JUDGMENT Bilal Nazki, J.

1. This is a Writ petition filed by Visakhpatnam Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner against the respondents challenging the order dated 11-8-98 issued by the 1st respondent as intimated by 2nd respondent by letter dated 19-8-98. The petitioner is a Corporation established under Act 19 of 1979 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. It was created under the Municipal Corporations Act and as such has to discharge various duties including the duty of disposal of sewerage. It is also responsible for regulating, treating and discharging of effluents. To achieve this purpose the petitioner Corporation established number of sewerage treatment plants. In order to keep the city clean the petitioner Corporation in 1991 planned to establish a comprehensive sewerage scheme at an estimated cost of Rs.14.21 crores. It was intended that this scheme would cater to the needs of discharging of effluents in the city of Visakhapatnam and a population of 3.20 lakhs within blocks VA, VI and VII would get benefited. The Visakhapatnam city has typical topographical features with contours varying from +60.00 metres to +2.50 metres and sloping towards the sea. The sullage and storm water from block VA, VI and VII is let out into the open drains and to septic tanks which ultimately reaches the sea without any treatment. The discharge of these effluents into the sea without treatment would endanger the existing marine organisms and health. Keeping in view these factors the Government of A.P sanctioned comprehensive sewerage scheme Phase-II by G.O. Ms.No. 559, MA dated 7-9-93. Under the scheme 25 MLD sewerage treatment plant was planned to be set up at Appugarh site near MVP colony. The location was identified based on the recommendation of the consultants. Consultations were drawn from Department of Civil Engineering, Andhra University. The scheme was being funded by the grant of HUDCO to the extent of 70% of the cost and 30% was to be met from the funds of Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam. The A.P. Pollution Control Board was accordingly approached for sanction and the Board on 24-10-97 accorded consent for establishment of effluent treatment plant. With the establishment of the effluent treatment plant 25 Million litres of effluents per day would be treated and after treatment these effluents would enter the sea thereby stopping the practice of allowing the untreated sewerage water into the sea through open drains. By letter dated 15-2-97 the petitioner sought clearance for implementation of the scheme from the Director, A.P. Shore Area Development Authority, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology Department. The Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology department in a letter to the Special Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Environment sought clearance of the project in view of Coastal Regulation Zone regulations (hereinafter referred to as "CRZ regulations"). The Principal Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh through his letter dated 29-5-97 again informed the 1st respondent that consideration of Sewerage treatment plant at the proposed site had not been included in the approved Coastal zone Management plan. After a prolonged correspondence, the petitioner received a letter dated 10-7-97. Through this letter the 1st respondent informed the petitioner that its request for grant of relaxation of provisions of CRZ Notification had been rejected. The petitioner informed the State Government about this development. In the meantime, the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests in his letter dated 11-12-97 requested the Special Chief Secretary to consider relocating the plant outside the Coastal Regulation Zone, but the Special Chief Secretary again requested the Government of India to reconsider its earlier decision.

2. Before coming to the other relevant facts it would be necessary to mention that, several Writ petitions had been filed with regard to the subject matter and ultimately the matter was taken to Division Bench in W.A. No. 486/98 and the Division Bench passed the following order;

"The Writ petitioner-appellant would be at liberty to carry on with the work of construction of the sewerage treatment plant in terms of the order of this Court in W.P. No. 732/97, dated 2-5-97 as also the recommendations of the State Government and the Pollution Control Board.

The Central Government is directed to reconsider its decision for relocation of the plant having due regard to the order of the Court in the Writ petition noted above and upon affording an opportunity of hearing to the Writ petitioner-appellant. The matter be disposed of by the Central Government in terms of this order within 8 weeks from the date of communication of the same. The Central Government is further directed to pass a reasoned order in the matter."

3. Thereafter it appears that the Central Government reconsidered the matter. The Corporation was represented by its Commissioner before the Central Government and a fresh order was passed on 11th August, 1998. This order is now under challenge in this Writ petition. The order is reproduced below:

"The Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in its order dated 20th April,1998 in Writ petition No. 486 of 1998 between Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam represented by its Commissioner (petitioner) and Government of India, Ministry of Environment & Forests and Andhra Pradesh Shore Area Development Authority, Government of Andhra Pradesh (both respondents) had directed the Central Government to reconsider its decision on the relocation of the Sewerage treatment plant and pass a reasoned order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the Writ petitioner-appellant, the Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam.

In compliance of the above directions of Andhra Pradesh High Court the Ministry of Environment & Forests designated Shri R.H. Khwaja, Joint Secretary (IA) to conduct the hearing. Accordingly the hearing was conducted on 9th July, 1998 in the office chamber of the Joint Secretary (IA) in Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Shri A. Vidyasagar, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam explained in detail the reasons to permit construction of 25 mld Sewerage treatment plant in CRZ area. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Visakhpatnam had also suggested that in case it was not possible for the Ministry of Environment & Forests to reconsider its existing decision then the following alternative solutions could be considered:

"Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation would be willing to partially relocate the plant after detailed technical consultations with experts. This relocation could be as per the provisions of the CRZ Notification. Since this would take time and in view of the importance and urgency of the project, Ministry of Environment & Forests may give interim permission as a special case to permit completion of the ongoing work and put it to use till the new plant comes up in due course. Thus, the present project may be treated as an interim/immediate facility created for the purpose of improving the environmental quality of Visakhpatnam city and to control the discharge of untreated effluents into the sea which is the practice as on date."

The contention of the Government of Andhra Pradesh that the Sewage treatment plant may be permitted in terms of para 2(v) of CRZ Notification dated 19-2-91 is not tenable because this section does not permit establishment of STP. Para-2 of the Notification covers the prohibited activities. The extract of the Notification in para 2(v) is "discharge of untreated wastes and effluents from industries, cities or towns and other human settlements. Schemes shall be implemented by the concerned authorities for phasing out the existing practices, if any within a reasonable time period not exceeding three years from the date of this Notification."

4. Para 2(iv) of the CRZ Notification does not permit establishment of sewage treatment plant in CRZ area as it is mentioned as a prohibited activity. Therefore, the contention of Government of Andhra Pradesh that permission may be accorded is not tenable. What is permissible is laying of pipelines for carrying treated effluents and construction of facilities for pumping out the treated waste water to be discharged into the sea.

5. It may be further noted that establishment of Sewage treatment plant is not mentioned in para 3 which deals with regulation of permissible activities. The basis thrust of permissible activities in CRZ area relates to activities which require water-front and fore-shore facilities including jetties, ports and harbours etc. A sewage treatment plant does not require water-front or fore-shore facilities. In the instant case the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation commenced construction of the sewage treatment plant in 1996 without obtaining Environmental clearance under CRZ notification from MOEF and thereby violating the provisions of the CRZ Notification.

6. We are also unable to accept the argument advanced by Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation to give interim permission as a special case to this project. The CRZ notification does not have any provision which enables "Interim permission". We can, of course, agree to the relocation of this project outside the CRZ area. In such an eventuality we could consider favourably the request of the Visakhpatnam Municipal Corporation to lay pipelines in the existing location. We could permit installation of some pumps. However, construction of STP, including its accessory facilities, cannot be permitted within CRZ."

7. It is this order now the subject matter of this Writ petition and it is challenged on various grounds. One of the grounds taken is that the reasons for which the request of the petitioner has been rejected once again are the same which were given earlier and which were not accepted by the High Court. The second contention is that the order has been passed by misreading, misapplying and misinterpreting the provisions of para 2(iv) and 2(v) of CRZ notification dated 19-2-91.

8. Counter has been filed by the Joint Director Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India in which it is contended that Sewerage plants can only be located beyond the CRZ area in terms of CRZ Notification and the request of the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation for grant of clearance to set up the plant was rejected as it was not permissible under the CRZ Notification. It is further stated that setting up and expansion of units and mechanisms for disposal of wastes and effluents is a prohibited activity within the CRZ areas. The only exception that could be given under the Notification was with regard to laying of pipe lines. It is further stated that the merits of the installation of plant at a particular site cannot be gone into as the establishment of the plant in the CRZ areas is prohibited and not permissible. In reply to the assertion in the Writ petition that substantial amount has been already spent, the respondents have stated that these amounts were spent without clearance from the Union of India.

9. In view of the pleadings of the parties the only question which remains to be answered is whether the plant could have been installed in view of the CRZ Notification.

10. It is not disputed that this notification is not enforceable. This notification has been issued under section 3(1) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Rule 5 (3)(d) of Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. In H.M.T House building Co-op. Society Vs. M. Venkateswamappa (1) the Supreme Court declared that notification dated 19th February,1991 issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forest, Government of India under clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 shall be meticulously followed by all the concerned States. The activities which have been declared as prohibited within the Coastal Regulation Zone shall not be undertaken by any of the respondent States. The regulations of permissible activities shall also be meticulously followed. The restrictions imposed by the Coastal Areas Classification and Development Regulations contained in Annexure 1 to the above said notification shall also be strictly followed by the respondent State. In view of this clear direction of the Supreme Court it will not be permissible for any State Government to violate the regulations issued in 1991. Therefore, we would be only considering whether the plant which is established by the petitioners could have been established in view of the restrictions imposed by 1991 Notification. Under para 2 of the notification the prohibited activities are given. We are concerned with clause (iv) and (v) of para 2 of this notification. These are the relevant provisions on which the respondents also rely in the impugned order. Clause (iv) and (v) of para-2 reads;

"(iv) setting up and expansion of units/mechanisms for disposal of wastes and effluents, except facilities required for discharging treated effluents into the water course with approval under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1974; and except for storm water drains;

(v) discharge of untreated wastes and effluents from industries, cities or towns and other human settlements. Schemes shall be implemented by the concerned authorities for phasing out the existing practices, if any, within a reasonable time period not exceeding three years from the date of this notification;"

11. Clause (iv) makes it clear that, setting up and expansion of units/ mechanisms for disposal of wastes and effluents is prohibited, but there is an exception to this prohibition and that exception is, facilities required for discharging treated effluents into the water course with approval under the Water (Prevention and control of pollution) Act,1974. Similarly under clause (v) discharge of untreated wastes and effluents from industries, cities or towns and other human settlements is prohibited but it allows schemes to be implemented by authorities for phasing out the existing practices, if any, within a period not exceeding three years from the date of notification.

From bare perusal of clause (iv) and (v) of para 2 and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case it becomes clear that the notification of 1991 does not only provide for prohibition but also directs the authorities concerned to make schemes for controlling the pollution. Under clause (iv) setting up and expansion of units for disposal of wastes and effluents is prohibited but creation of facilities required for discharging treated effluents into the watercourse is permissible. The petitioner has given the topography of the city of Visakhapatnam and it has been stated that all wastes from the city inhabited by lakhs of people is going to the sea without any treatment and in fact by commissioning the treatment plant they are trying to control pollution rather than increasing the pollution. If the plant is not established the effluents discharged from the city would continue to go into the sea without being treated therefore the plant is being commissioned for the purpose of attaining the objectives laid down in the CRZ Regulations.

12. It appears that the respondents were conscious of the exception provided under clause (iv) of para 2 of the notification but they tried to justify it by stating that the provision is only to exempt the facility such as laying of pipe line for discharging treated effluents into the sea. We fail to understand how was this interpretation made to clause (iv) of para 2 of the Notification. There is no mention of any pipeline in clause (iv) of para 2. What clause (iv) exempts are the facilities required for discharging treated effluents and how can the facilities be limited to laying of pipes was not justified even during the course of hearing. We are surprised to know that the Government of India are interpreting the Rules for number of years in this case in a novel way and they are not even conscious of the fact that by their action they are only increasing the pollution to the sea and the net result is that the effluents and discharges from the city are going into the sea untreated. The interpretation that they have placed on clause (iv) and (v) of para 2 of the Notification is novel. If this interpretation is accepted then, in fact, in no way the authorities can stop untreated sewage to go into the sea.

13. For these reasons, we find that the respondents have by wrong interpretation of para 2 (iv) and (v) of the CRZ notification declined permission to the petitioner to install the sewerage treatment plant. The impugned order is accordingly quashed and the Writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to issue necessary clearance to the petitioner. No order as to costs.