Judgment :- (Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, as stated thereunder.) M. Karpagavinayagam, J. Trust for Restoration of Ecology and Environment, represented by its Trustee T.Murugavel, has filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus giving suitable directions to the Member Secretary, Tamilnadu Coastal Zone Management Authority, Chennai. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows: "It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other order or direction in the nature of a writ directing the respondent-Member Secretary, Tamilnadu Coastal Zone Management Authority to take all measures including preventive measures for cessation of all illegal activities including clearing and levelling of land, extraction and removal of sand, raising unauthorised structures, on the Elliots Beach, north of the Urur Olcott Kuppam and ensure compliance of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification dated 19.02.1991 remediate the areas affected by the sand extraction and pass such further or other order as may be necessary." 3. The case of the petitioner is as follows: "The petitioner is a public charitable trust instituted for the purpose of making all efforts to protect and preserve the environment, promote environmental awareness amongst people and ensure the effective use of the legal process to redress public grievances relating to depletion of the environment. The Adyar Creek in Chennai is of a tidal type and a part of the natural estuarine ecosystem, located right in the heart of the city. The Adyar river, of which the creek is part, has become highly polluted over the years. However, the estuary still has vegetation which is capable of regeneration. There is also a nesting ground for migratory birds. Over the years despite the increasing urbanisation, almost 173 varieties of birds continue to flock to the area. Attempts are being made to put up construction in the area recently. This has been successfully resisted by the public interest groups and organisations including the petitioner. The Supreme Court by the order dated 18.4.1996 already directed all the Coastal States to prepare a Coastal Zone Management Plan as mandated by the Coastal Zone Regulation Notification. Attempts are being made to put up construction in the area recently. This has been successfully resisted by the public interest groups and organisations including the petitioner. The Supreme Court by the order dated 18.4.1996 already directed all the Coastal States to prepare a Coastal Zone Management Plan as mandated by the Coastal Zone Regulation Notification. However, the recent threat to the ecosystem is the move on the part of the private construction lobby to clear the land, without any permission and put up structures on the Elliots Beach, adjacent to the Theosophical Society and north of the Urur Olcott Kuppam. There has been constant removal of sand from the Beach along the Urur Olcott Kuppam, in large quantities during night house in lorries. On noticing the illegal construction activity on the Beach causing a disastrous impact on the fragile eco-system of the Adyar river and the coast, the petitioner sent two representations on 6.3.2002 and 12.3.2002 requesting the Member Secretary, the respondent to take measures to stop the said illegal activity. There was no response. Thus, the respondent has been turning a blind eye to the indiscriminate growth of illegal construction and illegal removal of sand in the prohibited areas in the Coastal Regulation Zone. Hence, this writ petition." 4. The contents of the counter affidavit filed by the Member Secretary, the respondent, in brief, is as follows: "The officials of the Department of Environment made a site inspection on 26.3.2003 and found that there are two hoardings erected in the site. They were removed by the Corporation officials with the help of police. The intention of the respondent and Government of Tamil Nadu is to safeguard the ecological importance of the Adyar Creek by suitable conservation and preventive measures. Since already remedial actions were taken by way of removing the hoardings, there is no need for the fear entertained by the petitioner." 5. To this, the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. 6. On the basis of the pleadings contained in the affidavit, counter-affidavit and reply affidavit, the arguments were advanced. 7. We have heard the submissions of the counsel for the parties and given our anxious consideration to their rival contentions. 8. At the outset, it shall be stated that there is no dispute in the fact that the area in question has been declared as a 'Coastal Regulation Zone'. 7. We have heard the submissions of the counsel for the parties and given our anxious consideration to their rival contentions. 8. At the outset, it shall be stated that there is no dispute in the fact that the area in question has been declared as a 'Coastal Regulation Zone'. As per CRZ Notification, 1991, either side of a river that have a tidal influence has been declared as 'Coastal Regulation Zone' and the Adyar Creek area has been declared as CRZ-II as per the Coastal Zone Management Plan approved by the Government of India taking into account the already developed status of the area. The area on the Elliots Beach which is said to have been cleared and levelled for the purpose of putting up illegal structures falls squarely within the area where construction activity is prohibited by the CRZ notification dated 19.2.1991 issued by the Union of India. Further, the Coastal Zone Management Plan for the State of Tamilnadu also specifically prohibits any construction activity in the said area. The area proposed for the illegal construction on the Elliots Beach is hardly within 50 metres from the High Tide Line. 9. The Supreme Court of India in the case of M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, W.P.(Civil) No.4677 of 1985 has given judicial recognition to the importance of ground water and categorically stressed the need to preserve the ground water resources for future generations. Any construction within the prohibited areas of the Coastal Zone would place tremendous pressure on the ground water resources. 10. Further, the Supreme Court of India has in its judgment dated 11.4.1996 in W.P.561(Civil), directed all the State Governments to ensure compliance with the CRZ notification which specifically prohibits sand mining and extraction of sand from the coast. 11. Therefore, it is bounden duty of the respondent to take all measures including preventive measures for cessation of all illegal activities like clearing and levelling of land, extraction and removal of sand, raising unauthorised structures, in the area in question. 12. In the counter, it is stated that no details about the exact location of the unauthorised activities and what type of structures are proposed to be put up have been given. 12. In the counter, it is stated that no details about the exact location of the unauthorised activities and what type of structures are proposed to be put up have been given. This statement made by the respondent, in our view, is not correct in view of the fact that the area in question has been clearly given in the affidavit that illegal structures are being put up on the Elliots Beach, adjacent to the Theosophical Society and north of the Urur Olcott Kuppam within 50 metres of the High Tide Line. 13. Further, the respondent himself would admit that the area in question has been declared as a Coastal Regulation Zone and after issuance of notice in the writ petition, the officials of the Department made a site inspection on 26.3.2003 and arranged for removal of the hoardings erected in the site. 14. As correctly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner through the reply affidavit filed by him, the erection of unauthorised hoardings was not the main grievance of the petitioner, but he raised the issues regarding removal of sand from the beach and the fact that works preparatory to illegal construction had begun on the Elliots Beach. According to the petitioner, those things should be prevented so as to ensure the compliance of the CRZ notification as per the orders of the Supreme Court. 15. The State Government is committed to protect and safeguard the ecological importance of the Adyar Creek by suitable conservation and preventive measures. The respondent himself would admit in the counter that the contention of the petitioner is agreeable and would assure that by introducing conservation and preventive measures, the Adyar Creek wetland will be restored and migration of birds will increase over the years and by conservation and preventive measures, the Adyar Creek wetland will be conserved and the ground water table would be sustained. 16. In view of the above circumstances, it would be appropriate for this Court to issue a Mandamus directing the respondent-Member Secretary, Tamilnadu Coastal Zone Management Authority to take all measures including preventive measures for cessation of all illegal activities including clearing and levelling of land, extraction and removal of sand, raising unauthorised structures on the Elliots Beach, north of the Urur Olcott Kuppam and ensure compliance of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification dated 19.2.1991 remediate the areas affected by the sand extraction. 17. 17. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. W.P.M.P.No.15975 of 2002 is closed.