to be granted on 23rd October, 1991. Directions: 53.In the circumstances, the appropriate direction to be issued in the present case would be to direct F.S.I. to move the M.O.E.F. once again which F.S.I. shall do within a period of two weeks from today. M.O.E.F. shall be moved in a representation to which F.S.I. shall annex all relevant documentary material in support of its justification for a modification of the original basis on which the approval of the M.O.E.F. was obtained on 23rd October, 1991. F.S.I. would be at liberty to point out those circumstances which have warranted a change in the location, in the height and in the number of storeys of the structure. No change in use from what was originally envisaged shall be permissible without the permission of M.O.E.F. which shall act in accordance with the principle contained in the C.R.Z. Notification that the activity will be permitted only if it requires foreshore and waterfront facilities. No change in use from what was originally envisaged shall be permissible without the permission of M.O.E.F. which shall act in accordance with the principle contained in the C.R.Z. Notification that the activity will be permitted only if it requires foreshore and waterfront facilities. We also direct that meantime, until M.O.E.F. takes a final decision on the matter no further construction shall be carried out by F.S.I. The status of the present construction shall abide by such final directions which may be issued by M.O.E.F. either to grant or refuse the permission. Having regard to the fact that further construction has been stayed by an interim order passed by this Court on 22nd August, 2002, we direct the M.O.E.F. shall dispose of the representation and take an appropriate decision preferably within a period of eight weeks of being moved by F.S.I. in a representation. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. -----