![]() Sunday, Mar 24, 2002 |
| National | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | National
By Our Legal Correspondent
A Bench, comprising B.N. Kirpal and Arijit Pasayat, dismissed the SLPs filed by the Citizen, Consumer and Civil Action Group (CCCAG) which contended that the constructions were within 100 m from the high tide line of the Adyar creek and thus squarely covered by the prohibition in the CRZ-II. The contention of the CCCAG before the High Court was that the constructions would permanently damage the ecologically sensitive areas of the the Adyar estuary and creek where several rare species of migratory birds were sighted. The High Court, in its judgment of November 2 last, had dismissed the petition and a writ appeal on the ground that there was a road separating the boundary walls of the buildings and the creek and as such the constructions on the landward side were permissible. The CCCAG contended that the CRZ notification, meant for the protection of the environment, must be given a positive meaning. Even the report of the Coastal Zone Management Authority accepted that the building was merely 9.6 m away from the high-tide line of the creek. If a mere path could be given the status of a road it would render the notification completely ineffective, the SLPs submitted and sought the setting aside of the impugned judgment
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|