K.T.V. HEALTH FOOD PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: [2023] 9 S.C.R. 246 · Decided: 01-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
246
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 9 S.C.R.
246
K.T.V. HEALTH FOOD PVT. LTD.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3626 OF 2020
FEBRUARY 01, 2023
[K. M. JOSEPH, B. V. NAGARATHNA AND
J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Environment Protection Act, 1986 – 2011 Notification issued
under the 1986 Act – Respondent No.1 granted ex post facto
clearance to the appellant purportedly invoking paragraph-4.3 of
the aforesaid Notification, for laying of pipeline for the transfer of
edible oil from the Chennai Port to the storage terminal tank and
for the establishment of the storage transit terminal – NGT held
that the activity of putting up a storage tank transit terminal being
contrary to the 2011 Notification was illegal as the storage terminal
was not located ‘in’ the Chennai Port, in which case alone, it would
have been permissible under the permitted activities of Coastal
Regulation Zone II – Construction of the storage facility and the
pipeline were directed to be removed, environmental compensation
imposed – Appellant inter alia contended that CRZ-II being less
sensitive than CRZ-I, in CRZ-I, the “storage of edible oil inter alia
is permitted within the notified ports” while, in CRZ-II, storage of
non-hazardous cargo such as edible oil, fertilizers and foodgrain
is permitted ‘in notified ports’ – And since the word ‘within’ which is
used in CRZ-I is not employed in regard to the similar activity in
CRZ-II and instead the word ‘in’ is used, they must receive a different
meaning – Held: Objects of the notification include guarding against
the dangers of natural hazards in coastal areas and the sea level
rise due to global warming – The coastal regulation appears to be
based on considerations which appear to accommodate conflicting
interests premised on considerations of what is felt as indispensably
necessary and the nature of the zone in question – Words ‘within’
and ‘in’ cannot include what is outside the port – The maker of the
notification has not even contemplated the activities in question in
a ‘port area’ – A storage tank cannot be permitted outside the port
limits – If the same is allowed, it will introduce chaos – Question
would arise as to up to what distance from the port area it would be
[2023] 9 S.C.R. 246 : 2023 INSC 91
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
247
considered as the ‘in the port area’ – The 2011 Notification cannot
receive an interpretation which would leave matters of moment to
be afflicted with the vice of uncertainty – As far as the pipeline is
concerned, it is located in a zone where it is permitted activity – As
to whether the pipeline can continue to be used if the storage tanks
are demolished is a matter which must engage the attention of the
authorities – Appellants may approach the relevant District Coastal
Zonal Management Authority – Appellants given six months period
to demolish the storage tanks to comply with the impugned order of
the NGT – Appellant in the first appeal to pay the compensation
ordered within a month – Major Port Trust Act, 1964 – s. 35 –
Customs Act – ss.2(11), (12), (13), 7(a), 57 – Indian Ports Act, 1908
– National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
Customs Act – ss.7(a), 57 – Indian Ports Act, 1908 – Major
Port Trust Act, 1964 – s. 35 – Held: Every port falling under the
Indian Port Act and the Major Port Act may not be on their own
become a customs port – A customs port u/s.2(12) comes into being
on a port being appointed as such u/s.7(a) – The case of the appellant
based on the license u/s.57 of the Customs Act may make it a customs
area as it includes a warehouse but, it is inconceivable as to how it
would transform it into ‘in a notified port’ – Environment Protection
Act, 1986.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Central Government declared certain areas
as Coastal Regulation Zone (‘CRZ’). The CRZ in the First Clause
consists of the land area from high tide line to 500 meters on the
land along the sea front. The High Tide line is the line based on
the highest water mark during the spring tide. We may only further
notice that among the other 4 categories of CRZ, the CRZ
includes the water and the bed area between the LTL (LOW TIDE
LINE)(which line is based on the lowest height of the water body
during the spring tide) to the territorial water limit (12 nautical
miles) in the case of the sea and the water bed and area between
the LTL at the bank to the LTL on the opposite of the bank of the
tidal influenced water bodies. CRZ has been classified under para
7 into CRZ I, C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.