Shri.A.Palswamy v. The Chairman And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/153/2026 Shri A. Palswamy Vs The Chairman and others Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mr. S. Naidu ... for the respondent nos. 1 &2 Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondent nos.3 & 4 April 28, 2026 [SR] Item No.5 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Annexure P-9 at Page 40 of the writ petition to argue that even as per the relevant authority, the distance of the location where the petitioner's stone crusher unit is sought to be set up is more than 200 meters from potable source of water (however, during monsoon, a nallah flows adjacent to the stone crusher, the water of which is not used for drinking purpose). 2.

Learned counsel submits, by placing reliance on Clause III-A of the IPZ (Islands Protection Zone) Notification dated January 06, 2011, that under sub-clause (ii) thereof, the ICRZ (Island Coastal Regulation Zone) shall apply to the land area between HTL (High Tide Line) to 100 metres, or width of the creek, whichever is less, on the landward side along the tidal influenced water bodies that are connected to the sea and the distance up to which development along such tidal influenced water bodies is to be regulated shall be governed by the distance up to which the tidal effects are experienced, which shall be determined in terms of the said clause.

3.

Thus, it is submitted that since the stone crusher unit is sought to be set up by the petitioner beyond 100 meters as stipulated in Clause IIIA (ii), the ICRZ guidelines do not apply at all.

4.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondentauthorities submits that sub-clause (i) of Clause-III-A of the IPZ Notification, 2011 stipulates the land area from High Tide Line (HTL) to 500 meters on the landward side along the sea front for the said Notification to be applicable. It is argued that the said clause applies independently of sub-clause (ii) and, as such, clearance from the ICRZ authority is required in the present case.

5.

The relevant clauses are set out hereinbelow: "III. A. The islands of Middle Andaman, North Andaman, South Andaman and Greater Nicobar shall be managed based on ICRZ having the following jurisdiction, merely:- (i) the land area from High Tide Line (hereinafter referred to as the HTL) to 500 mts on the landward side long the sea front:

(ii) ICRZ shall apply to the land area between HTL to 100 mts or width of the creek whichever is less on the landward side along the tidal influenced water bodies that are connected to the sea and the distance up to which development along such tidal influenced water bodies is to be regulated shall be governed by the distance upto which the tidal effects are experienced which shall be determined based on salinity concentration of 5 parts per thousand (ppt) measured during the driest period of the year and distance upto which tidal effects are experienced shall be clearly identified and demarcated accordingly in the ICRZ Plan." 6.

From sub-clause (ii), it is evident that the same independently speaks about the applicability of the ICRZ to land areas between HTL to 100 meters or width of the creek, whichever is less, in respect of tidal influenced water bodies such as nallahs.

7.

However, a composite reading of the two provisions clearly indicates that sub-clause (i) and (ii) operate on independent footing. Notably, sub-clause (ii) is not couched in negative language, excluding the applicability of the other clauses of the Notification if sub-clause (ii) does not apply. 8.

For example, if a stone crusher unit is sought to be set up in an area which is beyond 500 metres from the High Tide Line on the landward side along the sea front but comes within 100 meters of the HTL in respect of a tidal influenced water body, sub clause (ii) shall be applicable, although sub clause (i) will not.

9.

However, as in the case of the petitioner, if the stone crusher unit is sought to be set up in a location which is beyond 100 meters from HTL with regard to a tidal influenced water body but still comes within 500 meters from the HTL on the landward side along the main sea front, the ICRZ regime shall be squarely applicable to the same.

10.

In such view of the matter, the argument of the petitioner as to exclusion from the ICRZ restrictions is not tenable in the eye of law even on a plain interpretation of the relevant clauses of the 2011 Notification.

11.

Accordingly, WPA/153/2026 is dismissed on context without any order is to costs, granting liberty to the petitioner to apply before the appropriate authority for clearance under the IPZ Notification dated January 06, 2011. If such an application is made and due formalities in that regard are duly complied with by the petitioner, the appropriate authorities shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

12.

Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)