Judgment :- (G. Krishna Mohan Reddy) This writ petition is filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court enjoined in Article 226 of the Constitution to grant Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in constructing a road protruding into the sea at Rishikonda, Chinagadila Mandal, Visakhapatnam district as unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to remove all debris put up and restore the Rishikonda beach into its original shape as per CRZ Notification. The factual matrix of the case, as narrated by the writ petitioners is as follows: The 1st petitioner organization is a registered association working for the welfare of the youth belonging to the fisherman community. The 2nd petitioner organization has been formed with a view to help the fisherman to sustain themselves in this modern era. The 3rd petitioner is an active fisherman who goes in to the sea every day leading batch of other fisherman for fishing. The authorities concerned have taken up the work of reclamation of the land there, filling up the sea shore area with rocks digging hill, altering sand dunes and constructing a road protruding into the sea similar to that of Jetty and other construction activities between the Low Tide Line (LTL) and High Tide Line (HTL) at Rishikonda beach in violation of the relevant provisions of the CRZ notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest under Section 3(1) and Section 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) without obtaining necessary clearance. For centuries together the fishermen have been using the are to enter into the sea for fishing activity. Since the last 3 months owing to the hectic activity of filling up the beach area an constructing the road protruding into the sea the natural course of the sea water and waves has been disturbed and the sea bed has been eroded and deep ponds have been formed and whirlpools have come into existence which has not been known to the community till today in the area. Consequently their nets and small boats which they use are being damaged and some accidents also occurred. On enquiries, the writ petitioners have came to know that the activities have been taken up for recreational tourism purposes. Consequently their nets and small boats which they use are being damaged and some accidents also occurred. On enquiries, the writ petitioners have came to know that the activities have been taken up for recreational tourism purposes. In fact, the CRZ notification issued on 19/02/1991 which was amended from time to time declare that land upto 500 metres between HTL and LTL declared as Coastal Regulation Zone. Further, the staff of Tourism Development Corporation have been giving warnings to the fishermen not to use the beach since last 7 or 8 months expressing that the beach, a beautiful one, should be used for only Tourism purpose and poor and uneducated communities like fishermen are not allowed to use it as the Tourists who gather there may not like seeing their nets and boats. Since last one year they have been making representations to the authorities of Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA) apprising the illegal activities narrated which are proved to be futile. At present, the respondents 3 to 5 are carrying on the prohibited activities. Thereby, necessary measures are to be taken to prevent those further illegal activities. The respondent No.4 has filed counter denying the allegations made by the write petitioners specifically. His claim further is that the sea at Rishikonda beach is very rough and the fishermen cannot venture to go into the sea comfortably from there. However, there is arrangement of boulders on existing rock bed area by which the interest of the fishermen community is not affected in any way. As a matter of fact, from the top of it, the fishermen community is venturing into the sea and also is getting back to the shore. Further, they keep their boats, large, in number that area. Further, they have not taken up any worthy reclamation of land nor constructed any structure at the beach. In fact, loose boulders were placed on the existing rock bed there to have some sort of tranquility of water and also to avoid ferocious waves. Because they have not violated any CRZ Regulations no clearance from the Ministry of Environment and forest is obtained for the said activities. In fact, loose boulders were placed on the existing rock bed there to have some sort of tranquility of water and also to avoid ferocious waves. Because they have not violated any CRZ Regulations no clearance from the Ministry of Environment and forest is obtained for the said activities. Further, there is no commercial activity organized by the authorities by way of establishing shops, snack balls, hotels etc., for the purpose of recreating the Tourists, whereas only boating activity is being organized depending upon the condition of the sea for the benefit of the Tourists. The Writ petitioners have filed reply asserting their stand taken in the writ petition and further emphasizing that photographs of the beach taken fully assert their claim. In fact, copies of the photographs of various locations of the beach are filed before the Court which in fact uphold the claim of the writ petitioners of forming jetty and laying road on the jetty by using large quantities of gravel and boulders, deployment of debris, flattening of sand dunes, setting up of shops, presence of pollutants in a big way which infact falsify the denials made by the respondent No.4. It is to be seen therefore as to whether the said activities of the respondents are in violation of the said notification and there relevant provisions of the Act. The CRZ notification issued on 19/02/1991 would declare that land upto 500 metres from HTL and land between LTL be declared as Coastal Regulation Zone. In specific terms, the main part of it contemplates; “Now therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 and all other powers vesting in its behalf, the Central Government hereby declares 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 (HTL) and land between Low Tide Line (LTL) and the HTL as Coastal Regulation Zone; and imposes with effect from the date of this Notification with the restrictions given thereunder.” Para2 (xi) (xii) and (xiii) of the notification prohibits the following activities. (xi) Construction activities in ecologically sensitive areas as specified in Annexure -1 of this notification. (xi) Construction activities in ecologically sensitive areas as specified in Annexure -1 of this notification. (xii) Any construction activity between the LTL and HTL except facilities’ for carrying treated effluents and waste water discharges into the sea, facilities for carrying sea water for cooling purposes, oil, gas and similar pipe lines and facilities essential for activities permitted under this Notification; and (xiii) Dressing or altering of sand dunes, hills, natural features including landscape changes for beautification, recreational and other such purpose, except as permissible under the Notification. Section 3 of the Act empowers the Central Government to take measures to protect and improve the environment. Section 25 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make relevant rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Admittedly, the said notification was issued under these provisions by the Central Government. There is no dispute about the validity of these provisions of the notification cited and also the consequential implementation of the same provisions mandatorily. In S. Jagannath v. Union of India ( (1997) 2 SCC 87 ), Pollution caused by shrimping culture was under consideration and in that context also considered the CRZ Notification and the Supreme Court held in that behalf: “At this stage we may deal with a question which has incidentally come up for our consideration. Under para 2 of the CRZ Notification, the activities listed thereunder are declared as prohibited activities. Various State Governments have enacted coastal aquaculture legislations regulating the industries set up in the coastal areas. It was argued before us that certain provisions of the State legislations including that of the State of Tamil Nadu are not in consonance with the CRZ notification issued by the Government of India under Section 3(3) of the Act. Assuming that be so, we are of the view that the Act being a Central legislation has the overriding effect. The Act (the Environment Protection Act, 1986) has been enacted under Entry 13 of List I Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. The said entry is as under: “Participation in international conferences, assessment and other bodies and implementing of decisions made thereat.” The preamble to the Act clearly states that it was enacted to implement the decisions taken at the united Nations’ Conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm in June 1972. The said entry is as under: “Participation in international conferences, assessment and other bodies and implementing of decisions made thereat.” The preamble to the Act clearly states that it was enacted to implement the decisions taken at the united Nations’ Conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm in June 1972. Parliament has enacted the Act under entry 13 or List I Schedule VII read with Article 253 of the Constitution of India. The CRZ Notification having been issued under the Act shall have overriding effect and shall prevail over the law made by the legislatures of the States. Thereby it is the duty of the respondents as the concerned authorities to make all endeavors and take all measures to protect the environment at the beach adhering to the provisions enumerated. The activities carried out by the authorities about which there is no dispute cannot be termed as trivial and on the other hand, are to be termed to have been done at large scale, which is sufficient to change the existing geography there in a way. Quite surprisingly and without any regard for the truth, they have made a false assertion that no activities have been taken up by them at the beach and the claim made by the writ petitioners in that behalf is nothing but false. It is nothing but destroying the environment by the authorities who are enjoined with the duty of protecting it which is very unfortunate. The authorities involved in carrying out these forbidden activities in a large scale quite arbitrarily as it appears prima facie on the premise of providing recreation to the Tourists who visit the spot. They must have designs in what best way their mission which they alone know exactly can be carried out or implemented. When there has been a flagrant violation of the law laid down, definitely the authorities concerned are liable for penal consequences incorporated in the Act. They must have designs in what best way their mission which they alone know exactly can be carried out or implemented. When there has been a flagrant violation of the law laid down, definitely the authorities concerned are liable for penal consequences incorporated in the Act. Section 15 of the Act enjoins; “Penalty for contravention of the provisions of the Act and the rules, orders and directions – (1) Whoever fails to comply with or contravenes any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules made or orders or directions issued thereunder, shall in respect of each such failures or contravention, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both and in case the failure or contravention continues, with additional fine which may extend to five thousand rupees for every day during which such failures or contravention continues after the conviction for the first such failure or contravention. (2) If the failure or contravention referred to in sub-section (1) continues beyond a period of one year after the date of conviction, the offender shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years”. The law is same for everybody. In other words, the authorities are not above law and they are to be dealt with in accordance with law. The Court must be very critical of the writ petitioners concern, apathy and frustration that the forbidden activities destroy the beautiful environment which has been in existence throughout the past at the beach and also detriment the profession of fishermen which has been carried out since centuries without any impediment or restriction. The categorical admission of the respondents that as a matter of fact from the top of the boulders arranged on the existing rock bed area, the fishermen have been venturing into the sea and they also have been using it as base to get back to the shore asserts the claim of the writ petitioners that the fishermen have been using the spot to carry out their regular profession. One cannot visualize independently what sufferance or trauma the fishermen have been undergoing by way of carrying out the activities in question, unless he practically goes there and witness it. One cannot visualize independently what sufferance or trauma the fishermen have been undergoing by way of carrying out the activities in question, unless he practically goes there and witness it. Otherwise, he requires placement of evidence to have a clear picture of the predicament, which the fishermen would be facing consequently. Unless, the illegal activities would result in causing harm to the environment and also to the profession of the fishermen and as such, they have been affected probably the writ petitioners have restrained themselves from approaching this Court for the redressal. It concludes that the natural instinct, needs and convenience of the fishermen and so also their right of usage of the spot to carry out their profession and sustain to live for themselves and survive their families since centuries have been forgotten and ignored by the authorities without humanistic approach having involved in those activities. This is one example of the exploitation of the poor by those in power. Thereby these activities deserve to be curbed. Any inaction of law in the present a context will have the likely effect of allowing the authorities to continue with these activities though forbidden by law, which affects the environment and deprives the fishermen to carry out their profession as they are legally entitled. This also is likely to result in expanding the project in a bigger way, which would pose a bigger threat to the environment and the profession of the fishermen. The life and liberty of the fishermen cannot be curtailed except in accordance with law or by operation of law. In S. Jagannath, the Supreme Court while considering various aspects including the rights of fishermen and farmers living in coastal areas held “The Sea coasts and beaches are a gift of nature to the mankind. The aesthetic qualities and recreational utility of the said area has to be maintained, Any activity which has the effect of degrading the environment cannot be permitted. The aesthetic qualities and recreational utility of the said area has to be maintained, Any activity which has the effect of degrading the environment cannot be permitted. Apart from that the right of the fishermen and farmers living in the coastal areas to eke their living by way of fishing and farming cannot be denied to them.” In T. Damodhar Rao v. The Special Officer, Municipal corporation of Hyderabad ( AIR 1987 AP 171 ), thisCourt considered whether the Life Insurance Corporation of India and the Income Tax Department, Hyderabad could legally use the land owned by them in a recreational zone within the city limits and held as under: “……………………. From the above it is clear that protection of the environment is not only the duty of the citizen but it is also the obligation of the State and all other State organs including Courts. In that extent, environment law has succeeded in unshackling man’s right to life and personal liberty from the clutches of common law theory of individual ownership. Examining the matter from the above constitutional point of view, it would be reasonable to hold that the enjoyment of life and it s attainment and fulfillment guaranteed by Art.21 of the Constitution embraces the protection and preservation of nature’s gifts without life cannot be enjoyed. There can be no reason why practice of violent extinguishment of life alone should be regarded as violative of Art.21 of the Constitution. The slow poisoning by the polluted atmosphere caused by environmental pollution and spoliation should also be regarded as amounting to violation of Art.21 of the Constitution. In R.L. & E. Kendra, Dehradun v. State of U.P. (AIR 1885 SC 652) the Supreme court has entertained environmental complaints alleging that the operations of lime-stone quarries in the Himalayan range of Mussoorie resulted in depredation of the environment affecting ecological balance. In R.L. & E. Kendra, Dehradun v. State of U.P. (2 supra) the Supreme Court in an application under Art.32 has ordered the closure of some of these quarries on the ground that their operations were upsetting the ecological balance. In R.L. & E. Kendra, Dehradun v. State of U.P. (2 supra) the Supreme Court in an application under Art.32 has ordered the closure of some of these quarries on the ground that their operations were upsetting the ecological balance. Although Art.21 is not referred to in these judgements of the Supreme Court, those judgements can only be understood on the basis that the Supreme Court entertained those environmental complaints under Art.32 of the Constitution as involving violation of Art.21’s right to life.” For the reasons enumerated, the plea of the writ petitioners is to be upheld. In the result, writ petition is accordingly allowed as prayed for directing the respondents to implement this order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.