Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 23 OF 2010   

IN  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4421 OF 2010

Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia & Ors.            ..Appellants  

Versus

Bombay Environmental Action Group & Ors.                    ..Respondents

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (C ) NOS.169 OF 2010 and 266 OF 2010

IN

      CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4421 of 2010

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Civil Appeal No. 4421 of 2010 was disposed of by this Court  

vide  judgment  and  order  dated  7.5.2010  giving  liberty  to  the

appellants  therein  to  approach  the  Bombay  High  Court  to  seek  

appropriate relief.  During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants  

were  given  liberty  to  approach  the  District  Collector  concerned  to  

seek  permission  to  repair  the  bund.  The  Collector  allowed  the  

appellants to repair the bund subject to certain conditions.  The parties  

in the appeal have filed three applications alleging various violations  

of the orders passed by this Court, as well as by the District Collector.  

I.A.No. 23/2010

2. This  application  has  been  filed  by  the  District  Collector,  

Mumbai  Suburban  District,  to  initiate  the  contempt  proceedings  

against  the  appellants  Krishnadevi  Malchand  Kamathia  & Ors.  for  

violating  the  order  of  this  court  dated  7.5.2010  in  Civil  Appeal  

No.4421 of  2010 and his  own order  dated 27.1.2010 in respect  of  

Survey  No.  344  CTS  No.  1  of  Village  Dahisar,  Taluka  Borivali,  

Mumbai  Suburban  District  and,  to  issue  directions  to  remove  the  

newly constructed  bund and allow sea water to come in so as to save  

the  mangrove forest.  Further  direction  has  been sought  against  the  

appellants  to  remove  the   debris,  soil,  stones  which  were  used  to  

construct the bund, from the said survey No.344 to outside the area,  

2

within  the  stipulated  period  and  further  to  restore  the  bund  to  its  

original  position  as  seen  in  the  Maharashtra  Remote  Sensing  

Application Centre map (hereinafter  called MRSAC) and further to  

restrain the appellants from indulging in any activity which may result  

in the destruction of mangrove forest henceforth.

 Cont. Pet. No. 169 of 2010

3. This  contempt  petition  has  been  filed  by  the  appellants  to  

initiate  contempt  proceedings  against  the  statutory  authorities  i.e.  

District Collector of Mumbai Suburban District for passing the order  

dated 20.5.2010 appointing the  Committee  to examine  whether  the  

appellants  had  violated  the  conditional  order  dated  27.1.2010  

permitting the appellants to repair  the bund in such a way that the  

mangroves  may  not  die  and  order  dated  26.5.2010  to  ensure  the  

compliance of the order dated 27.1.2010 and to remove the debris and  

reduce the height of the bund etc., being in violation of orders passed  

by this Court in the appeal.  

Cont. Pet. No. 266 of 2010

4. This  contempt  petition  has  been  filed  by  the  original  writ  

petitioner before the Bombay High Court i.e. Bombay Environmental  

3

Action Group  and Anr., (hereinafter called ‘Action Group’) to initiate  

contempt proceedings against the appellants for willful dis-obedience  

of  the  order  of  this  Court  dated 22.3.2010 passed  in  SLP (C)  No.  

29031/2009 and order dated 7.5.2010 passed in Civil Appeal No.4421  

of 2010  and further to recall the permission granted by this Court  

vide order dated 22.3.2010 in the said case and order dated 7.5.2010  

in Civil Appeal No. 4421 of 2010. Further, to give directions to open  

the culverts, closed channels of water and to ensure removal of debris  

on the subject site at the cost of the appellants i.e. contemnors Nos. 1  

to 10.

5. As all the aforesaid three applications have been filed alleging  

violation of the same orders, the applications were heard together and  

all being disposed of by the common order.

FACTS:  

6.          The Bombay High Court while disposing of the Writ Petition  

filed by the Action Group vide order dated 6.10.2005 issued several  

directions including:  

“XI.  From  the  list  of  “Mangrove  Areas”  so  identified Government owned lands will automatically be  declared/notified  as  “Protected  Forest”.  Likewise,  

4

privately owned lands from the list of Mangrove Areas so  identified, the same will be declared/notified as “Forest”.  

7. In  pursuance  of  the  aforesaid  direction  issued  by  the  High  

Court,  the  Divisional  Commissioner,  issued  Notification  being  No.  

RB/Desk-II/Forest/CR-2211/Pvt./A-1  dated  18.2.2009,  which  

included the land of the appellants Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia  

and Ors.  In view of the  said Notification,  the appellants  could not  

restart  the  salt  manufacturing,  though  the  appellants  had  been  

manufacturing  salt on the said land since 1959.  It continued upto  

1990 and their  license for manufacturing salt was valid upto 1993.  

The Coastal Area Classification and Development Regulations, 1991  

(hereinafter  called  CRZ  Regulations)  came  which  provide  for  

classification of coastal regulatory zone, according to which it did not  

prohibit the manufacturing of salt.  

8. Being aggrieved, appellants filed Special Leave Petition along  

with an application for condonation of delay of 1368 days challenging  

the  Bombay  High  Court  Judgment  and  order  dated  6.10.2005.  

However, in view of the fact that the appellants had not been heard by  

the High Court at the time of passing the order in pursuance of which  

5

the  Notification  has  been  issued,  the  delay  was  condoned  and  the  

petition was entertained.  

9. An  application  was  filed   by  the  appellants  on  15.12.2009  

seeking permission to repair the damaged bund along with the land in  

issue.  The application was opposed by the respondents. However, this  

Court  disposed  of  the  said  application  vide  order  dated  5.2.2010  

permitting  the  appellants  to  approach the  District  Collector  for  the  

said relief. It was clarified  that pendency of the proceedings before  

this Court or any interim order passed therein would not stand in the  

way of the District Collector to  pass an appropriate order so far as the  

repair of the bund was concerned.  

10. In pursuance of the said directions the appellants approached  

the District  Collector,  who after  holding inquiry passed a speaking  

and reasoned order dated 27.1.2010 giving full details and the case  

history of the dispute over the title of the land between the appellants  

and the Government, and the application of the provisions of Coastal  

Regulatory Zone Regulations 1991; and the Indian Forest Act 1927;  

and  Forest  (Conservation)  Act,  1980.  According  to  the  order,  the  

6

appellants would repair the bund without destroying the mangroves or  

vegetation on the said land.  

11.     This Court disposed of the appeal vide order dated 7.5.2010  

wherein  the parties were given liberty to agitate the issue before the  

High Court raising all factual and legal issues.   So far as the repair of  

Bund  was concerned, this Court directed as under:  

“By  an  interim  order  passed  by  this  court  on  22.3.2010,  permitted  the  petitioners  to  repair  the  Bund.  This  interim  order  is  made  absolute  and  petitioners  are permitted to  maintain and upkeep  the  Bund  till  final  adjudication  regarding  Notifications  dated  18.2.2009  and  15.6.2009  is  made and violation of  these orders by parties  or  other authorities could be brought to the notice of  this Court for appropriate directions.”  

12. The contempt petitions have been filed by the District Collector  

and  the  Action  Group  making  allegations  that  under  the  garb  of  

repairing the bund, the appellants have raised the height and expanded  

the width of the bund in such a manner that mangrove would die a  

natural death without any attempt on the part of the appellants, and  

further  that  appellants  have  destroyed  the  mangroves  to  the  great  

extent.  Appellants filed a Contempt Petition alleging that Collector’s  

7

order dated 27.1.2010 is being unnecessarily interfered with by the  

statutory authorities.  

13. We have heard Shri  Ram Jethmalani,  Shri  Sekhar  Naphade,  

Shri  Dushyant  Dave,  Shri  Atul  Yashwant  Chitale,  learned  senior  

counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.  

14. It may be pertinent to mention here that all the learned counsel  

appearing for the parties have suggested that the applications be heard  

without  giving  strict  adherence  to  the  procedure  for  contempt  

proceedings i.e. framing of charges etc., as pleadings are complete and  

parties are fully aware as what is the case against which of the parties.  

More so, all the documentary evidence, required to decide the case is  

on record.   

15. Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing for the  

appellants, submitted that in pursuance of the order of this Court dated  

7.5.2010, the appellants have instituted a civil suit before the Bombay  

High  Court,  wherein  notices  had  been  issued  to  the  

respondents/defendants and which is still pending consideration of all  

factual and legal issues had been raised therein. The validity of the  

Notification  dated  18.2.2009 is  also  under  challenge  therein  to  the  

8

extent that the said Notification is void ab initio for the reason that the  

procedure  prescribed  in  law has  not  been followed.   More  so,  the  

Notification does not disclose what are the statutory provisions which  

conferred the power/competence to issue the said Notification.  

16. Shri Sekhar Naphade, and Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior  

counsel,  submitted  that  undoubtedly,  the  Notification  does  not  

disclose  the  source  of  power/competence  under  which  it  has  been  

issued, however, the Notification does not become invalid merely for  

want  of  such  a  statement.  Further,  it  cannot  be  urged  that  the  

Authority was  denude of power to issue such notification  as such  

powers  are  available  under  Section  21  of  the  Maharashtra  Private  

Forest  (Acquisition)  Act,  1975.   The  said  provisions  provide  that  

whenever it appears to the State Government that any tract of land not  

being the property of Government, contains trees and shrubs, pasture  

lands and any other land whatsoever, and that it should be declared, in  

public interest and for furtherance of the objects of  the said Act, to be  

a private forest.  The State Government would publish a Notification  

in  the  Official  Gazette  to  declare  that  it  was  a  forest  land  after  

following  the  procedure  prescribed  therein.   In  fact  records  of  the  

Statutory  Authority  reveal  that  the  said  Notification  has  been  

9

published in view of the order passed by this Court on 12.12.1996 in  

T.N.  Godavarman,  wherein  it  has  been  held  that  Forest  

(Conservation)  Act,  1980,  would  apply  to  lands  being  forests,  

irrespective of who owned the land. For that purpose, Shri Naphade,  

has drawn our attention to para 4.2 of the Report of the Committee,  

dated 19.5.2010 (Annexure R-5A) to I.A. No. 23 of 2010.  

17. It  is settled legal proposition that even if an order is void, it  

requires  to  be  so  declared  by  a  competent  forum  and  it  is  not  

permissible for any person to ignore the same merely because in his  

opinion the order is void.   

18. In State of Kerala v. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri  

Manikoth Naduvil  (dead) & Ors.,  AIR 1996 SC 906;  Tayabbhai  

M. Bagasarwalla & Anr.  v. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. etc,  

AIR 1997 SC 1240;  M. Meenakshi & Ors.  v.  Metadin Agarwal  

(dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. (2006) 7 SCC 470; and Sneh Gupta v. Devi  

Sarup & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 194, this Court  held that whether an  

order is valid or void, cannot be determined by the parties. For setting  

aside  such  an  order,  even  if  void,  the  party  has  to  approach  the  

appropriate forum.  

10

19.  In State of Punjab & Ors. v. Gurdev Singh, Ashok Kumar,  

AIR 1991 SC 2219,  this  Court  held  that  a  party  aggrieved  by the  

invalidity  of  an  order  has  to  approach  the  court  for  relief  of  

declaration that the order against him is inoperative and therefore, not  

binding upon him.  While deciding the said case, this Court placed  

reliance upon the judgment in  Smith v. East Ellore Rural District  

Council, [1956] 1 All ER 855 wherein Lord Radcliffe observed:-

“An order, even if not made in good faith is still   an act capable of legal consequences.  It bears no  brand  of  invalidity  on  its  forehead.   Unless  the   necessary  proceedings  are  taken  at  law  to  establish  the  cause  of  invalidity  and  to  get  it   quashed  or  otherwise  upset,  it  will  remain  as  effective  for  its  ostensible  purpose  as  the  most   impeccable of orders.”

20.      In Sultan Sadik v. Sanjay Raj Subba & Ors., AIR 2004 SC  

1377, this Court took a similar view observing that once an order is  

declared non-est by the Court only then the judgment of nullity would  

operate  erga omnes i.e. for and against everyone concerned.  Such a  

declaration is permissible if the court comes to the conclusion that the  

author  of  the  order  lacks  inherent  jurisdiction/competence  and  

therefore, it comes to the conclusion that the order suffers from patent  

and latent invalidity.   

11

21. Thus,  from  the  above  it  emerges  that  even  if  the  

order/notification is void/voidable,  the party aggrieved by the same  

cannot decide that the said order/notification is not binding upon it.  It  

has to approach the court for seeking such declaration.  The order may  

be  hypothetically  a  nullity  and  even  if  its  invalidity  is  challenged  

before  the  court  in  a  given  circumstance,  the  court  may  refuse  to  

quash  the  same  on  various  grounds  including  the  standing  of  the  

petitioner or on the ground of delay or on the doctrine of waiver or  

any other legal reason.  The order may be void for one purpose or for  

one person, it may not be so for another purpose or another person.   

22. Be, that as it may, the matter regarding the validity of the said  

Notification is still pending consideration in a suit before the Bombay  

High  Court  on  its  original  side,  it  is  not  desirable  on  our  part  to  

consider the said submission raised on behalf of the appellants.  

23. The  relevant  part  of  the  conditional  order  of  the  District  

Collector dated 27.1.2010 provides as under:  

(i) The Applicants will only carry out the repairs of the   Bund and shall not carry out any other construction   activities on the said land.

12

(ii) The  Applicants  will  not  destroy  mangroves  and/or   vegetation on the said land.

(iii) The Applicants shall not raise the height of the Bund  above as in existence at present.

On receiving numerous complaints from the public at large and  

officials,  the District Collector passed the order dated 20.5.2010:  

“xx xx xx  

The  earlier  order  passed  by  this  authority  giving  permission to repair the bund is hereby stayed and all   the concerned parties should maintain status quo.

xx xx xx

This  committee  will  visit  and  check  minutely  the   following important points in the matter:-

a) The permission given by the District Collector for the   repair  of  the  bund  No.C/Desk-21  Mangrove/WS- 610/2009 dated  27.1.2010,  which  was  rendered  by  the Supreme court in its orders dated 22.3.2010 and  7.5.2010 whether terms and conditions mentioned in   the  Collectors  order  are followed by the  Applicant   land owner or not?

b) Whether the Applicant has committed any violation? c) Whether the land owner has kept water culverts open  

or  not?   If  the  committee  finds  that  the  water  is   stopped  which  may  ultimately  cause  destroying  of   mangroves,  the committee i.e.  Area Officers  should  make the owner to open the culverts immediately.

The committee should make detailed enquiry and  the  consolidated  report  should  be  sent  to  the  District   Collector within 15 days.”

13

After receiving the report from the Committee duly constituted  

by the District Collector on 20.5.2010, the District Collector passed  

the order on 26.5.2010 directing the appellants as under:

1) All the material used for filling to increase the   height  be  removed,  maintain  the  earlier   position  of  the  bund  as  expected  in  the   permission order dated 27.1.2010.

2) Remove the rubble dumped in the open land in   question.

3) Remove  the  rubble  and  filling  and  let  the   natural flow of sea water, which is at present   obstructed,  entering  inside  the  S.No.  in   question.  

4) Remove filling used for increasing the height of   bund  to  the  height  as  expected  in  the   permission order dated 27.1.2010.  

24. The  aforesaid  order  has  been  passed  by  the  Collector  after  

considering various reports of experts/officers.    

(A) The report submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer,  Mumbai  

Suburban  District  dated  18.5.2010  (Annexure  A-20  of  Con.  Pet.  

266/2010) makes it clear that the Tahsildar Borivali and Additional  

Chitnis had visited the spot and found that a new bund had been made  

having the width of 10 ft. and height of bund 4 ft. and running  to 1 to  

1½ KMs.  There had been culverts in the old bund which were filled  

up. The natural flow of water existing earlier had been closed. The  

closure  of  the  water  supply  had  adverse  effect  on  the  existing  

14

mangroves.  The direction issued by the District Collector in his order  

permitting  the  construction  of  bund  that  adequate  arrangement  to  

ensure that mangroves are not damaged, has not been complied with  

and there has been a breach of the said condition.  

(B) Report  dated  19.5.2010  from  the  Committee  appointed  for  

inspection  reveal  that  after  having  inspection  of  the  site,  the  

Committee  reached the conclusion  that  the  appellants  have  grossly  

violated  the  conditions  incorporated  in  the  order   of  the  District  

Collector dated 27.1.2010,  permitting them to repair the bund. They  

have  not  only  raised  height  of  the  bund  but  widened  it  so  as  to  

obstruct the flow of water in the creek which may cause damage to  

mangroves.  There has been a violation of the order of the Collector;  

the order of the Bombay High Court, and the order of this Court. The  

mangroves  at  places were  destroyed during the  construction of  the  

new roads and the new bunds. Debris, garbage, mud and stones have  

been dumped along the new road. Large quantities of mud have been  

excavated from the site itself and used for construction of the bund.  

The Committee made the following recommendations:  

     (1)  That  all  illegal  work should  be  immediately  stopped by the revenue authority.

15

     (2) The Bund and the Road that have blocked the  smaller creeks should be immediately removed to prevent  the destruction of the mangroves.

       (3) Proper action as per the law may be taken by the  revenue authority. It is brought to the notice that in writ  petition  no.  3246  of  2004 the  Maharashtra  Govt.  vide  circular  dated  21.10.2005  clarified  that  the  Collector  should take care of the mangroves of the private land and  Government  lands till the area is handed over to forest  department.  

(C) There  is  another  report  of  the  Tahsildar  Borivali  Mumbai,  

Suburban  district  dated  22.5.2010  which  reveals  that  earlier  some  

culverts were in existence, the same had been closed and a new mud  

bund erected thereon.  By making a huge filling, the width of the bund  

had been expanded by 12 to 15 ft. At the end of bund again filling of  

debris had been done. Branches of the adjacent mangroves had been  

cut. The report further reveals  that a crime had been registered on  

22.5.2010   in  MHB  Police  Station  under  Section  15(i)(ii)  of  

Environment Protection Act, 1986 against the owner of the land on  

account of the cutting of branches of mangroves, causing damage to  

mangroves and stoppage of the natural water flow of nalla.  

(D) Another report dated 14.6.2010 of a Committee consisting of  

six  State  officials  is  on  record.  According  to  it,  there  have  been  

16

flagrant violations of the order passed by the District Collector and the  

courts. The relevant part reads as under:

CONCLUSIONS:

Conditions  in  order  dated 27.1.2010

Factual  position  observed  by  the  Committee  on  the  spot

i) The  applicants  will  only  carry  out  the  repairs  of  the  Bund  and shall not carry out  any other construction  activities  on  the  said  land.

No  structural  construction  activities carried out on the  site, but it is observed that  the  permission  holder  has  done  massive  filling  work  by  dumping  debris  and  garbage  on  the  said  land.  Bund has been widened by  mud  and  debris  filling.  Now the permission holder  converted  existing  bund  into  new  road.   The  permission  was  only  to  repair  the  existing  bund.  But  the  land  holder  has  constructed a new bund.

ii) The applicants will not  destroy  mangroves  and/or  vegetation  on  the said land.

Destruction  of  mangroves  and  vegetation  done  in  a  large scale.

iii) The  Applicants  shall  not raise the height of  the  Bund  above  as  in  existence at present.

Permission  holder  has  raised height of the existing  bund by 1.5 Mtrs.  as  well  as width of the bund.

iv) Upon  completion  of  the  repairs,  the  Applicant  shall  file  a  Completion  Report  in  the  office  of  the  Collector.  

Compliance report of work  has  been submitted  by  the  applicant.   Despite  that  work still going on the site.

v) The  Applicant  will Applicant  violated  the  

17

abide  by  the  final  orders  that  may  be  passed by the Hon’ble  Supreme Court  in  the  SLP  to  Appeal  No.29031  of  2009  in  respect  of  the  user  of  the land.

conditions  of  the  order  dated  22.3.2010 passed  by  the Hon. Supreme Court in  S.L.P. No.29031 of 2009.

25. The issue has been agitated from time to time before this Court  

and there have been various claims and counter claims in respect of  

the activities of the appellants. This Court vide order dated 24.11.2010  

requested the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai to  

inspect the area i.e. the bund in the lands i.e. SL. No.344 measuring  

175 Hectares, situated in village Dahisar and submit a report to this  

Court about the status and present position. It was further requested  

that  he  would  ascertain  and  report  whether  any  damage  has  been  

caused to mangroves/vegetation that existed on the said land.  

26. In pursuance of the said order, the learned Principal Judge, City  

Civil Court submitted the report dated 10.12.2010 along with a large  

number  of  photographs  to  substantiate  the  contents  of  the  report.  

Relevant part thereof reads as under:  

18

 “At the outset it may be briefly stated that during the   course  of  visit  it  was  noticed  that  the  debris  and  boulders including big broken pieces of RCC slabs were   found lying at various places on the bund. The debris   and  boulders  were  found  used  for  pitching  or  reinforcement  of  the  bund because  of  the  dumping  of   debris  and  boulders  on  a  large  scale….Apart  from  dumping  of  debris  and  boulders  in  large  quantities,   what was noticed was that there were about 12 to 13   places where big platforms were found made of debris   and  boulders.  The  length  of  those  platforms  was  something between 25 to 35 metres each and width was  on an average 16 to 20 metres each…..That debris was  being  dumped  beyond  the  area  of  the  platform  in  property  survey  No.344  and  there  was  an  attempt  to  increase the width of the platforms. In the process the  mangroves obviously were being destroyed.

…..  the  mangroves  were  destroyed  at  a   considerable length from the bund in survey no.344…..  the destruction was at considerably a large scale.

….a large number of mangroves were found cut   manually.  It was possible that the mangroves were cut   to increase width of the bund.  The cut mangroves were   found to have been used in increasing the height of the   bund.   Breathing  roots  and  branches  of  mangroves  were found stuck in the muddy area of the bund.   ….. The said bund appeared to have been erected  after excavation of mud from both sides of the bund…..   Mangroves  were  found  cut  at  many  places.   The   mangroves were found to have died because of removal   of mud and stagnation of water…..

….  There  were  3-4  patches  where  mangroves   appeared to have been destroyed manually.”(Emphasis  added)

27. The  CRZ  Regulations  define  for  regulating  developmental  

activities, coastal stretches within 500 metres of the landward side of  

19

the High Tide Line into 4 categories.  Category I (CRZ-I) is defined as  

under:

“(i) Areas that are ecologically sensitive and important,   such  as,  national  parks/marine  parks,  sanctuaries,   reserved  forests,  wildlife  habitats,  mangroves,   corals/coral  reefs,  areas  closed  to  breeding  and  spawning grounds of fish and other marine life, areas of   outstanding  natural  beauty/historical/heritage  areas,   areas  rich  in  genetic  diversity,  areas  likely  to  be  inundated due to rise in sea level consequent upon global   warming and other such areas as may be declared by the   Central Government or the concerned authorities at the   State/Union Territory level from time to time.” (emphasis  added)

                                                  28. The  regulation  of  development or  construction activities  in  

CRZ-I  areas is to be in accordance with the following norms:

“CRZ-I  x x x x x

Between LTL and HTL in areas which are not   ecologically sensitive and important, the following may  be permitted : (a) Exploration and extraction of Natural   Gas;  (b)  activities  as  specified  under  proviso  of  sub- paragraph (i) and (ii) of paragraph 2; (c) Construction  of dispensaries, schools, public rain shelters, community   toilets  bridges,  roads,  jetties,  water  supply,  drainage,   sewerage which are required for traditional inhabitants   of the Sunderbans Biosphere Reserve area, West Bengal,   on a case to case basis, by the West Bengal State Coastal   Zone Management Authority; (d) salt harvesting by solar  evaporation  of  sea  water; (e)  desalination  plants;  (f)   storage  of  non-hazardous  cargo  such  as  edible  oil,   fertilizers  and  food  grain  within  notified  ports;  (g)   construction of trans-harbour sea links.”  

                                                    (emphasis added)

20

                                                  29.    From the above, it is evident that mangroves fall squarely within  

the ambit  of CRZ-I.    The regulations allow for salt  harvesting by  

solar evaporation of sea water in  CRZ-I areas only where such area is  

not ecologically sensitive and important.   In the instant case it  has  

been  established  that  mangrove  forests  are  of  great  ecological  

importance and are also ecologically sensitive.  Thus, salt harvesting  

by solar evaporation of sea water cannot be permitted in an area that is  

home to mangrove forests.

30. In  view  of  the  aforesaid  discussion,  we  reach  the  following  

inescapable conclusions:

(1)The land in dispute has not been  used for manufacturing of salt for  

more than two decades.

(2)The land in dispute stands notified as a reserve forest, though it  

may be a private land and requires to be protected.

(3)The direction issued by the High Court while disposing of the writ  

petition  filed by the Action Group has issued several  directions  

including  the  direction  to  identify  mangrove  area  and  

declare/notify it as a forest.

21

(4)The Central  Regulatory  Zone Regulations  1991 imposes  certain  

restrictions on the land in dispute.

(5)The  District  Collector  while  deciding  the  application  of  the  

applicants  for  according  permission  to  repair  the  bund  has  

explicitly  incorporated  the  conditions  that  the  appellants  would  

only repair the old bund without raising its height and ensure full  

protection of mangroves.

(6)This Court while disposing of the appeal filed by the appellants  

has  directed  to  ensure  compliance  of  the  order  of  the  District  

Collector and in case of any kind of violation to bring the matter to  

the notice of the court.

(7) In  respect  of  the  repairing  of  the  bund,  a  large  number  of  

complaints  had  been  made  to  the  authorities  concerned,  by  the  

public,  representatives  of  the  people  and  various  officials  and  

statutory authorities alleging that the appellants have violated the  

conditional  order passed by the District  Collector  for permitting  

the appellants to repair the bund.

(8)Various  reports  submitted  to  the  authorities  concerned  make  it  

clear  that  there  have been flagrant  violations  of  the  conditional  

order and that included :

22

(i) Closing the natural flow of water which has adverse effect on  

existing mangroves;

(ii) A large  number  of  mangroves  had been  cut/destroyed  while  

repairing  the  bund  and  a  large  number  of  mangroves  were  

found cut manually;

(iii) Height  and  width  of  the  bund  had  been  increased  to  an  

unwarranted extent. The reports reveal that width of the bund  

had been extended by 12 ft. to 15 ft. while the old bund was not  

beyond 6 ft width.  

(iv) Instead of mud,  big boulders, concrete, debris had been used.  

Several platforms of 25 to 30 mtrs with the width of 16 to 20  

mtrs. have been constructed;

(v) Debris was being dumped  beyond the area of platform in the  

land in dispute making an attempt to increase the width of the  

platform;

(vi) The cut mangroves have been used to  increase the height of the  

bund;

(vii) Breathing  roots  and  branches  of  mangroves  were  found  

stucking out of the muddy area of the bund; and  

23

(viii) A large number of mangroves died because of removal of mud  

and stagnation of water.   

31. In view of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that the  

appellants are guilty of  willful defiance of the orders passed by this  

Court  as  well  as  by  the  District  Collector  and they  have  filed  the  

contempt petitions  using it as a legal thumb screw to enforce their  

claims though,  totally  unwarranted  and unfounded on facts.  It  is  a  

crystal  clear  case  of  contumacious  conduct,  as  the  conduct  of  the  

appellants not explainable otherwise, for the reason that disobedience  

is deliberate.  The appellants cannot be permitted to make allegations  

against  the  authorities  and  drag  them  to  the  court  alleging  

disobedience  of  the  orders  of  this  court  without  realising  that  

contempt  proceedings  are  quasi  criminal  in  nature.  They  have  

knowingly  and  purposely  damaged  the  mangroves  and  other  

vegetation of the wet land of the CRZ-I area, which could not have  

been disturbed.  Under the garb of repairing the old bund, a sort of  

pukka bund using boulders,  and debris  has  been constructed along  

with a huge platform, violating the norms of environmental law and in  

flagrant violation  and utter disregard of orders passed by the courts  

24

and the District Collector. No court can validate an action which is not  

lawful at its inception.  

It is often re-iterated that justice is only blind or blindfolded to  

the extent necessary to hold its scales evenly. It is not, and must never  

be allowed, to become blind to the reality of the situation, lamentable  

though that situation may be.  

32. In view of the above,  the contempt proceedings filed by the  

District Collector and the Action Group are allowed and the contempt  

petition  filed  by  the  appellants  i.e.  Cont.  Pet.  169/2010  is  hereby  

dismissed with the following directions:

(1) The appellants  are  directed  to  restore  the  height  

and width of the bund as it was existing prior to  

the  order  passed  by  the  District  Collector  dated  

27.1.2010 within a period of 60 days from today  

by  removing  all  debris,  grit, boulders  etc.,  

dismantling of platforms and reducing the height  

and width of the bund.

25

(2) All  culverts,  drains  which  existed  prior  to  

27.1.2010 which could facilitate  the natural  flow  

of sea water into the land, shall be restored

(3) In case the appellants fail to carry out the aforesaid  

directions within the stipulated period, the District  

Collector,  Suburban  District   shall  carry  out  the  

aforesaid directions and recover the cost from the  

appellants  as  arrears  of  land  revenue  and  shall  

ensure in future that the appellants would not act in  

a  manner  detrimental  to  the  ecology of  the  area  

and  ensure  the  preservation  of  mangroves  and  

other vegetation.  

26

33. In  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case,  we  request  the  

Bombay  High  Court  to  expedite  the  trial  of  the  suit  filed  by  the  

appellants.  In  view  of  the  above,  the  contempt  petitions  and  

interlocutory application stand disposed of.  

   ……………………..J.     (P. SATHASIVAM)

                       ……………………..J.    (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

New Delhi, January 31, 2011

27