Zon Hotels Pvt. Ltd vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

NON-REPORTABLE 2025 INSC 297 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9328/2022

ZON HOTELS PVT. LTD. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

GOA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

NAGARATHNA, J.

Admit.

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the

National Green Tribunal, Western Zone Bench, Pune (“NGT” for

the sake of convenience), in Appeal No.19/2022 (WZ), the

appellant is before this Court.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

counsel for first respondent and learned counsel for respondent

Nos.2 and 3 and we have perused the material on record.

4. The controversy in this appeal is in a very narrow compass.

The grievance of the appellant is that pursuant to the

direction issued by the High Court in PIL Writ Petition Signature Not Verified No.2530/2021 Digitally signed by dated 19.04.2022, the first respondent herein RADHA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.01 15:02:04 IST Reason:

sought to compute damages vis-a-vis the illegal construction

1 put up by the appellant herein and estimated the damages

resulting from the illegal construction put up by the appellant

herein in monetary terms. The first respondent herein by order

dated 09.05.2022 directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of

Rs.2,04,19,560/- (Ruees Two Crores, four lakhs nineteen

thousand and five hundred and sixty only) towards environmental

compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prior to

the determination of the environmental compensation directed to

be paid by the appellant herein, there was no opportunity given

to the appellant herein inasmuch neither a Show Cause Notice

was issued to the appellant nor was an opportunity of hearing

granted. The impugned order dated 09.05.2022 is a unilateral,

one-sided order which is hit by the principles of natural

justice.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein

preferred an appeal before the NGT, Western Zone. Although the

NGT acknowledged the fact that the appellant was not heard in

the matter, nevertheless it did not remand the matter to the

first respondent-management authority for a re-determination of

the environmental compensation afresh. Instead, the NGT simply

sustained the said order on the premise that it (NGT) was

giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant herein.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an Appellate

Authority hearing a lis in the form of an appeal is totally

different from the original authority which would determine the

2 environmental compensation which is in the nature of an

exercise of administrative powers. Learned counsel submitted

that the order dated 09.05.2022 which was passed by the first

respondent-management authority was in total violation of the

principles of natural justice. The NGT, therefore, ought to

have remanded the matter to the Management Authority for re-

determination of the environmental compensation that was liable

to be paid by the appellant herein after giving an opportunity

of being heard and filing objections to the said determination.

7. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the impugned order of the NGT as well as the

order dated 09.05.2022 may be set aside and there may be a

fresh compliance of the direction issued by the High Court

dated 19.04.2022.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent and

learned counsel for third respondent supported the impugned

order(s) and contended that there is no merit in the appeal;

that the appellant herein could have approached the High Court

in Writ Petition No.2530/2021 if it had any grievance with

regard to order dated 09.05.2022; that it was the appellant

which chose to file an appeal before the NGT and the NGT, after

giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant herein, has

passed the impugned order; that there is no merit in this

appeal and hence, the same may be dismissed.

3

9. We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar in

light of the material on record and particularly in light of

order dated 09.05.2022 passed by first respondent-Authority as

well as the impugned order passed by the NGT.

10. We find that the High Court by order dated 19.04.2022

observed as under:

“3. In so far as prayer clause (c) is concerned, we direct the GCZMA as well as other authorities who are involved in the demolition of such construction to file an affidavit indicating the cost required for such demolitions. The GCZMA should also make an estimate of the damages that such illegal constructions cause to the environment in monetary terms, though we are conscious that such damage can never be fully compensated only in monetary terms.

4. Respondent No.6 is also granted an opportunity to file affidavit, if they choose to explain why they should not be required to pay damages to the State for the illegal and unauthorized constructions put up by them in an area effected by CRZ notification.”

11. On the basis of the aforesaid order, the impugned order

dated 09.05.2022 was passed by the first respondent-Authority.

The Authority while determining the compensation has neither

issued any Show Cause Notice to the appellant herein nor has it

given an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the said

4 determination made by the first respondent-authority is

unilateral and in the absence of hearing the appellant herein,

we find that the procedure adopted by the first respondent

herein was contrary to the settled principles of natural

justice. Further, when the said order dated 09.05.2022 was

assailed by the appellant before the NGT, the NGT, having found

violation of the principles of natural justice, ought to have

remanded the matter to the first respondent-authority for re-

determination of environmental compensation after giving an

opportunity of being heard to the appellant herein. Instead,

the NGT took upon itself to determine the correctness or

otherwise of the calculation of environmental compensation

arrived at by the first respondent-authority on the premise

that it was giving an opportunity to the appellant herein.

12. We hold that the opportunity given by the NGT to the

appellant herein in an appeal is not the same quality of

opportunity which the first respondent as an original Authority

would have granted to the appellant herein. Therefore, we find

that the NGT was not right in sustaining the impugned order

dated 09.05.2022 passed by the appellant herein. Since we are

setting aside the order of the NGT only on the issue of

violation of principles of natural justice and not on merits,

we shall construe the impugned order dated 09.05.2022 passed by

the first respondent-Authority as a Show Cause Notice.

Appellant herein is granted three weeks’ time from today to

5 reply to the said order now construed as a Show Cause Notice.

The appellant shall be heard and there shall be a re-

determination of the environmental compensation that has to be

paid by the appellant herein having regard to the direction

dated 19.04.2022 issued by the High Court in PIL Writ Petition

No.2530/2021 extracted above.

13. It is needless to observe that the said re-determination

shall be made as expeditiously as possible and in accordance

with law.

14. The appeal is allowed in-part and disposed of in the

aforesaid terms.

15. It is stated that a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty

Lakhs Only) has been deposited by the appellant before the NGT,

Western Zone, the disbursal of the said amount shall be subject

to the orders to be made by the first respondent-Authority.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

…………………………………………………………………..,J.

(B.V. NAGARATHNA)

…………………………………………………………………..,J.

(PRASANNA B. VARALE)

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 19, 2025

6 ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.7 SECTION XVII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9328/2022

ZON HOTELS PVT. LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS

GOA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No.201434/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Date : 19-02-2025 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE

For Appellant(s) Mr. Shiven Desai, Adv.

Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Adv.

Mr. Vivek Jain, AOR Ms. Suchitra Kumbhat, Adv.

Mr. Rajat Jain, Adv.

Mr. Sadiq Noor, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Surjendu Sankar Das, AOR Ms. Annie Mittal, Adv.

Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, AOR Ms. Kritika, Adv.

Mr. D.P.Singh, Adv.

Ms. Tara Elizabeth Kurien, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Admit.

The appeal is allowed in-part and disposed of in

terms of the signed non-reportable judgment which is

pending on the file.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

7