DLF files writ appeal against judgment passed by a single judge of the Kerala High Court directing demolition of construction put up in violation of CRZ norms

DLF Universal Limited on Monday filed an appeal before a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court questioning a single judge's order passed last week that directed partial demolition its buildings on the banks of Chilavannoor backwaters constructed in violation of CRZ norms.

DLF apartments at Chilavannoor

In the judgment passed on December 8, Justice A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai in a writ petition filed by one A.V. Antony, had directed Kochi Corporation to demolish the buildings constructed by DLF on the basis of a permit issued on 2007 that were in violation of the CRZ norms.

DLF, in its appeal memorandum has contended that the single judge erred in 6 of its findings in the judgment. According to DLF, the single judge found that it didn't have a valid CRZ clearance as the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), a body constituted by the Union of India as per provisions of Environment (Protection) Act of 1986 that granted clearance, was not authorized to issue CRZ clearance.

Questioning the ruling against authority of SEIAA granting CRZ clearance, the appeal stated, "This finding is clearly erroneous and contrary to the relevant instructions issued by the ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) and in particular the office memorandum dated 08.02.2011 issued by MoEF, which clarifies that Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority (KCZMA) shall only be the recommendatory authority and further that SEIAA will be the final authority to issue CRZ clearance. Therefore the finding rendered by the learned single judge that KCZMA alone will be the competent authority to issue clearance is contrary to law."

When the company applied for environmental clearance in 2008, SEIAA and the Sate Environmental Impact Assessment Committee (SEAC) were not constituted and thus application was submitted to Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) under MoEF, the appeal said.

DLF points out that the EAC recommended for environmental clearance for the project and there was no necessity to call for further recommendations by SEAC as both EAC and SEAC are authorities under MoEF that are performing similar functions.

Further, it is alleged in the appeal that the single judge primarily and substantially relied on the report of a three-member committee appointed by KCZMA that was constituted illegally and acted without jurisdiction. The findings of the committee violated principles of natural justice as the company was not heard by them before rendering findings against them, the appeal said.

It also contended that KCZMA could not have examined the CRZ-cum-environmental clearance obtained by DLF because once the authority recommends the project to SEIAA or MoEF, it does not have any further role.