JUDGMENT : R.P.DHOLARIA, J. 1. The present petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation is filed by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs. “(A) To direct the respondent no.2 company to stop all its activities on all sand dunes including “MOR DHUVA” not allotted to the respondent no.2 company, in and around Tunda and Vandh Villages, Ta:Mundra, Kutch and to reverse all its actions in the region that are undertaken before any permission/authentication is granted by any of the respondent authorities; (B) To direct the respondent authorities of the State Government as well as the Central Government to file a status report with respect to the sand dunes on the sea shore in and around Tunda and Vandh Villages Ta:Mundra, Kutch with photographic evidence before this Hon’ble Court; (C) Pending admission and final hearing of the present application, to direct the respondent no.2 company to stop all its activities on all sand dunes including “MOR DHUVA” not allotted to the respondent no.2 company, in and around Tunda and Vandh Villages, Ta:Mundra, Kutch and to reverse all its actions in the region that are undertaken before any permission/authentication is granted by any of the respondent authorities; (D) To impose exemplary cost on the respondent no.2 company for initiating any kind of activity on “MOR DHUVA” illegally, despite the same falling in CRZ-1 category. (E) To pass any other and further orders that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the Tunda region of Kutch District, which is declared as CRZ-1 region by the Union Government, has large sand dunes having height of nearly 15-21 meters near the sea shores which act as a natural wall to protect the region from any calamities that may arise from the sea including tsunami, high tides, cyclones, etc. These sand dunes include Mor Dhuva, Bharadi Mata Dhuva, Vekari Dhuva, Bet Dhuva and Anay Dhuva. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.2 is a very large, powerful and influential business conglomerate and with a view to create a monopolistic situation in the market of ship breaking wants to expand its area and has proposed to develop/expand the existing facilities near Tunda. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.2 is a very large, powerful and influential business conglomerate and with a view to create a monopolistic situation in the market of ship breaking wants to expand its area and has proposed to develop/expand the existing facilities near Tunda. 3. It is further the case of the petitioner that though no permission is granted to initiate any kind of work for the additional ship breaking yard and admittedly sand dunes have never been allotted to them, respondent no.2 company has started spreading the sand of the sand dunes backwards, showing that the sand dunes never existed and the land that is generated is reclaimed out of the dredging activities. The respondent no.2 company is fraudulently depicting in the maps that there is no such sand dune at one end and at the other end, making a claim that the land that will be created will be a result of reclamation activities by dumping dredge spoils whereas actually respondent no.2 company is flattening the “MOR DHUVA” backwards, and resultantly the natural sand dune gets destroyed and the respondent company will not need to comply with any law with respect to that region. 4. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent authorities have turned blind eye to all such highly damaging activities of respondent no.2 company and as a result of such inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the ecology of the entire region is getting affected. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. 5. Vide order dated 10.7.2014, this Court issued notice to the respondents making it returnable on 24.7.2014 and on the returnable date, the respondent no.5, Collector, Kutch, was directed to submit a report regarding the allegation contained in this application and also to submit recent photograph of the area in question along with the report. Pursuant thereto, the Collector, Kutch submitted a report supported by affidavit on 28.7.2014. It appears from the report submitted that the Forest Department has informed that the areas known as Bharadi Mata Dhuva and Vekari Dhuva mentioned in the captioned writ petition are not allotted to the User Agency and the possession of this area is with the Forest Department and the User Agency has not carried out any work in this area. It appears from the report submitted that the Forest Department has informed that the areas known as Bharadi Mata Dhuva and Vekari Dhuva mentioned in the captioned writ petition are not allotted to the User Agency and the possession of this area is with the Forest Department and the User Agency has not carried out any work in this area. The Forest Department has further informed that 10 days more time is required to compare the land declared as reserved forest and the Mor Dhuva and Bet Dhuva said to have been in the land allotted to the User Agency for non-forest purpose, from the map of land allotted to the User Agency and the settlement map of the Forest Department. Accordingly, the Collector, Kutch was granted further time of 14 days to file further report after getting the result of comparison as indicated above and respondent nos.3 & 4, Union Government was also directed to file affidavit- in-reply along with the satellite maps of the area concerned for the purpose of verification of the allegations made by the petitioner in this captioned writ petition. However, instead of filing such satellite maps, respondent nos.3 & 4 have got site inspected on 25.9.2014 and the result of such site inspection has been mentioned in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 & 4. In view of such site inspection, vide order dated 9.12.2014, filing of satellite maps was ordered to be dispensed with. 6. Affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of respondent no.2 on 11.8.2014 and supplementary affidavit is also filed by them on 25.9.2014. Further affidavit along with a report is filed by the Collector, Kutch on 8.8.2014. Affidavits- in-reply on behalf of respondent no.3 are filed on 27.8.2014 and 3.11.2014 and affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent no.4 is filed on 4.9.2014. Lastly, the petitioner has filed affidavit-in-rejoinder on 15.12.2014. 7. We have heard Mr.I.H.Syed, learned counsel assisted by Mr.N.L.Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1, 5 & 6, Mr.Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Parth Contractor, learned counsel appearing for Singhi & Company for respondent no.2 and Mr.Shakeel A.Qureshi, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 & 4. 8. Heard all the parties at length. 8. Heard all the parties at length. Learned counsels took us to various maps, revenue records, large number of photographs, reports and other records germane to this matter. Since the questions raised in this writ petition fundamentally relate to environmental safety and ecological impact, we thought it to be deemed fit and proper to keep the judgment reserved vide order dated 17.12.2014. 9. Having heard all the parties and upon minutely perusing the records made available to us, it is evidently clear that primarily the petitioner has sought to direct respondent no.2 company to stop all its activities on all sand dunes including “MOR DHUVA” not allotted to respondent no.2 company, in and around Tunda and Vandh Villages, Ta: Mundra, Kutch and to reverse all its actions in the region that are undertaken before any permission/authentication is granted by any of the respondent authorities. 10. It can be noticed from the record that in affidavit-in-reply, respondent No.2 has denied that Tunda region of Kutch district has any sand dunes near sea shores. They have denied that Mor Dhuva or Bharadi Mata Dhuva or Vekari Dhuva or Bet Dhuva or Anay Dhuva are sand dunes and they are neither in possession nor the said Dhuvas are allotted to them. No sand dunes have been flattened by them. As shown in the map at Annexure-“A”, the area of the alleged Mor Dhuva is towards the north of the West Port of respondent No.2. The said area is a reserved forest allotted to them for non-forest use and the possession in respect of such area was given to them on 25.11.2009. In the meantime, respondent No.2 proposed a comprehensive waterfront development project which included development of West Port which was to be developed by dredging and from the dredged material reclamation, level raising activities was to be carried out. The said West Port is commissioned and operational since 2010-2011. Pursuant to the environmental clearance / CRZ permission dated 12.1.2009/19.1.2009 being granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi, respondent No.2 started necessary work and used the dredged material for reclamation to construct and develop the West Port and to raise the level of the aforesaid land allotted by the Forest Department for non-forest purpose. Pursuant to the environmental clearance / CRZ permission dated 12.1.2009/19.1.2009 being granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi, respondent No.2 started necessary work and used the dredged material for reclamation to construct and develop the West Port and to raise the level of the aforesaid land allotted by the Forest Department for non-forest purpose. 10.1 The respondent No.2 has further stated in its affidavit-in-reply that they have proposed to establish Ship Recycling Facility on the eastern side of the existing West Port and no construction or any activity has been commenced by them. 11. Pursuant to this Court’s direction, the Collector, Kutch has placed a preliminary report coupled with copies of rojkam and photographs with an affidavit dated 28.7.2014. On going through the report, it is noticed that a team comprising Deputy Collector, Mundra, Mamlatdar, Mundra and the Officers of Gujarat Pollution Control Board, D.I.L.R and Officer of Geology and Mining visited the site on 25.7.2014 and made spot inspection. On ascertaining the status of land, it has come to their notice that the area falls within the jurisdiction of the Forest Department which has declared it as “reserve forest”. Upon inquiry, the Forest Department has informed that 1840.00 Ha of forest land has been allotted to respondent No.2 in the year 2009 for non-forest use under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 by the Government of India. The Forest Department has also informed that the areas known as Bharadi Mata Dhuva and Vekariya Dhuva are not allotted to the User Agency and the possession of these areas is with the Foerst Department and the User Agency has not carried out any work in these areas. It is further noticed from the report that no construction activities are seen at the site proposed for ship recycling facility. On that spot, reclamation is seen, which is stated to be done as a part of the waterfront development project. 12. Thereafter, pursuant to this Court’s direction on 28.7.2014 to file further report after receipt of report from the Forest Department pursuant to the comparison of map of land allotted to the User Agency and the settlement map of the Forest Department, the Collector, Kutch has duly placed a report with an further affidavit dated 8.8.2014. 12. Thereafter, pursuant to this Court’s direction on 28.7.2014 to file further report after receipt of report from the Forest Department pursuant to the comparison of map of land allotted to the User Agency and the settlement map of the Forest Department, the Collector, Kutch has duly placed a report with an further affidavit dated 8.8.2014. In the said affidavit, he has stated that a letter dated 6.8.2014 has been received from the Forest Department wherein they have stated that the Surveyor has superimposed the maps and the map showing the site situation after superimposition is attached with the report. It is further mentioned that Bharadi Mata Dhuva, Vekri Dhuva and Bet Dhuva are not allotted to the User Agency, however, the area forming the part of the Mor Dhuva has been allotted to the User Agency in the year 2009 and during the site visit, it is noticed that the company has made a temporary road and on the northern side, a channel for discharge of water is seen. No other work is seen in this area. 13. It can also be noticed from the record that respondent No.3, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi has filed an affidavit-in-reply on 27.8.2014 wherein they have stated that the Environmental and CRZ clearance for the development of ship recycling facility has not been granted to respondent No.2 and their proposal for putting up such facility is under consideration. In their further affidavit dated 3.11.2014, they have stated that it is decided to consider the project for development of ship recycling facility after the issue of final order in respect of port activity of the respondent No.2 company based on the recommendations of Ms.Sunitha Narain Committee, which was constituted by the Ministry to examine alleged environmental violations by the respondent company No.2. The issue of final order is under consideration. They have further stated that Environmental and CRZ clearance for the development of North Port, South Port, West Port and East Port in an area of 1591 ha was accorded vide letter dated 12.1.2009 and addendum dated 19.1.2009 and Environmental clearance for proposed Multi-Product SEZ and CRZ clearance for desalination, sea water intake, outfall facility and pipeline was accorded on 15.7.2014 for development of SEZ in an area of 6641.2784 ha including 1473.79 ha in CRZ area. As regards the alleged leveling of sand dunes and the commencement of work, they have stated that a site inspection was carried out by the Regional Office of the Ministry at Bhopal on 25.9.2014 and they inter-alia observed as under:- 1. The area in question has been transformed from the original condition of land of 2005 to the present situation due to developmental activities for which necessary permissions have been obtained from the competent authorities. 2. The proposed Ship Recycling Project is located on the land which was reclaimed as a part of West Port by means of dumping dredged material upto 7.5 m to 8 m. The area is not part of 1840 ha of forest land and the proposed project is not located in the areas of the Dhuvas namely, Bharadi Mata Dhuva, Mor Dhuva, Vekari Dhuva and Bet Dhuva as intimated by PA. 3. Barbed wire fencing was erected on land ward side, which was diverted forestland of 1840 as intimated. 4. No activity pertaining to construction of ship breaking facility was initiated at site. 5. It was confirmed from the records available and as observed during visit that Bharadi Mata Dhuva and Vekari Dhuva were not allowed to the Project Proponent. These Dhuvas appear to be in the original condition and part of protected area. 6. Besides the site situation of Vekari Dhuva, Bet Dhuva and other Dhuva mentioned in the petition were not ascertainable during the visit as there was no demarcation of boundaries on seaward side. 7. It was noted from the records that these Dhuva’s were not diverted. 8. It was observed during the visit that the said area of Mor Dhuva which is within 1840 ha of forest land is adjoining to the West Port backup area. The area is sandy and covered with vegetation at certain places. 14. Mr.I.H.Syed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that the respondent company has been carrying on construction / demolition / flattening activities on all sand dunes in and around Tunda and Vandh villages, Taluka: Mundra, Kutch, without any kind of permission from any authority, causing tremendous damage to the ecology of the region and continuation of such activities will lead to a situation where the loss caused to the environment will be irreversible. The sand dunes have never been allotted to respondent No.2 company and in spite of that, they are clandestinely flattening the dhuva backwards and claiming that the land is created as a result of reclamation activities by dumping dredge spoils. Mr.Syed further contended that the State Government authorities have turned blind eye to all such damaging activities of respondent No.2 company and as result of such inaction, the ecology of the entire region is getting affected. 14.1 Mr.Syed further argued that as per the Rules, respondent No.2 company cannot touch the sand dunes or dredge or make road or way. At one point of time, respondent No.2 company contended that there is no sand dunes in the region and Mor Dhuva does not exist and now the report of the Government authorities shows existence of Mor Dhuva. However, they are silent about its height. Mr.Syed pointed out that scale of the map of land allotted to the User Agency and the scale of settlement map of the Forest Department differs and such different scale of maps is superimposed. In fact, Mor Dhuva is not allotted to respondent No.2 company but the map on superimposition goes to say that Mor Dhuva is allotted to the company. Therefore, the conclusion of the Deputy Conservator of Forest is not accurate and faulty and cannot be relied upon. Mr.Syed has, therefore, urged to constitute an independent committee to look into the matter and direct respondent No.2 company to stop all its activities on all sand dunes and to reverse all its actions undertaken in the region. 15. On the other hand, Mr.Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 company vehemently argued that the petitioner wants fishing and roving inquiry in the year 2014 for the land allotted in the year 2009. The work is going on upon the land allotted to the company since the year 2009 and such grievance is made in the year 2014. Mr.Joshi further contended that the respondent company is carrying on its activities on the land allotted to them, as demarcated in the maps and as per the terms and conditions laid down in the allotment orders. The respondent company has not caused any damage to the ecology of the region, much less flattening of sand dunes. Mr.Joshi further contended that the respondent company is carrying on its activities on the land allotted to them, as demarcated in the maps and as per the terms and conditions laid down in the allotment orders. The respondent company has not caused any damage to the ecology of the region, much less flattening of sand dunes. Mr.Joshi further contended that the caption writ petition has been filed by the petitioner due to his personal animosity with the company. 16. Mr.Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP appearing for respondent Nos.1, 5 & 6 submitted that the report filed by the Collector, Bhuj pursuant to this Court’s order settles the issues raised by the petitioner. He has further submitted that Bharadi Mata Dhuva, Vekri Dhuva and Bet Dhuva are not allotted to the User Agency, however, the area forming the part of the Mor Dhuva has been allotted to the User Agency in the year 2009 and during the site visit of the Committee constituted by the Collector, Bhuj, it is noticed that the company has made a temporary road and on the northern side, a channel for discharg of water is seen. No other work is seen in this area. He has further submitted that no construction activities are seen at the site proposed for ship recycling facility. 17. While deciding Writ Petition (PIL) No.122 of 2013, we have come across the report of the Sunita Narain Committee constituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), New Delhi to look into the complaints regarding severe impact upon environment safety and integrity committed by M/s.Adani Port and SEZ Ltd. The said Committee visited the site and submitted its report to the Government of India on 18.4.2013. The Committee has come to the conclusion that the Adani Waterfront and Power Plant Project, which has been granted clearance in different phases beginning the year-1995 has led to massive ecological changes with adverse impacts. Amongst the several reformatory measures cited, the Committee has recommended following measures for project clearance conditions and post clearance monitoring: 1. The current regulatory system is not able to handle the complexity and size of projects of this nature. There is an urgent need to strengthen the monitoring abilities and to bring in public oversight. 2. Amongst the several reformatory measures cited, the Committee has recommended following measures for project clearance conditions and post clearance monitoring: 1. The current regulatory system is not able to handle the complexity and size of projects of this nature. There is an urgent need to strengthen the monitoring abilities and to bring in public oversight. 2. The monitoring and auditing of such a large project is only possible, if the clearance conditions are specific and detailed, geo-referenced and there is a landsat imagery analysis to benchmark the project area, pre-construction. Without these benchmarks, it is not possible, to ascertain the extent and scale of the violations committed during construction and operation phase. 3. More, importantly, a system should be developed so that all monitoring data is widely accessible by local communities to use and comprehend in terms of impacts. 17.1 Lastly, the Committee has recommended that there is a need to create a monitoring system to ensure that corrective action suggested by this report is taken within a time-bound manner. While handing over the report to the Hon’ble Minister, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi, the Committee observed that they are aware that the issues before them are important in terms of safeguarding coastal ecology as well as livelihoods of people and that this report will help to settle the controversy and conflict to a large extent, by presenting factual information and analysis on what has gone wrong, as well as detailed recommendation on the future plan for remedial action, and that their overall assessment is that there are instances of violations and non-compliance with environmental conditions, which need to be addressed and effective deterrents are required to be placed for the future and urgent steps are required to be taken to repair damage and to mitigate future harm. 18. In this view of the matter, when an independent committee has already been constituted and the said committee has also submitted its report and the same is under consideration of the competent authorities by which, the grievance voiced by the petitioner in this writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation has been taken care of, prima facie, we are of the considered opinion that there is no cause or concern to appoint another independent committee to look into the matter. We are also apprised of the facts that respondent No.2 company has been granted Environmental Clearance by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), Government of India, New Delhi, for their project and the State Government has allotted various parcels of lands to respondent No.2 company and they have developed the area pursuant to such Environmental clearance and allotment of lands. In the backdrop of the aforesaid situation, we cannot accede to the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner to appoint an independent committee to look into the matter. 18. Now, let us examine the reports of the Collector, Kutch filed in this Court by way of affidavit along with copies of rojkam and photographs. Pursuant to this Court’s direction, the Collector, Kutch constituted a Committee comprising of high ranking Government officials to look into the issues specifically raised in the captioned writ petition. The said committee visited the site on 25.7.2014 and made spot inspection. The committee found that Bharadi Mata Dhuva, Vekri Dhuva and Bet Dhuva are not allotted to the User Agency and the possession of these areas is with the Forest Department, however, the area forming the part of the Mor Dhuva has been allotted to the User Agency in the year 2009 and during the site visit, they noticed that the company has made a temporary road and on the northern side, a channel for discharge of water is seen. No other work is seen in this area. The committee has further noticed that no construction activities are seen at the site proposed for ship recycling facility. On that spot, reclamation is seen, which is stated to be done as a part of the Waterfront Development Project. 19. Mr.Syed, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised contention which would point out that the map superimposition methodology adopted by the Department of Forests is unscientific and has also raised suspicion as regards the correctness thereof. We, at the outset, totally reject the above contention raised by Mr.Syed as superimposition test is time-tested, scientifically proven and reliable technique. Superimposition test is used in great extent with reliable precision in medical jurisprudence. Therefore, to raise suspicion as regards correctness of such technique is totally misplaced and ill-founded. 20. We, at the outset, totally reject the above contention raised by Mr.Syed as superimposition test is time-tested, scientifically proven and reliable technique. Superimposition test is used in great extent with reliable precision in medical jurisprudence. Therefore, to raise suspicion as regards correctness of such technique is totally misplaced and ill-founded. 20. As noticed earlier, the prime contention or concern which appears on the part of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 company has been carrying on construction/ demolition/ flattening activities on all sand dunes in and around Tunda and Vandh villages, Taluka : Mundra, Kutch, without any kind of permission from any authority, causing tremendous damage to the ecology of the region and continuation of such activities will lead to a situation where the loss caused to the environment will be irreversible. The sand dunes have never been allotted to respondent No.2 company and in spite of that, they are clandestinely flattening the dhuva backwards and claiming that the land is created as a result of reclamation activities by dumping dredge spoils. However, as narrated above, the reports submitted by the Collector, Kutch, pursuant to this Court’s directions clearly reveal that Bharadi Mata Dhuva, Vekri Dhuva and Bet Dhuva are not allotted to the User Agency, however, the area forming the part of the Mor Dhuva has been allotted to the User Agency in the year 2009 and during the site visit of the Committee constituted by the Collector, Kutch, it is noticed that the company has made a temporary road and on the northern side, a channel for discharge of water is seen. No other work is seen in this area. No construction activities are seen at the site proposed for ship recycling facility. This conclusion is also confirmed during the site inspection carried out by the Regional Office of the Ministry of Enviroment and Forests (MoEF) at Bhopal on 25.9.2014, as detailed in their affidavit dated 3.11.2014. Moreover, the committee constituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), New Delhi to look into the complaints regarding severe impact upon environment safety and integrity committed by M/s. Adani Port and SEZ Ltd has submitted its detailed report with recommendation to the Government of India and the same is under consideration of the competent authorities. Moreover, the committee constituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), New Delhi to look into the complaints regarding severe impact upon environment safety and integrity committed by M/s. Adani Port and SEZ Ltd has submitted its detailed report with recommendation to the Government of India and the same is under consideration of the competent authorities. As observed earlier, when the committee appointed by the Central Government has taken care of the grievance voiced by the petitioner in the present writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, no further direction needs to be issued in the matter and the complaint and grievance raised by the petitioner appears to be taken care of. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to cost.