- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Taking cognizance of the colossal devastation to human lives and properties in the Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ), due to recent floods in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Uttarakand, The Supreme Court ordered demolition of all illegal structures within such CRZ areas within one month and report compliance. The Apex Court further ordered permissions for any structures within the CRZ areas must be...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Taking cognizance of the colossal devastation to human lives and properties in the Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ), due to recent floods in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Uttarakand, The Supreme Court ordered demolition of all illegal structures within such CRZ areas within one month and report compliance. The Apex Court further ordered permissions for any structures within the CRZ areas must be sought from the Coastal Zone Management Authority.
What appears to have caught the Supreme Court’s attention is the lackadaisical approach of the Coastal Zone Management Authority (CZMA) in dealing with illegal structures going on everywhere within its purview without any semblance of control. Thus the target of the Supreme Court order is none other than the CZMA. The demolition of these structures has been squarely left to the hands of the CZRA. The Supreme Court has in no way censured the CZMA. However, it has left no one in doubt over where the responsibility lay.
The Supreme Court bench of Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha specifically cited unbridled illegal constructions in the CRZ category in Maradu Municipality of Ernakulam District of Kerala. Earlier, the Kerala High Court had allowed writ petitions filed by various builders who were served with show cause notice by the Authority. The high court was of the view that the petitioners could not be taken to task on account of the failure of the Authority in enforcing the statutory provisions of CRZ in the first place. Individuals, corporations or any other organizations, local, state or central government agencies were under an obligation to forward communications seeking permission for construction in CRZ areas with the CZMA. It was necessary to obtain the concurrence of the CZMA for all constructions in the CRZ areas, the SC ruled.