The National Green Tribunal has reaffirmed that procedural fairness is non-negotiable in environmental enforcement, even when dealing with unauthorized construction in Coastal Regulation Zones. The Tribunal’s order underscores that statutory compliance and fundamental rights to hearing cannot be bypassed, regardless of the gravity of the violation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants, Al-Saad Builders & Developers, constructed a structure named "Al-Saad Terrace" on Survey No.50/130-H, Khariwad, Nani Daman, which the Daman and Diu Coastal Zone Management Authority (DDCZMA) determined to be located within 100 meters of the High Tide Line, thereby violating the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) norms under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Procedural History
- 15.01.2026: Daman Municipal Council requested CRZ clearance for the structure.
- 30.01.2026: A joint inspection was conducted by multiple agencies without prior notice to the appellants.
- 28.02.2026: DDCZMA issued an order directing demolition of the structure within 15 days and imposing an environmental compensation of Rs.1.016 crore.
- No copy of the joint inspection report was provided to the appellants.
- No formal hearing was conducted before the order was passed.
- 18.12.2025: The High Court had previously directed modification of the demolition timeline, which was later extended to 18.03.2026.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought quashing of the demolition and compensation order on grounds of violation of natural justice, failure to provide notice, denial of access to documents, and non-compliance with prior NGT directives in Sesa Goa Limited v. State of Goa.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether procedural fairness under natural justice requires authorities to provide prior notice, access to inspection reports, and a meaningful hearing before issuing demolition orders and imposing environmental compensation in CRZ areas.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellants
Learned counsel argued that Rule 4(3-a) and Rule 4(3-b) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 mandate a minimum 15-day notice and an opportunity of hearing before any adverse direction is issued. They relied on Sesa Goa Limited v. State of Goa (2013), where the NGT held that authorities must provide affected parties with copies of all documents relied upon and must address each ground raised in their submissions. The absence of these steps rendered the order illegal and arbitrary.
For the Respondent
The Member Secretary of DDCZMA contended that an opportunity of hearing was afforded and that the structure was clearly in violation of CRZ norms. He cited the High Court’s earlier order extending the demolition deadline as evidence of procedural compliance. However, he failed to produce records of any notice issued to the appellants or any record of a hearing.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal emphasized that natural justice is not a technicality but a constitutional imperative, even in environmental enforcement. The Court noted that while CRZ violations are serious, the manner of enforcement must adhere to due process. The failure to provide a copy of the joint inspection report, which formed the factual basis of the demolition order, violated the principle of audi alteram partem. The Court observed:
"The right to be heard is meaningless if the party is not given access to the evidence on which the adverse decision is based. The absence of such disclosure renders the order a nullity in law."
The Tribunal further held that reliance on the High Court’s extension of the demolition date does not cure the procedural defects in the original order. The Sesa Goa precedent was not merely persuasive but binding on authorities under the NGT’s jurisdiction. The Court rejected the notion that urgency in environmental protection justifies bypassing procedural safeguards.
The Verdict
The appellants succeeded. The Tribunal set aside the demolition and compensation order, holding that procedural compliance is mandatory under the Environment (Protection) Rules. The matter was adjourned for fresh adjudication after the Respondent files a compliant reply affidavit and serves it on the appellants.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Notice and Hearing Are Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must insist on proof of notice under Rule 4(3-a) before any environmental enforcement action
- Authorities cannot rely on implied notice or post-facto justifications
- Failure to provide notice invalidates even otherwise lawful orders
Access to Documents Is a Right, Not a Discretion
- Affected parties are entitled to copies of all inspection reports, survey records, and correspondence relied upon
- Denial of access constitutes a violation of natural justice, regardless of the outcome
- Legal challenges should cite Sesa Goa Limited as binding precedent
Environmental Enforcement Must Balance Urgency and Fairness
- Urgency in protecting ecologically sensitive zones does not override due process
- Compensation orders without procedural compliance are ultra vires
- Courts will not validate orders merely because the outcome is environmentally desirable
