{"id":147307,"date":"2000-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goa-foundation-goa-vs-diksha-holdings-pvt-ltd-ors-on-10-november-2000"},"modified":"2017-02-25T14:01:51","modified_gmt":"2017-02-25T08:31:51","slug":"goa-foundation-goa-vs-diksha-holdings-pvt-ltd-ors-on-10-november-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goa-foundation-goa-vs-diksha-holdings-pvt-ltd-ors-on-10-november-2000","title":{"rendered":"Goa Foundation, Goa vs Diksha Holdings Pvt.Ltd & Ors on 10 November, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Goa Foundation, Goa vs Diksha Holdings Pvt.Ltd & Ors on 10 November, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: Banerjee<\/div>\n
Bench: U.C.Banerjee<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nGOA FOUNDATION, GOA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDIKSHA HOLDINGS PVT.LTD & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t10\/11\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nU.C.Banerjee\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
BANERJEE, J.\n<\/p>\n
L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J<\/p>\n
      I\t have  had the privilege of going through the  lucid
\njudgment  of  my  learned Brother Pattanaik, J.\t  and  while
\nrecording my concurrence therewith, however, I wish to add a
\nfew  pages as my own reasonings.  Environmental\t degradation
\nsaid  to by reason of disturbance of existing sand dunes  on
\nthe sea front of Goa is the focal point for consideration in
\nthis  Appeal  – the High Court answered it in the  negative.
\nGoa,  a\t popular tourist resort has recently been  facing  a
\ntremendous  influx  of\tpeople\tas  any\t other\turban  area.
\nTourism\t has turned out to be the basic economic  benefactor
\nto  the State and correspondingly attracts the\tmultifarious
\nattributes  of\tthe same.  Tourism is an industry  and\tthis
\ngrowth\tof  tourism  has attracted all the  other  ancillary
\nagencies  including Hoteliers to start commercial operations
\nand business activities.  Panaji being the capital city has,
\nas a matter of fact, hundreds of such hotels  big and small
\nand  it\t is in pursuit of this trade and commercial  venture
\nthat  thenceforth  uninhabited\tBeaches of the\tState  being
\nconverted  into\t commercial  arena  by\tway  of\t hotels\t and
\nbeach-resorts\t of  course  to the benefit  of\t the  State
\nexchequer  but obviously commencement of a business activity
\non  a  Virgin Beach could lead to environmental\t degradation
\nand resultantly various non- governmental organisations have
\ncome up to protest against such exploitation of the natures
\nbounty.\t  The present Petition before this Court is one such
\ninstance.   To put the record straight however, be it  noted
\nthat  though  originally the writ petition was moved  before
\nthe  Goa  Bench\t of the Bombay High Court  but\tsubsequently
\nmatter\twas  transferred  to  Bombay and was  heard  by\t the
\nDivision  Bench\t which\tnegated the  plea  of  environmental
\ndegradation  as noticed above and hence the Appeal.  In\t the
\npresent\t Public\t Interest  Litigation, the  main  thrust  of
\nchallenge   pertains   to   maintenance\t  of   environmental
\nequilibrium  and  bio-diversity in Nagorcem Beach,  Palolem,
\nTaluka\t Cancona, Goa being a coastal area in the State\t of
\nGoa.   The  factual  backdrop\tdepicts\t that  M\/s.   Diksha
\nHoldings Pvt.  Ltd., (the Respondent No.1 herein) applied to
\nTown  &\t Country Planning Department for permission  to\t the
\nconstruction of a Beach resort in January, 1996 along with a
\ncontour\t and site plan of the area.  The records depict that
\nCancona\t Municipal  Council  upon due consideration  of\t the
\nclearance  report  from\t the  Ministry\tof  Environment\t and
\nForests\t granted sanction for construction of Hotel on\t16th
\nJanuary,  1998\twhich however, prompted the foundation\t(the
\nAppellant   herein)  to\t approach   the\t Court\tinter\talia
\ncontending that the Ministry of Environment and Forests, did
\nnot,  as  a matter of fact, consider all  relevant  material
\nparticulars   before   issuance\t of    the   clearance\t and
\nconsequently the grant of sanction also stands vitiated.  On
\nthe  second count the Appellant contended that in any  event
\nthe  area being in the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and the
\nconstruction  of the Hotel does not come within the ambit of
\npermissible  activities\t in terms of the Notification  under
\nSection\t 3(1) and 3(2)(v) of the Environment Protection Act,
\n1986,  there appears to be a serious irregularity  resulting
\nin  the\t grant\tof an illegal sanction for  setting  up\t the
\nproject,  more\tso by reason of the existence of sand  dunes
\nand categorisation of the area as CRZ-I, which prohibits any
\nconstruction within 500 metres of the High Tide Line.  While
\nit  is\ttrue that nature will not tolerate after  a  certain
\ndegree\tof  its\t destruction  and  it  will  have  its\ttoll
\ndefinitely  though  may\t not  be felt in  presenti  and\t the
\npresent\t day  society  has  a  responsibility  towards\t the
\nposterity  so  as  to allow normal breathing and  living  in
\ncleaner\t environment  but that does not by itself  mean\t and
\nimply stoppage of all projects.\t In my Judgment in regard to
\nEast  Calcutta Wetlands (People United for Better Living  in
\nCalcutta  –  Public and another v.  State of West  Bengal  :
\nAIR  1993  Calcutta  215) I did speak of a  balance  between
\ndevelopment  and  ecology  and\t since\tmy  learned  Brother
\nPattanaik,  J.\thas already dealt with the issue, I  refrain
\nmyself\tfrom  dealing  with the matter in  extenso  in\tthat
\nregard excepting however, recording my concurrence therewith
\nand state that harmonization of the two namely, the issue of
\necology and developmental project cannot but be termed to be
\nthe  order  of\tthe day and the need of\t the  hour.   Before
\nproceeding  with  the matter further, it be noted  that\t the
\nschedule  attached to the local Town & Country Planning\t Act
\ndepict\tthat  the  area in question was\t designated  in\t the
\noriginal  plan\tas  an orchard and as early as in  1989\t the
\nSettlement  recorded  a\t proposal to convert the  plot\tfrom
\norchard\t to  Settlement (Beach Resort).\t This  proposal\t was
\nfinally\t accepted  and\tapproved in early  April,  1990\t and
\naccordingly  the  record of Rights recorded  the  conversion
\nfrom   orchard\tto  settlement\tas  its\t land-use.    India,
\nadmittedly,  has  around 6000 kms long coastal line  against
\nwhich  Goa  having 110 kms consisting largely of long  sandy
\nbeaches.   The beauty coupled with infrastructural  facility
\nhas  made  Goa\trenowned the world over.  Tourism  as  noted
\nabove is the main contributing factor for Goas economy.\t We
\nhave  on  record  in the matter in issue  the  Notifications
\nissued\tby the Central Government in regard to regulation of
\nCoastal\t Zones\tin  the\t country   popularly  known  as\t CRZ
\nNotifications  which has, in fact, regulate the user of\t the
\nbeach  area of the country.  A brief reference to the  norms
\nfor regulation of activities in different categories of CRZs
\nwould  be  convenient  at  this stage:\t CRZ-I\t:   No\tnew
\nconstruction  shall  be permitted within 500 metres  of\t the
\nHigh  Tide Line.  No construction activity, except as listed
\nunder  2(xii),\twill be permitted between the Low Tide\tLine
\nand the High Tide Line;\n<\/p>\n
      [provided\t that construction of dispensaries, schools,
\npublic\train  shelters, community toilets,  bridges,  roads,
\njetties, water supply, drainage, sewerage which are required
\nfor  traditional  inhabitants of the  Sunderbans  Bio-sphere
\nreserve\t area,\tWest Bengal, may be permitted, on a case  to
\ncase  basis,  by  an  authority\t  designated  by  the  State
\nGovernment].\n<\/p>\n
      CRZ-II\t:      (i)\t.      (ii)\n.  (iii) .  CRZ-III :  (i)\n<\/pre>\n
The  area upto 200 metres from the HTL is to be earmarked as
\nNo  Development Zone.  [No construction shall be permitted
\nwithin\tthis zone except for repairs of existing  authorised
\nstructures  not exceeding existing FSI, existing plinth area
\nand  existing density, and for permissible activities  under
\nthe  notification  including facilities essential  for\tsuch
\nactivities.    An   authority  designated   by\t the   State
\nGovernment\/Union   Territory  Administration\tmay   permit
\nconstruction  of  facilities for water supply, drainage\t and
\nsewerage  for requirements of local inhabitants].   However,
\nthe  following\tuses  may  be permissible  in  this  zone
\nagriculture,  horticulture,  gardens, pastures, parks,\tplay
\nfields, forestry and salt manufacture from sea water<\/p>\n
      (ii)  Development of vacant plots between 200 and 50-0
\nmetres of High Tide Line in designated areas of CRZ-III with
\nprior  approval\t of Environment and Forests (MEF)  permitted
\nfor   construction  of\thotels\/visitors\t  subject   to\t the
\nconditions as stipulated in the guidelines at Annexure-II.\n<\/p>\n
      (iii)<\/p>\n
      (iv)<\/p>\n
      In  support  of  the appeal, Dr.\t Calude\t Alvares,  a
\nwell-known    Environmentalist\t of\tthe   country\t and
\nappearing-in-person   contended\t that  by   reason  of\t the
\nrestrictions in terms of the CRZ Notification for setting up
\nor  expansion of industries and which lies about 500  meters
\nfrom  the  High Tide Line, question of construction  of\t any
\nbuilding  (whether a hotel or beach resort or even any other
\nbuilding)  cannot  be considered and the act or acts of\t the
\nconcerned  authority  in  the  matter  of  approval  to\t the
\nproposed  construction is the resultant effect of total non-
\napplication of mind.  CRZ Category-I does not permit any new
\nconstruction   except,\t however,  as\tmentioned   in\t the
\nNotification  itself.\tIt is in this perspective  that\t Dr.
\nAlvares\t however  contended  that  the matter  ought  to  be
\nremitted back to the concerned authority for reconsideration
\nof  the same and upon examination of proper materials in the
\nmatter\tin issue.  An in-depth analysis of the submission of
\nDr.  Alvares would indicate that according to him demolition
\nof  sand  dunes may create an environmental degradation\t and
\nreliance  was placed on the Report of the National Institute
\nof  Oceanography.  Before, however, dealing with the Report,
\na cursory glance on to the nature of sand and sand dunes and
\nimpact\tthereof\t may be noticed.  Sand in  common  English
\nparlance  cannot  but  mean and\t include  minute  fragments
\nresulting  from\t wearing  down\tof  siliceous  rocks   found
\ncovering  parts of the sea-shore, river-beds, deserts (vide
\nConcise\t Oxford Dictionary).  Sand is a product of  abrasion
\nor break down of older parent or source rocks.\tMcgraw- Hill
\nEncyclopedia  of Science and Technology (6th Edn.) describes
\nthe  characteristics  of  sand\tas   below:   Sand  can\t be
\ndescribed in terms of both texture and composition.  Textual
\nattributes include size, size sorting, angularity, shape and
\nsurface\t texture  of the grains.  Grain size refers  to\t the
\nmean  diameter\tof the grains and is usually  determined  by
\nsieving.   Grain  size is directly related to the energy  of
\nvelocity  of  the agent which transports the grains  and  is
\ninversely  related to the total distance of transport  prior
\nto  deposition.\t  Size sorting is a measure of the range  in
\ngrain  sizes within a given deposit of sand.  Poorly  sorted
\nsands  contain\tgrains\tof many different sizes\t within\t the
\nsand-size  range;  well-sorted sand have only a narrow range
\nof  particle  diameters.   The best-sorted sands  are  those
\ntransported  by agents of low viscosity (for examine,  wind)
\nand deposited very slowly.\n<\/p>\n
      Sand  is\tfound virtually anywhere where\tfluids\twith
\nhigh  kinetic  energy transport and deposit  sediment.\t The
\nlargest\t modern-day  accumulations of sand are in  the\tvast
\ninland deserts and on beaches.\tIn both environments much of
\nthe  sand  has been reorganized by wind into  dunes.   Other
\nsignificant  concentrations  of sand are found\tin  alluvial
\nfans which form at the base of mountains, on bars in rivers,
\nand  in\t a  variety of shoreline settings  including  spits,
\nbarrier\t islands,  and tidal flats, and in parts of  deltas.
\nUntil  about the 1950s sand was not thought to be present in
\nthe   oceans  very  far\t beyond\t  the  inner  parts  of\t the
\ncontinental  shelves.  However, it has been shown that\tsand
\ncan  be\t transported  even  beyond  the\t shelves  into\tvery
\ndeep-water  settings by density currents which commonly move
\ndown submarine canyons.\n<\/p>\n
      Mcgraw-Hill  Encyclopedia\t of Science  and  Technology
\nfurther\t notes\tits  use in the manner below:  Sand  is\t an
\nimportant economic resource.  Silica (SiO\u00b2) from quartz sand
\nis the chief ingredient for glass.  Sand is also employed as
\na  filler  in  concrete\t and plaster, as  an  abrasive\t(for
\nexample,  on  sandpaper),  and as a  fertilizer\t (glauconite
\nsand).\n<\/p>\n
      Needless\tto record that sand is normally\t transported
\naway  from  its site of origin by wind and water  before  it
\nbeing deposited at a particular place.\n<\/p>\n
      The  New Encyclopaedia Britannica (Volume 10) has this
\nto note for sand dune:\tSand dune, hill, mound, or ridge of
\nloose material (not always sand) formed by wind action.\t The
\nexistence  of  dunes is a direct function of the ability  of
\nwind  to  transport  unconsolidated   material.\t  They\t are
\ncommonly associated with desert regions where windblown sand
\noccupies  extensive  areas.   It  has  been  estimated,\t for
\nexample, that sand deposits in the Sahara Desert cover about
\n2,700,000 sq mi (7,000,000 sq km).  In the recent geological
\npast  desert  areas  may have been even\t larger\t during\t dry
\nperiods\t in the Pleistocene glaciation.\t At that time  great
\nareas of loess (wind-blown silt) were deposited across North
\nAmerica,  Europe, and Asia.  Dunes are also associated\twith
\ncoasts where beach sands may be reworked by the wind.\n<\/p>\n
      The  geomorphic  characteristics of sand dunes can  be
\nbest  appreciated  upon\t assessment of two  basic  elements,
\nnamely,\t sand and the wind and it is an interaction of these
\ntwo  elements  which  bring  about the sand  dunes.   It  is
\ninteresting  to note that sand dunes are invariably built by
\nparticles  of various forms and shapes of sand, sized up  by
\nwaves  and  carried by the wind.  Clay particles usually  do
\nnot  come  along with sand particles.  The growth  of  sand,
\nhowever is totally dependent upon the direction and velocity
\nof  the wind.  By reason wherefor sand dune which cannot  be
\nattributed  to\tbe ancient has been noticed to have  another
\nredeeming  feature of being a movable along with time,\ttide
\nand  the wind.\tIn the Coastal Zone Management Plan for\t Goa
\nas  issued by the Goa State Committee on Coastal Environment
\n(Town  &  Country Planning Department:\tGovernment of  Goa),
\nGovernment of Goa June 1996, Dr.  Wilfred Menezes Mesquita,
\nthe  Environment Minister in no uncertain terms stated\tthat
\nGoa  being  on\tthe  verge of a quantum jump  in  all  round
\ndevelopment  and  thus having a tremendous pressure  on\t its
\nnatural\t resources  as\talso   environment.   The   Minister
\nhowever,  went\ton  to state that though Goa shall  have  to
\nachieve\t economic  prosperity  but  at\tthe  same  time\t the
\nGovernment  cannot afford to damage the ecology and it\twill
\nbe  the\t endeavour  of\tthe Government to  achieve  both  by
\nmaintaining  a proper balance.\tThis is exactly how  Brother
\nPattanaik,  J.\t in  his judgment dealt with  the  issue  as
\nregards\t the balance between development and ecology and  as
\nsuch  further  dilation\t is  not   required  in\t the  matter
\nexcepting  however  to note that the Government of  Goa\t was
\nnot, in fact, completely oblivious of the environment of the
\narea.  The Minister of Environment himself makes a note that
\na  proper  balance shall have to be maintained\tbetween\t the
\necology\t and  development.   Sand   dunes,  admittedly,\t  if
\notherwise ancient in nature as noticed above, sometimes have
\ncononut\t tree  grown  on the dunes by  reason  wherefor\t the
\ndunes, as a matter of fact, act as a second line of defence
\nagainst\t the  fury  of any cyclonic  onslaught\tand  before
\ndelving\t into the merits of the matter, another\t significant
\nfeature\t which ought to be noticed at this juncture is\tthat
\nthe  width  of the beaches in Goa is not the same all  along
\nthe  coastal  line and resuntaltly Coastal  Management\tPlan
\ncannot\talso be uniform neither can it be put on a formula
\neach beach is singularly singular and has to be developed or
\nprotected  in a specific manner applicable to the  concerned
\nbeach  only.   ISSUES RAISED IN THE MATTER:   The  criticism
\nlevelled against the judgment under Appeal as noticed above,
\nis  the\t factum of non-consideration of\t relevant  materials
\nproduced  during the course of hearing as also the documents
\nenclosed with pleadings of the parties.\t Strong reliance has
\nbeen  placed  on  the Report of the  National  Institute  of
\nOceanography  which admittedly focussed the irreparable loss
\nof  environmental  climate in the event of sanction for\t the
\nproposed construction.\tIt is at this juncture however would
\nbe  significant to note two several factors detailed  herein
\nconcerning  the above Report:  firstly, the Report has\tbeen
\nobtained during the pendency of the Appeal before this Court
\nand  secondly Report has been signed by four several experts
\nof  the\t Institute  of\twhich two were the  members  of\t the
\nCoastal\t Zone Management Committee of the Government of\t Goa
\nwhich  has granted the sanction of the proposed construction
\nupon  due  certification with respective signatures.   On  a
\nfurther\t factual reference at this juncture it appears\tthat
\nthe  application  for  grant of sanction  for  the  proposed
\nconstruction was scrutinised by statutory agencies including
\nthe  State  Environment Department as also the\tMinistry  of
\nEnvironment  and  Natural  Resources of\t the  Government  of
\nIndia.\t It is worth adverting that the Government of India,
\nas  a  matter of fact, examined the issue upon\tobtaining  a
\nspecial\t Report\t of  two  very\teminent\t scientists  of\t the
\ncountry.   The\tReport,\t be  it noted, as  obtained  by\t the
\nGovernment of India has been on actual specific verification
\nof  the site in question and it is on the clearance from the
\nCentral\t Government that the State Government in its bid  to
\nhave  a balance for development and ecology also  considered
\nthe  issue  and\t upon due deliberation thereof\tgranted\t the
\nsanction.   The two scientists of the National Institute  of
\nOceanography   were   members  of    the   Committee   which
\ninvestigated the ecological aspect of the issue and on being
\nsatisfied and there being no affectation of the environment,
\nthe  Committee\trecommended  the   same\t upon  recording  of
\nsignature as a mark of approval of all members including the
\ntwo  who  later give a report otherwise.  I do not  wish  to
\nmake  any further comment thereon as regards the  subsequent
\nreport\texcepting  however,  recording\tthat  it  is  rather
\nunfortunate  that such a state of affairs did take place and
\nthe  happenings\t have involved two very noted scientists  of
\nWestern\t India\tas  also of the country.  The  other  aspect
\nwhich  needs to be gone into is the factum of affectation of
\nsand  dunes  and its environmental impact.  Admittedly,\t the
\ndunes  provide a beauty to the area in question and natures
\nbounty stands very well exposed in the dunes but sand, it is
\nto  be\tnoted is also used for commercial purposes, but\t the
\nfactum\tof the same being capable of a commercial item,\t has
\nnot  been delved into either of the parties in the course of
\nthe  submissions.  Admittedly, dune sand is also used by the
\nfoundry industry though, of course, Ford Motor Co.  have now
\nstarted\t using\tnon-dune  sand for  foundry  operations\t for
\nautomobile  engine  castings:\tnon   availability  of\t any
\nevidence   of  alteration  or\tphysical,   biological\t and
\ngeological  characteristics  of sand dunes ought also to  be
\nnoticed\t and  taken  into   consideration.   The  factum  of
\naffectation  of micro climate downwind of the sand dune area
\nand  the  resultant  effect  therefor\thas  also  not\tbeen
\nhighlighted  so as to warrant any adverse finding pertaining
\nto  the\t project.   There is not even existing\tan  iota  of
\nevidence  as regards the resultant damage on the  vegetation
\ntop  soil  or  topographic  features  neither  any  evidence
\npertaining to the elimination of existing flora and fauna of
\nthe  area  in question, no details are available as  regards
\nthe  plants  species which would otherwise be threatened  in
\nthe  event of there being such a project.  We  unfortunately
\nalso  do  not also have any local environment  audit  report
\nexcepting  however  the Report of the National Institute  of
\nOceanography and we reserve our doubts as to the credence to
\nbe  attributed to the report and as detailed hereinbefore in
\nthis  judgment.\t The affectation admittedly cannot  possibly
\nbe  a  mere  fanciful  idea but there  ought  to  be  cogent
\nmaterials  in  support therefor.  Unfortunately, we  do\t not
\nhave  such cogent evidence or any evidence available in\t the
\nmatter\tso  as to come to a conclusion about  the  disturbed
\nenvironmental  equilibrium  by\treason\tof  the\t change\t  of
\nbio-diversity  in  the area in question rather\tthe  records
\nsuggest otherwise.  Another factual element ought also to be
\nnoticed\t since\tthe same is rather significant to  wit:\t  An
\nassurance  or  undertaking not to disturb the existing\tsand
\ndunes.\t Mr.   Chhagla\tappearing for the  Respondents\tupon
\ninstructions  has  candidly  submitted that as a  matter  of
\nfact,  there  has  been\t a change in the plan  and  the\t new
\nrevised\t plan contain maintenance of the sand dunes since on
\nan  appraisal  of the entire situation, the Respondent\tfeel
\nthat  the  dunes would otherwise enhance the beauty  of\t the
\nhotel or the beach resort.  Protection of the environment is
\nrequired  undoubtedly provided however the same is  required
\nand  it\t is in this perspective Mr.  Chhagla contended\tthat
\nthe entire edifice of the appellants contention is based on
\nassumptions  de hors the realities.  As a matter of fact,  a
\nfaint  suggestion of motive has also been introduced, we  do
\nnot  however,  subscribe to such a view since the intent  of
\nthis   particular   public  interest   litigation   is\t the
\npreservation  and maintenance of environment in a beach area
\nwithin\tthe Goa Coastal Zone.  Coastal Zone shall have to be
\nprotected  undoubtedly but development of the area cannot be
\ndecried\t also  in  any\tway provided however,  there  is  no
\nenvironmental  degradation  and\t it  is on  this  score\t Mr.
\nChhagla\t contended  that, in fact, on the locale there\twere
\ntemples:  educational institutions and settlements as well –
\nthus,  it is not that the beach was totally uninhabited\t and
\nthere  was  available  an unspoiled beach.   The  record  of
\nRights as noticed above has recorded the area in question to
\nbe  a beach resort and admittedly also settlement, in  fact,
\nis  existing in the area in question, even today.  It is not
\nthat  a hitherto unspoiled coastal zone is being spoiled, it
\nis  even  presently  being occupied  by\t human\tsettlements.
\nAnother\t severe\t criticism which had come from Dr.   Alvares
\npertains to the issue of CRZ-I area.  In the earlier part of
\nthe  judgment I had, in fact, dealt with the  categorisation
\nof  the Coastal Zone and CRZ-I, which cannot but be ascribed
\nto  be\ta totally prohibited zone for any  construction\t and
\nthere  also cannot be any dispute in regard thereto.  In the
\nevent the area is ascribed to be CRZ-I area, question of any
\ngrant\tof  sanction  would  not   arise  and  the   earlier
\npronouncement of this Court of which reference has been made
\nby  my\tlearned Brother Pattanaik, J.  has settled the\tsame
\nfinally\t and  I record my respectful concurrence  therewith.
\nThe  High Court also while dealing with the issue has  dealt
\nwith  the same and came to a conclusion however, the area is
\nin  CRZ-III  and not CRZ-I :  Needless to record  here\tthat
\nGovernments   sanction\t and   Ministry\t of   Environments
\nclearance   (both  Central  and\t  State\t Governments)\thave
\nproceeded on the basis thereof and we do not find any contra
\nevidence  so  as to depict its coastal-zone  characteristics
\nother  than  CRZ-III.\tA  recapitulation on  the  score  of
\nCoastal Management would prompt us to record that since each
\nbeach is different in its contour, there is no fixed formula
\nfor  its  management either.  Coastal zone of  Goa  attracts
\ntourists  by  reason of availability of natures bounty\tbut
\ninfrastructural\t facility  is also required to develop\tthis
\nrecently growing tourism industry provided, of course, there
\nis  no\tpermanent affectation of environment in the area  in
\nquestion.   The records depict that the issue of affectation
\nof  environment, be it permanent or even temporary does\t not
\nand  cannot  arise in the contextual facts.  Environment  is
\nbeauty, environment is our sustenance, as such in the event,
\nthe  same  perishes, humanity also would perish may  not  be
\ntoday  or  tomorrow but certainly a day or two\tlater.\t The
\nissue,\ttherefore,  in\tthe  Appeal is whether\tthere  is  a
\ndegradation of environment in the event of construction, the
\nrecords\t speak\tvolumes in the negative:   Environmentalists
\nopine  in  the\tnegative  would the court be  justified\t in
\nthwarting  the project in the contextual facts – the  answer
\ncannot\tpossibly be in the affirmative.\t On the wake of\t the
\naforesaid, I record my concurrence with the conclusion of my
\nlearned\t Brother  Pattanaik,  J.  that\tthe  judgment  under
\nAppeal cannot be faulted in any way and as such I would also
\ndismiss the Appeal without, however, any order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Goa Foundation, Goa vs Diksha Holdings Pvt.Ltd & Ors on 10 November, 2000 Author: Banerjee Bench: U.C.Banerjee PETITIONER: GOA FOUNDATION, GOA Vs. RESPONDENT: DIKSHA HOLDINGS PVT.LTD & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/11\/2000 BENCH: U.C.Banerjee JUDGMENT: BANERJEE, J. L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J I have had the privilege of going through the lucid judgment of my […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-147307","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGoa Foundation, Goa vs Diksha Holdings Pvt.Ltd & Ors on 10 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goa-foundation-goa-vs-diksha-holdings-pvt-ltd-ors-on-10-november-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Goa Foundation, Goa vs Diksha Holdings Pvt.Ltd & Ors on 10 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goa-foundation-goa-vs-diksha-holdings-pvt-ltd-ors-on-10-november-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-25T08:31:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goa-foundation-goa-vs-diksha-holdings-pvt-ltd-ors-on-10-november-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goa-foundation-goa-vs-diksha-holdings-pvt-ltd-ors-on-10-november-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Goa Foundation, Goa vs Diksha Holdings Pvt.Ltd & Ors on 10 November, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-25T08:31:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goa-foundation-goa-vs-diksha-holdings-pvt-ltd-ors-on-10-november-2000\"},\"wordCount\":3799,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goa-foundation-goa-vs-diksha-holdings-pvt-ltd-ors-on-10-november-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goa-foundation-goa-vs-diksha-holdings-pvt-ltd-ors-on-10-november-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goa-foundation-goa-vs-diksha-holdings-pvt-ltd-ors-on-10-november-2000\",\"name\":\"Goa Foundation, Goa vs Diksha Holdings Pvt.Ltd & Ors on 10 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-25T08:31:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goa-foundation-goa-vs-diksha-holdings-pvt-ltd-ors-on-10-november-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goa-foundation-goa-vs-diksha-holdings-pvt-ltd-ors-on-10-november-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goa-foundation-goa-vs-diksha-holdings-pvt-ltd-ors-on-10-november-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Goa Foundation, Goa vs Diksha Holdings Pvt.Ltd & Ors on 10 November, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Goa Foundation, Goa vs Diksha Holdings Pvt.Ltd & Ors on 10 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goa-foundation-goa-vs-diksha-holdings-pvt-ltd-ors-on-10-november-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Goa Foundation, Goa vs Diksha Holdings Pvt.Ltd & Ors on 10 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goa-foundation-goa-vs-diksha-holdings-pvt-ltd-ors-on-10-november-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-25T08:31:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goa-foundation-goa-vs-diksha-holdings-pvt-ltd-ors-on-10-november-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goa-foundation-goa-vs-diksha-holdings-pvt-ltd-ors-on-10-november-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Goa Foundation, Goa vs Diksha Holdings Pvt.Ltd & Ors on 10 November, 2000","datePublished":"2000-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-25T08:31:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goa-foundation-goa-vs-diksha-holdings-pvt-ltd-ors-on-10-november-2000"},"wordCount":3799,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goa-foundation-goa-vs-diksha-holdings-pvt-ltd-ors-on-10-november-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goa-foundation-goa-vs-diksha-holdings-pvt-ltd-ors-on-10-november-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goa-foundation-goa-vs-diksha-holdings-pvt-ltd-ors-on-10-november-2000","name":"Goa Foundation, Goa vs Diksha Holdings Pvt.Ltd & Ors on 10 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-25T08:31:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goa-foundation-goa-vs-diksha-holdings-pvt-ltd-ors-on-10-november-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goa-foundation-goa-vs-diksha-holdings-pvt-ltd-ors-on-10-november-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goa-foundation-goa-vs-diksha-holdings-pvt-ltd-ors-on-10-november-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Goa Foundation, Goa vs Diksha Holdings Pvt.Ltd & Ors on 10 November, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147307","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=147307"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147307\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147307"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147307"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147307"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}