The Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) dismissed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the decision of the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) to keep a retaining wall at the Goa Marriott Resort, holding that the decision was well-reasoned, based on scientific and expert reports, and in compliance with earlier court directions.
The PIL was instituted by the Goa Foundation, which alleged that GCZMA and Water Resources Department circumvented previous court directions relating to the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 1991. The petitioner sought implementation of earlier High Court orders directing the restoration of riverbank areas and demolition of unauthorized constructions, including parts of the hotel’s swimming pool and retaining wall, claiming violations of CRZ norms.
The litigation spans decades, beginning with a 1993 writ petition challenging the lease for construction of a hotel at Gaspar Dias Beach, Panaji. The Division Bench’s 2015 judgment directed GCZMA to re-examine constructions near the river side of a designated ‘imaginary line’ parallel to the High Tide Line (HTL) of 1991. Subsequent proceedings involved GCZMA reports, expert inspections, and orders including demolition of certain structures but retaining the wall based on expert advice. The petitioner challenged these decisions repeatedly, including before the Supreme Court, which declined to interfere in 2019.
The Marriott Hotel property had constructions allegedly violating CRZ norms, including a swimming pool, hut, compound wall, and a retaining wall protecting the riverbank. GCZMA commissioned expert studies, including from the Central Water and Power Research Station (CWPRS) Pune, conducting hydrodynamic and sedimentation modelling. The studies found the site prone to severe erosion due to river currents, waves, and river bend-induced oblique flow. They concluded that removal of the retaining wall would shift the river channel, intensify erosion, and cause severe damage to the bank.
The petitioner contended that the GCZMA failed to enforce the demolition of illegal structures and that the retaining wall’s retention violated earlier directions. The respondents relied on scientific reports, expert opinions, and procedural compliance.
The Bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta extensively reviewed earlier judgments, expert reports, and compliance with CRZ norms. It emphasized that judicial review cannot substitute for expert technical assessments in environmental matters. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court reiterated that judicial interference is circumscribed when regulatory authorities act on expert advice and follow due process.
The Court held that GCZMA’s reliance on expert reports, including complex scientific studies evidencing that demolition would worsen erosion, merited judicial deference. It observed that the petitioner had ample opportunities and hearings but failed to establish mala fide or procedural violations.
The court also noted the long-drawn litigation history and stressed the need to end protracted disputes when authorities have taken care to balance environmental protection with practical realities.
In result, the PIL was dismissed with the High Court discharging the Rule. It upheld the GCZMA’s decision dated 11 March 2021 that allowed retention of the retaining wall after scientific examination showed that removal would exacerbate erosion. The Court confirmed that the hotel must not use the area between the retaining wall and the imaginary line drawn parallel to the HTL of 1991 for commercial purposes and must erect bio-fencing under GCZMA supervision. The judgment confirmed regulatory compliance and put an end to further challenges on these grounds.
Cases relied on:
1. Delhi Development Authority vs Rajendra Singh and Ors., (2009) 8 SCC 582
2. Bses Ltd. vs Union of India, AIR 2001 Bom 128
3. Medical Council of India vs Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) and Ors., (2016) 11 SCC 530
