Judgment A.S. OKA, J. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge in substance is to the action of re-classifying certain properties as CRZ-II. A brief reference to the facts of the case will have to be made. FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS: The Petitioners are citizens of India. Both of them claim to be the residents of La Oceana Colony, Dona Paula, Goa. Their case is that they are holding residential plots in the said La Oceana Colony. It is contended that the proposed project of construction of hotel by the 5th Respondent is coming up behind the said La Oceana Colony and, therefore, the Petitioners will be directly affected by the hotel project. The petitioners have stated that they have a duty in terms of article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forest lakes rivers and wildlife. 2. The first Respondent is the Union of India. The second Respondent is the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (for short “GCZMA” ) which has been constituted in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act of 1986”). The GCZMA is responsible for monitoring and enforcing the CRZ notification in the State of Goa. The third Respondent is a Village Panchayat of Taleigao established under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act of 1994”) The fourth Respondent is a Planning Authority. The 5th Respondent is a Company which desires to set up a project of hotel. The 6th Respondent is the Goa State Pollution Control Board. The seventh and eighth Respondents are the Authorities exercising powers under the said Act of 1994. The ninth Respondent is the National Coastal Zone Management Authority (for short “NCZMA”) constituted under section 3(3) of the said Act of 1986. 3. On 19th February, 1991, The Coastal Zone Regulation Notification (for short “CRZ notification”) was issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) and (3)(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the “said Act of 1986”) declaring the coastal stretches specified therein as Coastal Regulation Zone ( CRZ ). 3. On 19th February, 1991, The Coastal Zone Regulation Notification (for short “CRZ notification”) was issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) and (3)(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the “said Act of 1986”) declaring the coastal stretches specified therein as Coastal Regulation Zone ( CRZ ). Under the Notification dated 19th February, 1991, the coastal stretches of seas, bays, estuaries , creeks, rivers and backwaters which are influenced by tidal action (in the landward side ) up to 500 meters from the high tide line (HTL) and the land between the low tide line(LTL) and HTL were declared as CRZ. By the said notification, certain activities were declared as prohibited activities in CRZ. It also provides for regulation of permissible activities in CRZ. Paragraph 6(1) of the CRZ notification classified the Coastal Regulation Zones consisting of coastal stretches within 500 meters of high tide line on the landward side into four different categories named as CRZ-I, CRZ-II, CRZ-III and CRZ-IV respectively. In the present case, we are concerned with the categories of CRZ-II and CRZ-III. In terms of Paragraph 3(3)(i) of the CRZ notification, The Coastal Zone Management Plan (for short “CZMPA”) of the State of Goa identifying and classifying the CRZ areas in the State of Goa was prepared and was submitted on 26th June, 1996. In exercise of powers under Paragraph 3(3)(i) of the CRZ Notification, the Central Government by a communication dated 27th September, 1996 granted approval to the Coastal Zone Management Plan of Goa subject to the various conditions and modifications incorporated therein. Under the said communication, in relation to Panaji and its environs, all areas outside the municipal limits were classified as CRZ-III. The area from Cabo Raj Niwas to Dona Paula Jetty was classified as CRZ –III. The area of Dona Paula cove/bay up to the line of existing authorized developments was classified as CRZ-III. The area from Dona Paula cove /bay to Vainguinim Beach (hereinafter referred to as “the said area”) was also classified as CRZ-III. 4. A communication was issued by the 2nd Respondent dated 1st December, 2000 by which reclassification of the following areas/stretches was sought from CRZ-III to CRZ-II:- (i) 1st stretch- the area from Cabo-Raj Niwas upto Dona Paula cove/bay (Map no.1), (ii) 2nd stretch-the area from Dona Paula Cove/Bay to Vainguinim Beach (Map no. 4. A communication was issued by the 2nd Respondent dated 1st December, 2000 by which reclassification of the following areas/stretches was sought from CRZ-III to CRZ-II:- (i) 1st stretch- the area from Cabo-Raj Niwas upto Dona Paula cove/bay (Map no.1), (ii) 2nd stretch-the area from Dona Paula Cove/Bay to Vainguinim Beach (Map no. 2), (iii) 3rd stretch-the area from Vaiguinim Beach up to Panaji municipal limit towards Siridao (Map no.3), and (iv) 4th stretch -the entire stretch of land at Ribander (within Panaji Municipal limit)along the Mandovi river (Map no.4 and Map no.5) The aforesaid areas are hereinafter referred to as the 1st stretch, 2nd stretch, 3rd stretch and 4th stretch respectively. 5. By the impugned communication dated 3rd December, 2001 issued by the Government of India, the said re-classification was allowed and it was directed that the revised CZMP for the aforementioned four coastal stretches shall be prepared and submitted to the Government of India at the earliest. The challenge in this Writ Petition is basically to the said decision. 6. It is alleged in the petition that the re-classification of the aforesaid four stretches was sought in order to sub-serve the interests of Hotel lobby and the builders’ lobby. It is alleged that the reclassification was sought at the cost of ecology and environmental degradation. It is stated that the said four stretches were classified as CRZ-III as the same were relatively undisturbed and were not substantially built-up. It is alleged that re-classification has been sought with the malafide intention and the decision of seeking reclassification was without application of mind and against the purpose for which the CRZ notification was issued. It is alleged that on 19th February 1991 the area forming the four stretches was neither in municipal limits nor was other legally designated urban area. It is alleged that the facilities like drainage, approach road, water supply, sewerage mains were not provided in the said area. It is submitted that re-classification done is against larger public interests and is against the very object and purpose of the said Act of 1986 and the CRZ Regulations. 7. It is stated that the 5th Respondent was proposing to construct a hotel project in Survey No. 246/1 of Village Panchayat of Taleigao. It is contended that the said land is hilly and rocky and is covered by vegetation and the same forms a part of green cover. 7. It is stated that the 5th Respondent was proposing to construct a hotel project in Survey No. 246/1 of Village Panchayat of Taleigao. It is contended that the said land is hilly and rocky and is covered by vegetation and the same forms a part of green cover. Reliance was placed on the order passed in Writ Petition No. 474 of 2007 by which the 2nd Respondent was directed to conduct inspection of the site and to measure the distance of the proposed hotel project from high tide line. It is contended that the inspection revealed that the distance between the nearest part of the proposed construction from high tide line is 86.23 metres. It is stated that the 2nd respondent approved the revised plan submitted by the 5th respondent for construction of the proposed hotel on the said land. Another contention raised in the Petition is that the hotel is an industry within the meaning of Clause (2)(i) of the CRZ Notification and, therefore, there is a complete prohibition under the CRZ Notification. It is alleged that the consent in accordance with the provisions of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and in terms of 25 and 26 of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 has not been obtained. It is contended that substantial part of the proposed hotel project is not located on the landward side of the existing authorised structure of hotel Cidade de Goa owned by the 5th Respondent. 8. The Petitioners contended that the approved CZMP clearly lays down that in respect of Panaji and surrounding areas all areas outside the municipal limits are classified as CRZ-II and, therefore, the reclassification is contrary to the approved plan. 9. It must be noted here that on 24th October, 2007 by a detailed order, this writ petition was admitted and interim relief was granted in terms of prayer clauses (e) and (f). The 5th Respondent was restrained from undertaking any construction in respect of the proposed hotel project and the 3rd Respondent was restrained from approving the plans submitted by the 5th Respondent. However, it was clarified that interim relief shall not not relate to the entire stretch of land at Ribander within Panaji Municipal Limits along Mandovi river. The 5th Respondent was restrained from undertaking any construction in respect of the proposed hotel project and the 3rd Respondent was restrained from approving the plans submitted by the 5th Respondent. However, it was clarified that interim relief shall not not relate to the entire stretch of land at Ribander within Panaji Municipal Limits along Mandovi river. It must be stated here that the National Coastal Zone Management Authority (NCZMA) which was added as a Respondent No.9 in its 17th meeting purported to re-consider the issue and came to the conclusion that the re-classification was correct. Accordingly a resolution was passed. By carrying out amendment to the Petition, even the said decision was challenged. On 26th of December 2007, environmental clearance was granted to the hotel project of the 5th respondent. By carrying out amendment, the order granting environmental clearance was challenged in this petition. As the 3rd respondent did not grant construction license to the 5th respondent, an appeal was preferred by the 5th respondent before the 7th respondent. The said appeal was allowed and the 7th respondent directed the 3rd respondent to issue a license to the 5th respondent. The 3rd respondent preferred an appeal before the 8th respondent which has been dismissed by judgment and order dated 31st July 2007. The 3rd respondent has preferred a writ petition being writ petition no. 474 of 2007 challenging the said decision. Thus, the challenge in the petition is to the reclassification from CRZ-III to CRZ-II of the aforesaid four stretches, approval granted by the 2nd respondent to the project of the 5th respondent, the environmental clearance granted to the project of the 5th respondent and the decision taken by the 9th respondent confirming the correctness of the reclassification during the pendency of the petition. Lastly there is also a challenge to the order dated 31st July 2007 by which 3rd respondent was directed to grant license to the 5th respondent for construction of hotel project. 10. The 5th Respondent filed a detailed affidavit-in-reply raising various contentions. It was stated that no public interest is involved in the Petition. It was contended that the Petitioners are not affected by the proposed project. It was contended that the action of filing the petition was mala fide. It was contended that by Notification dated 24th August, 1995, the Village Taleigao was included within the limits of municipal area of Panaji. It was contended that the Petitioners are not affected by the proposed project. It was contended that the action of filing the petition was mala fide. It was contended that by Notification dated 24th August, 1995, the Village Taleigao was included within the limits of municipal area of Panaji. It was contended that the area falling within the Village Taleigao was already designated as an urban area in the District Census of Towns of North Goa District in the Census Year 1991. It was contended that by a notification dated 19th November 1976, in exercise of powers under section 18 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the said of Act of 1974), the Village Taleigao was included in Panaji planning area. Therefore, the village was designated as urban area. It was submitted that the classification made under the original approved CZMA was completely erroneous. It was pointed out that from 1995 till 31st March, 2003, the Village Taleigao continued to form a part of municipal area till the constitution of Municipal Corporation of the City of Panaji and at that stage, it was against included in the Village Panchayat. It is submitted that as the area was always an urban area, reclassification made was fully justified. 11. The 2nd Respondent GCZMA filed an affidavit of Shri Michael D’Souza in reply to the petition. It was stated by him that the area situated within the limits of the Village Taleigao was not located within the municipal limits. However, the said fact was irrelevant and what was material was whether it was a substantially built up area. It is submitted that the relevant consideration is whether the area is substantially built up and developed and has been provided with the drainage, approach road, water supply, sewerage mains, etc. It is submitted that an area outside the municipal limits can be designated as CRZ-II and the area within the municipal limits can be designated as CRZ-III. It is pointed out that area falling within a particular Municipal Council has been classified as CRZ III as it was not developed. It was contended that the proposed hotel project to be constructed on the land surveyed under Survey No. 246 is on the plateau top which has been classified in the CZMP of 1996 as CRZ-II. It is pointed out that area falling within a particular Municipal Council has been classified as CRZ III as it was not developed. It was contended that the proposed hotel project to be constructed on the land surveyed under Survey No. 246 is on the plateau top which has been classified in the CZMP of 1996 as CRZ-II. It was contended that even without re-classification, the area where the construction is proposed to be carried out was classified as CRZ-II area. It was submitted that after 2001, the Authorities have acted upon the reclassification and have granted various licenses and permissions and the area has been substantially developed. It was submitted that after taking into account the relevant factors, the re-classification has been made. Reliance was placed on the 4th meeting of the GCZMA held on 24th March, 2000 in which this aspect was considered and it was resolved to submit a proposal for re-classification. Reliance was placed on the communication dated 8th May, 2001 as well as the communication dated 19th September 2001 by way of reply to the communication dated 17th August, 2001 issued by the Government of India. It was pointed out that the area was designated as urban area under the Census of 1991. 12. There are various affidavits filed by the 1st Respondent (the Union of India). The 1st affidavit is dated 24th December, 2007 filed by one Dr.U. Shridharan, Additional Director, Ministry of Environment and Forests. It was contended that the area was rightly re-classified as the CRZ-II. There is a further affidavit dated 12th March, 2008 of the same officer which records that the environmental clearance order dated 26th December, 2007 will be subject to the final outcome of the present petition. There is a rejoinder filed by the Petitioners dealing with the reply of the 2nd Respondent. There is a separate rejoinder filed by the Petitioners dealing with the affidavit of the 1st Respondent. There is a separate rejoinder filed by the Petitioners to the reply filed by the 5th Respondent. The added 9th Respondent filed affidavit dated 27th June, 2008 of one Mr.E.Thirunavukkarasu placing on record the decision taken in its 17th meeting of NCZMA approving the re-classification. On 24th September, 2008, the added Respondent filed another affidavit dealing with the allegation of non-application of mind in the Petition. The added 9th Respondent filed affidavit dated 27th June, 2008 of one Mr.E.Thirunavukkarasu placing on record the decision taken in its 17th meeting of NCZMA approving the re-classification. On 24th September, 2008, the added Respondent filed another affidavit dealing with the allegation of non-application of mind in the Petition. On 24th September, 2008, another affidavit was filed by the 1st Respondent reiterating that the order of environmental clearance will be subject to the final outcome of the present petition. 13. Papers of Writ Petition No.474 of 2007 were tagged along with the present petition where the challenge by the Village Panchayat of Taleigao is to the order dated 31st July, 2007 passed by the 1st Respondent in exercise of powers under Section 66(2) of the said it Act of 1974. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS 14. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners invited our attention to the relevant provisions of the said Act of 1986. He pointed out that the CRZ Notification of 19th February, 1991 has been issued in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the said Act of 1986. Inviting our attention to the relevant parts of the CRZ Notification, he submitted that the restrictions were imposed from the date of the notification on the user of the lands falling in CRZ. He invited out attention to Paragraph 6 of the Notification and submitted that the classification has to be made as per the situation prevailing on the date of the Notification and as on the said date it will have to be determined whether a particular land falls in CRZ-II or CRZ-III. He invited our attention to the communication dated 27th September, 1996 issued by the Government of India by which the Coastal Zone Management Plan of Goa dated 26th June, 1996 has been approved. He pointed out that under the CRZ Notification, the area falling in CRZ-II is an area which has been already developed up to the shore line. He submitted that the developed area can be an area within the municipal limits or in other legally designated urban areas which are already substantially built up and which have been provided with the drainage and approach road and other infrastructural facilities such as water supply and sewerage mains. He submitted that the developed area can be an area within the municipal limits or in other legally designated urban areas which are already substantially built up and which have been provided with the drainage and approach road and other infrastructural facilities such as water supply and sewerage mains. He pointed out that Paragraph xiii of the communication dated 27th September, 1996 makes categorization of lands in Panaji and its environs. He pointed out that the area concerned was clearly designated as CRZ-III. He invited our attention to Clause (i) of Paragraph xiii. He submitted that the plateau top is classified as CRZ-II provided it is falling within the municipal limits. He submitted that the 2nd Respondent has come out with a totally incorrect case in the affidavit that the land surveyed under Survey No. 246 where hotel project is to come up is on the plateau and therefore, it is CRZ-II. He submitted that on the relevant date, admittedly the said land was not within the municipal limits. He submitted that the said land will not be covered by the said clause (i). He pointed out that the CZMP of Goa was submitted on 26th June, 1996 and within few months i.e. 28th November, 1996, the Government of Goa moved the Central Government for re-classification only on the ground that the said areas are already highly built up and were included in Panaji Municipal Limits. He submitted that the re-classification was not sought on the ground that it is otherwise legally designated as an urban area. He pointed out that the same stand was reiterated by the Government of Goa in its communication dated 25th July, 1997. He submitted that even Resolution passed by the GCZMA on 24th March, 2000 proceeds on the footing that the reclassification was required as the land was within the municipal limits of Panaji. He invited our attention to the communication dated 17th August, 2001 issued by the Central Government in which it was pointed out that the area was included in the municipal area on 24th August, 1995 and accordingly, the area was rural area as on 19th February, 1991 qualifying the CRZ-III categorization. He pointed out that by the said letter, the Government of Goa was called upon to inform whether the area was designated as the urban area before 19th February, 1991. He pointed out that by the said letter, the Government of Goa was called upon to inform whether the area was designated as the urban area before 19th February, 1991. He pointed out that in the reply a stand was taken that it was designated as the urban area (Census Town) of North Goa District in the Census of 1991. He pointed out that a stand was taken that the area was notified as planning area in 1976. He pointed out that in the letter dated 8th May, 2001, the stand taken by the GCZMA was that the area was falling in Panaji Municipal Area and it was a highly developed area. He submitted that in the proposal for reclassification submitted by GCZMA on 1st December, 2000 on the basis of which re-classification was made, it is not stated that the area was declared as an urban area and in fact the re-classification was sought only on the ground that it was highly developed area. He submitted that even in the 1st affidavit of the 1st Respondent filed on 24th September, 2007, it is not the stand taken that it was within other legally designated urban area. He pointed out that this is a case of complete non-application of mind inasmuch as the re-classification was sought only the ground that the area was falling within the limits of municipal council and that it was a developed area. He pointed out that even in the communication dated 3rd December, 2001, it is not stated as to why the area was re-classified as the CRZ-II. He submitted that the whole issue ought to have been considered in the context of CRZ Notification and the status of the said land as on 19th February, 1991. He submitted that there was no application of mind as to whether the area was a developed area within the municipal limits or that it was other legally designated urban area. He placed reliance on certain decisions of the Apex Court and submitted that the basic challenge in this Petition is to a decision making process and the decision making process shows a complete arbitrariness and non-application of mind. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 15. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has produced the relevant file before this Court. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 15. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has produced the relevant file before this Court. He pointed out that the Union of India has taken into consideration all the relevant aspects. He pointed out the contents of the letter dated 17th August, 2001. He submitted that the said letter shows that the area was not re-classified on the ground that it was falling within the municipal limits. He pointed out that before taking final decision, a specific query was made by the 1st Respondent to the 2nd Respondent as to whether it was a legally designated urban area. He pointed out that the GCZMA replied on 19th September, 2001 that it was legally designated as urban area in the year 1991. He submitted that taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, the decision was taken to re-classify the land after considering the situation prevailing as on 19th February, 1991. He urged that all the relevant aspects have been considered by the Central Government. He also pointed out that on the basis of the interim order of this Court, the entire issue was re-considered by the National Coastal Zone Management Authority and the Authority has approved the modification. He has placed on record relevant pages of the file of the 1st Respondent which according to him show that there was an elaborate decision making process followed and all relevant factors were considered. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED ADVOCATE GENERAL OF GOA 16. The learned Advocate General of Goa appearing for the State as well as GCZMA pointed out that the 2nd Respondent immediately sought re-classification in November, 1996 after realising that the area was a well developed area. He pointed out that the fact that the area was designated as urban area was pointed out by the 2nd Respondent by a letter dated 17th September, 2001 and after considering this factual aspect, re-classification was approved. He submitted that on the basis of the re-classification, a large number of construction permissions have been granted from the year 2001 and none of the parties who have been benefited by re-classification are before the Court. He, therefore, submitted that no interference can be made in this Petition of the year 2007 especially when the affected parties are not before the Court. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS 17. He, therefore, submitted that no interference can be made in this Petition of the year 2007 especially when the affected parties are not before the Court. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS 17. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 5th Respondent has made detailed submissions. He submitted that the decision with regard to classification of the area as CRZ-II or III is in the nature of exercise of sub-delegated legislative powers. He submitted that if the exercise is treated as legislative in character, there can be no challenge on the ground of non-application of mind. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of K. Nagaraj & Ors Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. [ (1985)1 SCC 523 ]. He submitted that the decision is given by highly specialized body which has technical expertise in the matter of determination of areas in the Coastal Regulation Zone. It is well established that when a specialized body has given a decision, the Court does not interfere with it. He submitted that although no two views are possible on the question of designation of the area as CRZ-II, even if the Court has a different view, that by itself is not a ground to treat the decision as vitiated. 18. He pointed out that the letter dated 1st December, 2000 addressed by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority refers at length to development in the area in question. It also refers to the fact that the Chief Town Planner by his representation / letters dated 19th January, 1998 and 20th March, 1998 had submitted detailed documentation justifying the re-classification from CRZ-III to CRZ-II. The letter dated 1st December, 2000 also contains two detailed Information Sheets giving particulars of the areas along with Maps. Map 2 refers to the area in question. The Information Sheets have been expressly considered by the NCZMA. This is evident from the minutes of the NCZMA which is at page 282. The Information Sheets clearly indicate that the developments referred to therein are before 1991. Map 2 refers to the area in question. The Information Sheets have been expressly considered by the NCZMA. This is evident from the minutes of the NCZMA which is at page 282. The Information Sheets clearly indicate that the developments referred to therein are before 1991. He made a reference to the letter of 19th September, 2001, whereby the Member Secretary has referred to the designation of the areas as an urban area as per Census Act 1948 and rules made there under, as also to the notification of the area as a part of the Panaji Planning Area as per Town and Country Planning Act, 1974. He stated that it supplements the case made out in the letter of 1st December, 2000 which has been expressly considered in the decision of 3rd December, 2001. Therefore, the re-classification dated 3rd December, 2001 satisfies the tests laid down in Annexure I, Category II (CRZ-II) namely that the area must have been developed up to the shoreline. And for that purpose “developed area” is referred to as that area (i) within the municipal limits or (ii) in other legally designated urban area, which is substantially built up and which is provided with drainage and approach roads and other infrastructure facilities, such as water supply and sewerage mains. Material on record shows that ultimately the decision for reclassification is made by considering the position as on 19th February, 1991. 19. He submitted that in paragraph 7 of the petition, the Petitioners have argued that since the area in question is now situated within the jurisdiction of the Village Panchayat of Taleigao, the area should be re-classified as CRZ-III. He submitted that at the stage of arguments on interim reliefs, the letter of 3rd December, 2001 was stayed except for paragraph 4 as the Court was impressed by the argument of the Petitioners that the area within the Municipal limits ought to be CRZ-II. It is submitted that this is based on misinterpretation of the CRZ Notification dated 19th February, 1991. A Municipal area can also fall into CRZ-III if it is not substantially developed which is obvious from the bare reading of Notification dated 19th February, 1991. The crucial issue is whether the area is developed. He contended that the fact finding body which is a specialist in the field and which has expert knowledge has so found. A Municipal area can also fall into CRZ-III if it is not substantially developed which is obvious from the bare reading of Notification dated 19th February, 1991. The crucial issue is whether the area is developed. He contended that the fact finding body which is a specialist in the field and which has expert knowledge has so found. It is submitted that the decision of this expert body cannot be treated as vitiated on any account. 20. He submitted that Hotel is not an ‘industry’ under the Notification of 19th February, 1991 . The Petitioners have made a reference to tourism being an “industry”. However, the settled position is that Hotel is not an industry for the purposes of Notification dated 19th February, 1991. He relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Sadanand S. Varde v State of Bombay,[ (2001)(1)BCR 261 )]. 21. He submitted that the Petitioners purport to litigate in public interest. However, the present petition is not bona fide inasmuch as series of constructions have come up in the area since 3rd December, 2001 on the basis of area being declared as CRZ-II. The petitioners have not made a whisper of protest till the filing of present petition on 23rd October, 2007. It is submitted that the petition be also rejected on the basis of guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., [ (2010)3 SCC 402 ]. 22. He submitted that the Affidavits of the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority and the National Coastal Zone Management Authority clearly establish that a full and detailed consideration has been given to all relevant matters before the decision of 3rd December, 2001 has arrived at.He submitted that the construction of the Hotel has been fully authorized and all required permissions have been taken. He submitted that since 3rd December, 2001, the area in question has been designated as CRZ-II. A series of constructions have come up in the area on that basis. Various permissions have been granted to third parties for construction a list of which has been produced on record. 23. He pointed out that it is a settled position that in an area which is falling under CRZ-II, construction is permitted behind an existing authorized structure. A series of constructions have come up in the area on that basis. Various permissions have been granted to third parties for construction a list of which has been produced on record. 23. He pointed out that it is a settled position that in an area which is falling under CRZ-II, construction is permitted behind an existing authorized structure. He stated that the proposed construction is also behind an existing authorized structure as is evident from the Affidavit of the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority. The proposed construction is behind a Sewage Treatment Plant which is authorized. Lastly he pointed out that the proposed hotel is in an area which is behind the existing authorized structure. It is also beyond an imaginary line, which can be drawn starting from the authorized structure up to the next authorized structure. This has been accepted in the Affidavit of Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority. The Bombay High Court has recognized that structures behind imaginary lines are legal in CRZ-II in view of the clarification of the Ministry of Environment dated 27th March, 1998 and 8th September, 1998. The proposed Hotel is on a plateau. The fact that the Hotel is situated on the plateau is accepted by the GCZMA. 24. He submitted that the decision of changing the classification of the land from CRZ-III to CRZ-II is legal and valid. He submitted that there is no reason to interfere with the decision. He submitted that the proposed construction is otherwise legal and as several constructions have come up from the year 2001 in the area on the basis of the re-classification, the 5th Respondent cannot be prevented from carrying out construction. 25. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. In substance, the challenge in the CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS AND REASONS Petition is to the re-classification of the four stretches (described in paragraph 4 above) of coastal areas from CRZ –III to CRZ-II by a decision of the 1st Respondent – Union of India dated 3rd December, 2001. The challenge to the decision of granting construction license to the 5th respondent and environmental clearance granted to the project of the 5th respondent is essentially based on the challenge to the conversion of the said coastal areas from CRZ III to CRZ II. The challenge to the decision of granting construction license to the 5th respondent and environmental clearance granted to the project of the 5th respondent is essentially based on the challenge to the conversion of the said coastal areas from CRZ III to CRZ II. In fact the entire submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners were as regards challenge to the said decision of reclassification. 25A. Apart from the challenge to the decision making process, a submission was canvassed that a hotel is an industry and therefore, there was a prohibition on construction of a hotel in CRZ-II or CRZ-III areas. However, the said submission is not available as the law laid down by a Division Bench in the case of Sadanand Varde (supra) is that construction of hotel is not prohibited in the said areas. 26. Before adverting to the challenge to the said decision, it will be necessary to make a reference to the relevant statutory provisions under the said Act of 1986. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 confers powers on the Central Government to take all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purposes of protecting and improving the quality of the environment and preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution. Sub-section (2) thereof provides for various measures which may be taken by the Central Government in exercise of powers under Subsection (1) of Section 3. Clause (v) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act of 1986 provides that the Central Government may take measures for putting restrictions of areas in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations or processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards. The Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Rules of 1986”) were framed under the provisions of the said Act of 1986. Sub-rule (3)(a) of Rule 5 of the said Rules of 1986 provides that whenever it appears to the Central Government that it is expedient to impose prohibition or restrictions on the location of an industry or the carrying on of processes and operations in an area, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette and in such other manner as the Central Government may deem necessary from time to time, given notice of its intention to do so. Clause (b) of Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 5 provides for various details to be incorporated under the notification. Clause (c) of Sub Rule 3 of Rule 3 lays down that objections can be filed by the persons interested against imposition of prohibition or restriction. Under Clause (d) of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 5, the Central Government is required to consider the objections and within a period of 365 days from such date of publication, it is empowered to impose prohibition and restrictions on the location of such industries and the carrying on of any process or operation in an area. 27. The aforesaid powers were exercised by the Central Government and a Notification was published on 15th December, 1990. After considering the objections, final Notification dated 19th February, 1991 known as “Coastal Regulation Zone Notification” (hereinafter referred to as “the CRZ Notification”) was issued and published in the Gazette. It will be material to make a reference to the CRZ Notification. Paragraph 2 of the said Notification provides for prohibited activities. Paragraph 3 provides for regulation of permissible activities. Paragraph 6 classifies coastal stretches within 500 meters of high tide line on landward side into four categories. We are concerned with the two categories viz. CRZ-II and CRZ-III which read thus:- “Category-II (CRZ-II) The areas that have already been developed up to or close to the shore-line. For this purpose, “developed area” is referred to as that area within the municipal limits or in other legally designated urban areas which is already substantially built up and which has been provided with drainage and approach roads and other infrastructural facilities, such as water supply and sewerage mains. Category – III (CRZ-III) : Areas that are relatively undisturbed and those which do not belong to either Category-I or II. Category – III (CRZ-III) : Areas that are relatively undisturbed and those which do not belong to either Category-I or II. These will include coastal zones in the rural areas (developed and undeveloped) and also areas within Municipal limits or in other legally designated urban areas which are not substantially built up.” Clause (2) of Paragraph 6 provides that the development or construction activities in different categories of CRZ area shall be regulated by the concerned authorities of the State in accordance with the norms provided therein.Norms provided for CRZ-II and CRZ-III areas read thus:- “CRZ – II (i) ** [Buildings shall be permitted only on the landward side of the existing road ( or roads approved in the 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 authorized 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 buildings to be permitted subject to the existing FSI/FAR norms and without change in the existing use. (iii) The design and construction of buildings shall be consistent with the surrounding landscape and local architectural style. CRZ – III (i) The area up to 200 meters from the HTL is to be earmarked as ‘No Development Zone’. **[No construction shall be permitted within this zone except for repairs of existing authorized structures not exceeding existing FSI, existing plinth area and existing density, and for permissible activities under the notification including facilities essential for such activities. An authority designated by the State Government/Union Territory Administration may permit construction of facilities for water supply, drainage and sewerage for requirements of local inhabitants]. However, the following uses may be permissible in this zone-agriculture, horticulture, gardens, pastures, parks, play fields, forestry and salt manufacture from sea water. An authority designated by the State Government/Union Territory Administration may permit construction of facilities for water supply, drainage and sewerage for requirements of local inhabitants]. However, the following uses may be permissible in this zone-agriculture, horticulture, gardens, pastures, parks, play fields, forestry and salt manufacture from sea water. (ii) Development of vacant plots between 200 and 500 meters of High Tide Line in designated areas of CRZ-III with prior approval of Ministry of Environment and Forests (MEF) permitted for construction of hotels/beach resorts for temporary occupation of tourists/visitors subject to the conditions as stipulated in the guidelines at Annexure-II. (iii) Construction/reconstruction of dwelling units between 200 and 500 meters of the HTL permitted so long as it is within the ambit of traditional rights and customary uses such as existing fishing villages and gaothans. Building permission for such construction/reconstruction will be subject to the conditions that the total number of dwelling units shall not be more than twice the number of existing units; total covered area on all floors shall not exceed 33 per cent of the plot size; the overall height of construction shall not exceed 0 meters and construction shall not be more than 2 floors (ground floor plus one floor ). *[Constructions is allowed ..... ..... ..... of such facilities]. (iv) Reconstruction/alterations of an existing authorised building permitted subject to (i) to (iii) above.” 28. Another material paragraph is paragraph 3. Sub-paragraph (3) of Paragraph 3 lays down that the Coastal States/ Union Territory Administrations shall prepare within a period of one year from the date of CRZ Notification, Coastal Zone Management Plans identifying and classifying the CRZ areas within their respective territories in accordance with the categories provided for in Paragraph (6) of the CRZ Notification. The Coastal Zone Management Plans ( for short “CZMP” ) were to be made within a period of one year from the date of the said Notification and approval was required to be obtained of the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests (hereinafter referred to as “MOEF”). Thus, the States were entrusted with the work of implementation of the CRZ Notification by identifying and classifying the CRZ areas. The Government of Goa submitted CZMP on 26th June, 1996 for the approval of the 1st Respondent. By a letter dated 27th September, 1996, the Central Government approved the CZMP subject to conditions and modifications incorporated therein. Thus, the States were entrusted with the work of implementation of the CRZ Notification by identifying and classifying the CRZ areas. The Government of Goa submitted CZMP on 26th June, 1996 for the approval of the 1st Respondent. By a letter dated 27th September, 1996, the Central Government approved the CZMP subject to conditions and modifications incorporated therein. What is material for our consideration is Clause (xiii) of the said letter. Sub-clauses (f), (g), (h),(i) and (j) of Clause (xiii) read thus: - “(xiii) With reference to Panaji and environs, the following classification is approved: (a)…………………………………………. (f) Areafrom Cabo Raj Niwas to Dona Paula jetty is classified as CRZ-III. (g) Area of Dona Paula cove/bay is classified as CRZ_III up to line of existing authorized developments. (h) Areafrom Dona Paula cove/bay to Wanginim beach is classified as CRZ-III, (i) The plateau top to the extent is classified as CRZ-II (falling within municipal limits). (j) All areas outside municipal limits are classified as CRZ-III.” That is how the said four stretches set out in paragraph 4 of Goa were classified as CRZ-III in the original approved CZMP. In fact, the clause (j) clearly provides that as far as Panaji is concerned all the areas outside the municipal limits were classified as CRZ-III. Clause (i) is in the nature of exception which provides that plateau top falling within the municipal limits was classified as CRZ-II. This is very relevant as the 2nd Respondent has taken a stand on oath that the land surveyed under Survey No.246 on which hotel project is to come up is on the plateau top and hence classified as the CRZ-II. 29. The CRZ Notification came into force on 19th February, 1991 and, therefore, categorization made of coastal stretches into four categories was of that date. Under sub-paragraph (3) of Paragraph 3 of the said CRZ Notification, the CZMP was required to be made by the States after considering the situation obtaining as on 19th February, 1991. This position has not been seriously disputed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. The function of the States under the said subparagraph was only to identify and demarcate the lands falling in four Zones as on 19th February, 1991. The prohibition and regulation of activities was already imposed with effect from 19th February, 1991 and, therefore, classification by the States shall be as of 19th February, 1991. The function of the States under the said subparagraph was only to identify and demarcate the lands falling in four Zones as on 19th February, 1991. The prohibition and regulation of activities was already imposed with effect from 19th February, 1991 and, therefore, classification by the States shall be as of 19th February, 1991. At this stage, there is no dispute on factual aspect regarding the location of the lands forming part of the aforesaid four stretches. From the letter dated 19th of September 2001 issued by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent, the admitted position which emerges is that on 19th February 1991, the stretches 1(except a small part thereof) and 4 were within the limits of the Panaji municipal Council. The stretches 2 and 3 and a small part of the stretch 1 were parts of village panchayat of Taleigao as on the said date and that the same were not within the municipal limits. The said area was included in municipal limits in the year 1995 and in the year 2003, it was again removed from municipal limits. As on the said date (19th February, 1991) admittedly the land surveyed under No. 246 was not a part of the limits of Panaji Municipal Council and accordingly, even assuming that the same forms part of a plateau top, it will not fall in CRZ-II by virtue of Clause (i). 30. An argument has been made by the 5th Respondent that the power to approve CZMP of the States is legislative in nature. The said argument has to be rejected for the simple reason that subparagraph (3) of Paragraph 3 requires administrative exercise to be carried out by the States of identifying or classifying the CRZ areas as per the four Zones as defined under the CRZ Notification and of preparing CZMP. The CZMP is required to be approved by the Central Government. The act of preparation of CZMP and the act of approval is not an exercise of sub-ordinate or delegated legislative function. 31. Now we have to consider the question of legality of action of re-classification. The factual aspects leading to the decision of reclassification will have to be considered. The CZMP is required to be approved by the Central Government. The act of preparation of CZMP and the act of approval is not an exercise of sub-ordinate or delegated legislative function. 31. Now we have to consider the question of legality of action of re-classification. The factual aspects leading to the decision of reclassification will have to be considered. On 28th November, 1996, the Director and Joint Secretary of the Department of Science of Government of Goa addressed a letter to the Secretary of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (for short “MOEF”) of the Central Government pointing out that there was glaring anomaly in the plan submitted on 26th June, 1996. He proceeded to state as under:- “With respect to Panaji and its environs the Ministry has designated the area from Rotunda of Gaspar Dias – Gaspar Dias Beach to Caranzalem Beach up to Cabo Raj Niwas as CRZ-III. Similarly, the area from Cabo Raj Niwas to Dona Paula Jetty and further on from Dona Paula Cove/Bay to Vainginim Beach has been classified as CRZ-III. However, it is pointed out that the above CRZ areas are already highly built up as well as included within the Panaji Municipal limits. It would therefore be practical and hence advisable to re-consider the said decision and designate the entire coastal area from Gaspar Dias Beach to Vainginim Beach which lies within the municipal limits as CRZ-II. In this connection, it is informed that the plateau top area adjoining the Vainginim beach (which is within the municipal limits and equally built up as the area mentioned above) has already been classified as CRZ-II by the Ministry. (Emphasis added) This was followed by another letter by the same officer dated 25th July, 1997 to the Secretary of the MOEF. He has stated in the said letter that as under : “It was pointed out that the above CRZ areas are already highly built up as well as come within the jurisdiction of Panaji Municipal Council”. (Emphasis added) Thus, the contention of the Government of Goa was that the said area was within jurisdiction of Panaji Municipal Council which was already highly built-up. Thus, re-classification was sought only on the ground that the said area was within the limits of Panaji Municipal Council and was highly built up. (Emphasis added) Thus, the contention of the Government of Goa was that the said area was within jurisdiction of Panaji Municipal Council which was already highly built-up. Thus, re-classification was sought only on the ground that the said area was within the limits of Panaji Municipal Council and was highly built up. There is no dispute that even according to the GCZMA, as on 19th February, 1991 which is the relevant date, the 2nd and 3rd stretches as well as a small part of the 1st stretch were falling within the limits of Village Panchayat of Taleigao and it came into Panaji Municipal Area in 1995. Thus, the said two representations made by the Government of Goa were on factually erroneous basis. 32. It appears that the MOEF by a letter dated 2nd December, 1999 advised that a proposal for reclassification has to be submitted through the GCZMA. Accordingly, the subject was considered in the meeting of GCZMA held on 24th March, 2000. Without recording any specific reasons it was resolved to re-classify the 1st and 4th stretch as CRZ-II. As far as the area is which was covered by the 2nd and 3rd stretches ( Map Nos.2 and 3) was concerned, it was resolved to make a site inspection to ascertain appropriateness of re-classification proposed. After the site inspection, the issue was again considered in the meeting of GCZMA on 6th October, 2000. What was resolved reads thus:- “Consequently, it was agreed that the substantially developed pockets within the Panjim Municipal limits indicated in Map 2 ( Survey Nos. 244/246 of Taleigao Village ) and in Map 3 ( Survey Nos. 226/225/234 & Survey No. 235 of Taleigao Village ) should be recommended for re-classification from their present category of CRZ-III to the requested category of CRZII. An independent report of Shri Manohar Parrikar, Member GCZMA, is placed at Annexure II. The reference to the two areas is to the areas falling within 2nd and 3rd stretches. Thus it is noted that both the 2nd and 3rd stretches were in Village Taleigao and were admittedly outside the municipal limits on the relevant date. There is not even a consideration in the meeting of the question whether the said to stretches were parts of other legally designated urban areas. Therefore, even the GCZMA proceeded on the erroneous assumption that even the said two stretches were part of municipal limits. 33. There is not even a consideration in the meeting of the question whether the said to stretches were parts of other legally designated urban areas. Therefore, even the GCZMA proceeded on the erroneous assumption that even the said two stretches were part of municipal limits. 33. It is pertinent to note that the said resolution makes a specific reference to Survey No.246 and again proceeds on erroneous footing that the same was within the municipal limits. Till this stage, it is apparent that both the Government of Goa and GCZMA were under an erroneous impression either that the classification has to be considered on a date subsequent to 19th February, 1991 or that as on the said date, the said stretches were within Panaji Municipal Limits. 34. After the said resolution was passed, by the letter dated 1st December, 2000, the GCZMA requested the MOEF to re-classify the said areas and two other areas. In the said letter, it is not stated that either that the said 2nd and 3rd stretches were within the municipal limits on the relevant date or that the said stretches were part of other legally designated urban area as on 19th February, 1991. It only records that it was highly developed/built up prior to 1986. In the letter dated 8th May 2001 addressed by the CCZMA to the 1st respondent, it is stated that the 1st 2nd and 3rd stretches were within the municipal area. Thus, even in this letter, it is not noted that the relevant date at least two out of four stretches were not within the municipal limits. At this stage, it must be reiterated that to qualify an area as CRZ-II, it has to be a developed area. As per the CRZ Notification, the developed area has to be an area either within the municipal limits or within other legally designated urban area. In both the cases, the area must substantially built up which has been provided with drainage, approach roads and other infrastructure facilities such as water supply and sewerage mains. Thus, the area falling in CRZ-II has to be either within the municipal limits or in other legally designated urban area. 35. Thus, both the Government of Goa and GCZMA did not seek re-classification on the ground that the area in 2nd and 3rd stretches has been legally designated as urban area. Thus, the area falling in CRZ-II has to be either within the municipal limits or in other legally designated urban area. 35. Thus, both the Government of Goa and GCZMA did not seek re-classification on the ground that the area in 2nd and 3rd stretches has been legally designated as urban area. As per the CRZ Notification, the actual work of classification and identification has to be done by the State Government. Thus, the re-classification proposed by the State Government shows a complete non-application of mind. 36. The next stage was of the consideration of the proposal for reclassification by the NCZMA (the 9th Respondent) in its meeting held on 14th February, 2001. The Minutes record that the Authority agreed for reclassification proposal. As far as the 2nd stretch is concerned, in the minutes it is recorded as: “As per para XIII (h) of the approved CZMP of Goa, this stretch was categorised as CRZ-III. In the present proposal, the Goa State CZMA has indicated that the area was highly developed even prior to 1986. As per the details submitted along with the proposal, it was indicated that out of the total number of buildable plots, 52 had been built already and 17 were not built up, the total percentage of built up, plots coming to 75.36%. It was also mentioned that these plots had approach roads, piped water supply and a drainage system. A sewerage scheme was under execution by the State Government. The Goa State CZMA has recommended to classify this stretch as CRZ-II”. As far as the 3rd stretch is concerned, it is noted in the minutes as under: "As per the earlier approved classification, this stretch has been classified as CRZ-III. In the proposal now submitted (map no.3), the Goa state CZMA has indicated that this stretch is highly developed and was built up prior to 1986. The total number of buildable plots in this stretch is7. The total number of built up plots is also 7. Hence, this stretch is already 100% built up. The Goa State CZMA has recommended to categorise this stretch as CRZ-II" It must be also noted that information sheet which was supplied to NCZMA records that the name of the legally notified urban area was Panjim Municipal Area. Therefore, what was placed before the NCZMA was a factual position that the said area was in Panaji Municipal Area. The Goa State CZMA has recommended to categorise this stretch as CRZ-II" It must be also noted that information sheet which was supplied to NCZMA records that the name of the legally notified urban area was Panjim Municipal Area. Therefore, what was placed before the NCZMA was a factual position that the said area was in Panaji Municipal Area. In any event, the minutes of NCZMA do not record that the said 2nd and 3rd stretches were part of other legally notified urban area. 37. As a grievance has been made of non-application of mind, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has placed on record Pages 56 to 68 of the concerned File of MOEF. The 1st noting made on 9th January, 2001 by the Deputy Director is that the recommendations of reclassification should be placed before the meeting of NCZMA. The notes on Pages 59 and 60 record that the NCZMA approved the re-classification proposal. The noting dated 13th April, 2001 made by the Deputy Director suggests that the approval should be granted to the proposal of reclassification. There are further notings made on 20th April, 2001 and 27th April, 2001. The last noting on the page 61 records that information as discussed should be called for. On Page 62, there is a further noting dated 3rd May, 2001 by the Deputy Director regarding clarifications provided by the GCZMA. The said information noted on Page 62 of the File only records percentage of built up area and facilities available as far as the first three stretches are concerned. However, it is not recorded that the said 1st to 3rd stretches were either a part of municipal limits or a part of other legally designated urban area. The said noting records that in case of all four stretches, the sewerage system was under construction. Thus, the sewerage system was not in existence on that date and it was under construction. As regards the 4th stretch, it is recorded that the same was a part of Panaji municipal area. The deputy director has made a noting that proposed re-classification be approved. 38. There are further notings made on the file including the noting regarding site visit of the officers of the MOEF in July, 2001. As regards the 4th stretch, it is recorded that the same was a part of Panaji municipal area. The deputy director has made a noting that proposed re-classification be approved. 38. There are further notings made on the file including the noting regarding site visit of the officers of the MOEF in July, 2001. It is again noted that at the site visit, it was found that the said four stretches were within the municipal limits of Panaji and more than 50% of the plots were built up. Thus, even the said note made on 2nd August, 2001 proceeded on the assumption that the area was within the municipal limits of Panaji. There is a detailed noting made on 14th August, 2001 which records that the said area within first three stretches has been designated as the municipal area in August, 1995. Further noting of the higher officer records that in this behalf, clarification should be sought from the State Government. Thus, on 14th August, 2001, the MOEF became aware that as on 19th February, 1991, the area forming part of the 1st to 3rd stretches was not within the municipal limits on the relevant date. It must be noted here that till that date, neither the State nor the GCZMA came out with a case that it was within the other legally designated urban area. In terms of noting made on 14th August, 2001, the MOEF sought clarification by sending letter dated 17th August, 2001. The clarification given by the GCZMA by letter dated 19th September, 2001 records that the area forming part of Taleigao was included in the municipal area only in the year 1995. It records that the area falling in the 1st stretch was a part of municipal area as on the relevant date (i.e. 19th February 1991). It was stated that a very small part of the 1st stretch and the entire area forming part of 2nd and 3rd stretches was in Taleigao which was included in the municipal limits of Panaji in the year 1995. However, it was stated that the said area of Taleigao was designated as one of the urban areas (Census towns ) of the North Goa District in 1991 Census Year and that the same was accordingly recorded in the District Census Handbook. However, it was stated that the said area of Taleigao was designated as one of the urban areas (Census towns ) of the North Goa District in 1991 Census Year and that the same was accordingly recorded in the District Census Handbook. The second factual aspect pointed out is that the said area forms a part of Panaji Planning Area vide Notification dated 19th November, 1976. Before going further, it must be stated that the said Notification has been issued in exercise of powers under Section 18 of the Goa, Daman & Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 declaring certain areas as Panaji Planning Area. There is no provision in the said Act of 1974 which says that the area forming part of the Planning Area becomes an urban area. The said notification also does not describe or declare the area forming part of it as the urban area. Hence, the said notification is of no consequence. Thus, at the end, the Government of Goa and the GCZMA came out with a case that for the Census of 1991, the village Taleigao was declared as an urban area. 39. Before going into what had transpired thereafter with the MOEF, a reference will be made to the relevant handbook. Under the Census Act 1948, there is no statutory power conferred on any Authority to declare any area as urban area. Under Clause (b) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Census Rules 1990, there is a power vesting in the Director of Census Operations to prepare village or hamlet lists, classify places as towns according to demographic criteria, group places to form urban agglomerations, standard urban areas etc., according to instructions from the Census Commissioner. The Census Hand Book provides that the definition of urban area adopted for the year 1981 was adopted for 1991 census. The definition of urban area for 1991 census was as follows:- “(i) All places with a municipality, corporation, cantonment board or notified town area committee, etc. (ii) All other places which satisfied the following criteria; (a) A minimum population of 5,000 (b) at least 75per cent of male working population engaged in nonagricultural occupations and (c) a density of population of at least 400 persons per sq. km. Apart from these, the outgrowths (Ogs) of cities and towns have also been treated as urban, as explained later under Urban Agglomeration. km. Apart from these, the outgrowths (Ogs) of cities and towns have also been treated as urban, as explained later under Urban Agglomeration. As could be seen from the above definition there are two distinct types of urban units viz. (a) The places which satisfied the requirements as per (i) above which are referred to as statutory towns since by virtue of statutory notifications they are urban areas. The nomenclature as per the relevant notification such as Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Cantonment Board, Notified Area Committee, etc. were adopted for these cities/town. (b) The places which satisfied the criteria laid down in (ii) above are referred to as Census Towns or non-statutory towns.” (Emphasis added) 40. In the said handbook it is stated that Taleigao was a Census Town or a non statutory town. Thus it covered by the clause (ii) quoted above. The Hand Book of Census provides that the Urban Agglomerations in Goa consisted of various constituent units which included Taleigao as a Census Town. On plain reading of the constituent units of Urban Agglomeration, there are some areas included therein which have been classified as CRZ –III. For example, Chicalim is shown as a Census Town forming part of Urban Agglomeration under the Census, but it is shown in approved CZMP as falling in CRZ-III. Urban Agglomeration shown in the Census Handbook includes a part of rural area. In any case, for the purposes of census, the village Taleigao was classified as a Census Town. As pointed out earlier, the census town is not a town having municipality, Corporation or Cantonment Board. A place having minimum population of 5000 can be classified as a Census Town as per criteria in clause (ii) quoted above. Thus, for the purposes of Census, a village having population of even 5000 can be a town. Thus, such a town cannot ipso-facto become a lawfully designated urban area for the purpose of classification under the CRZ Notification. Going by what is mentioned in the Census Book, a census town by no stretch of imagination by itself can be an urban area inasmuch as a census town may have a population of 5000. The classification of certain area as urban area under the said Census Handbook is only for the purposes of census. 41. Going by what is mentioned in the Census Book, a census town by no stretch of imagination by itself can be an urban area inasmuch as a census town may have a population of 5000. The classification of certain area as urban area under the said Census Handbook is only for the purposes of census. 41. Now going back to what transpired with MOEF, after considering the communication dated 19th September, 2001, there is a note signed by the Joint Director on 4th October, 2001 recording that other two areas covered by map no.1 (1st stretch) and map nos.4 and 5 (4th stretch) can be re-classified. However, as far as the 2nd and 3rd stretches falling in Taleigao were concerned, it is recorded that it is necessary to consider whether a census town can be considered as a legally designated urban area. Thus, recommendation of 4th October, 2001 does not recommend for classifying the said area of 2nd and 3rd stretches as CRZ II and it is specifically records the need to consider whether a census town can be a legally designated urban area. The note of a superior officer (V.Rajgopalan) dated 20th November, 2001 on Page 67 specifically records that from the facts available, it is difficult to say whether the said area of maps no.2 and 3 could be covered by the definition of legally designated urban areas and, therefore, advice of Ministry of law should be sought. On 23rd November, 2001, there is a noting made by the Special Secretary of MOEF recording that there cannot be a partial reference to Law Ministry and if there is a reference, it will have to be about the whole definition. The note further records that the proposal for re-classification has come from the GCZMA in which all the major environmental NGOs of Goa are represented. The note records that there should not be hair-splitting interpretation resorted to as a barrier against humanitarian considerations. The Special Secretary directed the approval of re-classification and accordingly communication dated 3rd December, 2001 was issued. It is pertinent to note that the Special Secretary did not come to a conclusion that a census town for the purposes of census can be said to be a legally designated urban area. The Special Secretary directed the approval of re-classification and accordingly communication dated 3rd December, 2001 was issued. It is pertinent to note that the Special Secretary did not come to a conclusion that a census town for the purposes of census can be said to be a legally designated urban area. He merely made a reference to the declaration of the said area as planning area without even considering that in the Panaji planning area, even rural areas and areas classified as CRZ-III were included . He has ignored the fact that merely by inclusion in planning area, the same does not become urban area. Thus, ultimately the opinion of the Law Ministry was never called for and it was decided to approve the reclassification without deciding the issue whether a “census town” can be other legally designated urban area. 42. Thus, going by the record, there is a complete non application of mind as to whether a census town which in a given case may have a population of only 5000 can be treated as a legally designated urban area for the purposes of classification as CRZ-II. The Special Secretary has not even considered the concept of census town under the Census of 1991. Apart from the fact that the Special Secretary declined to make a reference to the Law Ministry, he himself has not considered whether a census town can be a legally designated urban area. Without recording subjective satisfaction that the Village Taleigao can be treated as legally designated urban area being a census town, a decision was taken to re-classify the area as CRZ-II. CONCLUSIONS 43. In the case of Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Group v. Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. (1991) 2 SCC 539 , the Apex Court held that : “2. The limitations, or more appropriately, the self-imposed restrictions of a court in considering such an issue as this have been set out by the Court in Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.1* and Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B.2 The observations in those decisions need not be reiterated here. The limitations, or more appropriately, the self-imposed restrictions of a court in considering such an issue as this have been set out by the Court in Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.1* and Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B.2 The observations in those decisions need not be reiterated here. It is sufficient to observe that it is primarily for the governments concerned to consider the importance of public projects for the betterment of the conditions of living of the people on the one hand and the necessity for preservation of social and ecological balances, avoidance of deforestation and maintenance of purity of the atmosphere and water free from pollution on the other in the light of various factual, technical and other aspects that may be brought to its notice by various bodies of laymen, experts and public workers and strike a just balance between these two conflicting objectives. The court’s role is restricted to examine whether the government has taken into account all relevant aspects and has neither ignored nor overlooked any material considerations nor been influenced by extraneous or immaterial considerations in arriving at its final decision.” (Emphasis added) In the present case, the entire decision making process shows non-application of mind at all levels. The proposal of the State Government and the GCZMA was on the footing that the said area was within the municipal limits. Belatedly, the GCZMA came out with a case that it was legally designated urban area under the Census. The GCZMA did not notice that the said area was part of census town of Taleigao. It has not even considered as to what is the concept of Census Town. The NCZMA in its meeting has not considered whether the said area was within the municipal limits or in other legally designated urban area. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the NCZMA reconsidered the matter on 2nd June, 2008. Even in the Resolution passed on that date, it is not recorded that the area is within other legally designated urban area. As stated earlier, the MOEF did not examine the issue whether a census town can be other legally declared urban area. Thus, at all levels, there is a complete non-application of mind as far as the 2nd and 3rd stretches and a small part of the 1st stretch are concerned. As stated earlier, the MOEF did not examine the issue whether a census town can be other legally declared urban area. Thus, at all levels, there is a complete non-application of mind as far as the 2nd and 3rd stretches and a small part of the 1st stretch are concerned. Moreover, there are no specific reasons recorded in the communication dated 3rd December 2001 for granting approval of the re-classification. There is non-consideration of relevant and material factors which are required to be considered while classifying a particular area as CRZ-II. We are not recording any final finding as to whether a census town is other legally designated urban area. Suffice it to say that the decision making process suffers from non-consideration of material factual aspects and the process shows a complete non-application of mind and arbitrariness. DELAY AND LATCHES 44. One of the contentions raised by the contesting Respondents is on the ground of gross delay and latches on the part of the Petitioners in approaching this Court. This aspect has been dealt with by this Court while passing the order dated 24th October,2007.This Court admitted the Petition for final hearing after dealing with objection of delay and latches. The re-classification was not notified in a Gazzette. It is not the case made out that a wide publicity was given to the decision dated 3rd December 2001. On the basis of the modification made by the CRZ, an application was made on 13th December,2006 by the 5thRespondent for grant of construction permission. It must be stated here that permission was directed to be granted under the order dated 31st July, 2007 passed by the Additional Director of Panchayat (Respondent No.8 ). The Petition was filed on 23rd October, 2007. As far as Respondent No.5 is concerned, it cannot be held that the said Respondent has altered his position due to alleged delay. As noted by this Court in the order dated 24th October, 2007, the vital issues regarding compliance of the CRZ Notification have been raised by the Petitioners. The issue raised is as regards re-classification of a vast area near the capital city of Panaji of a small State like Goa which has been gifted by nature with beautiful long coastal stretches. The re-classification will naturally have wide ramifications on the environment. In public interest, the issues will have to be dealt with on merits. The issue raised is as regards re-classification of a vast area near the capital city of Panaji of a small State like Goa which has been gifted by nature with beautiful long coastal stretches. The re-classification will naturally have wide ramifications on the environment. In public interest, the issues will have to be dealt with on merits. However, even after the finding that the decision of the Central Government of re-classification is vitiated, we are moulding the relief to ensure that any person who is not before the Court and who has taken benefit of the re-classification should not suffer. Therefore, the petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay. CONSIDERATION OF PRAYERS 45. The re-classification from CRZ-III to CRZ-II was made on 3rd December, 2001. It is true that the persons who are not before this Court may have acted upon the re-classification and may have taken benefit thereof. However, the fact remains that the decision of re-classification is not legal and valid. This aspect cannot be overlooked especially when a breach of CRZ Notification is involved having an impact on environment of a state like Goa. If any constructions have been carried out on the basis of the re-classification by the persons who are not parties to this Petition, the said parties will be directly affected if the decision dated 3rd December, 2001 is quashed and set aside. In the circumstances, we are not setting aside the said decision at this stage. Therefore, we propose to direct the 1st and 9th Respondents to re-consider their decision of approving reclassification especially as far as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd stretches are concerned. As found above, a small part of the 1st stretch and the entire area covered by 2nd and 3rd stretches were not within the municipal limits on the relevant date. The said respondents will have to take a fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the affected parties of raising objections. If the said respondents come to the conclusion that the re-classification could not have been allowed, the earlier decision of reclassification will have to be withdrawn or modified. The withdrawal can be given a prospective effect, if found to be appropriate. 46. In the petition, there is a challenge to the environmental clearance and license granted to the 5th Respondent. If the said respondents come to the conclusion that the re-classification could not have been allowed, the earlier decision of reclassification will have to be withdrawn or modified. The withdrawal can be given a prospective effect, if found to be appropriate. 46. In the petition, there is a challenge to the environmental clearance and license granted to the 5th Respondent. All permissions and clearances granted to 5th respondent will be naturally subject to the further decision which may be taken by the Authorities after re-consideration. If the decision is reconsidered and request for re-classification is declined, it is obvious that the permissions /clearances granted on the footing that the lands fall in CRZ-II cannot be acted upon. As we have held that the decision making process is illegal, the interim relief granted in this Petition will have to be continued till the decision is taken by the 1st Respondent. The Writ Petition nos. 474 of 2007 and 420 of 2007 shall be taken up for hearing only after final decision is taken by the 1st respondent in terms of the directions issued in this petition. 47. Hence, We pass the following order: (i) We direct the Respondent No.9 National Coastal Zone Management Authority to reconsider its decision of approving re-classification on the basis of the proposal contained in communication dated 1st December, 2000 of the 2nd Respondent – Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority. (ii) We direct the Respondent No.9 to reconsider its decision in the light of the observations made in this judgment, within a period of three months from the date on which an authenticated or certified copy of this order is produced before the Authority. (iii) After Respondent No.9 takes a fresh decision, we direct that the 1st Respondent – Union of India shall reconsider the decision communicated on 3rd December, 2001 ( Exhibit – A ) in the light of the decision rendered by the Respondent No.9 and in the light of the observations made by this Court. (iv) The 1st Respondent shall re-consider the matter and take appropriate decision within a period of three months from the date on which the decision of the National Coastal Zone Management Authority (Respondent No.9) is received by the 1st Respondent. (v) It is obvious that the 1st Respondent will consider the objections, if any, raised by the affected parties. (iv) The 1st Respondent shall re-consider the matter and take appropriate decision within a period of three months from the date on which the decision of the National Coastal Zone Management Authority (Respondent No.9) is received by the 1st Respondent. (v) It is obvious that the 1st Respondent will consider the objections, if any, raised by the affected parties. (vi) The approvals/permissions/clearances granted to 5th Respondent shall be subject to the decision which may taken by the 1st Respondent – Union of India in terms of this order. (vii) We direct that the interim relief operating in this Petition will continue to operate till the final decision is taken by the 1st Respondent-Union of India. (viii) The Miscellaneous Civil Application no. 617 of 2009 does not survive and the same is disposed of. The Writ Petition nos. 474 of 2007 and 420 of 2007 shall be taken up for hearing only after final decision is taken by the 1st respondent in terms of the directions issued in this petition. (ix) Rule is partly made absolute in above terms with no orders as to costs.