(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempts of Court Act, 1971, to punish the respondents for their willful and intentional disobedience for the non-compliance of the order of this Court made in W.P.No.15136 of 2025 dated 28.04.2025.)

1. This Contempt Petition is filed complaining wilful disobedience of the order dated 28.04.2025 passed in W.P.No.15136 of 2025. The petitioner filed the above Writ Petition directing the 1st respondent to implement the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.12239 of 2016, by removing the prawn farms in and around the agricultural lands in Thillaivilagam, Udayamarthandapuram, Thondiyakadu and other villages in Muthupettai Taluk, Thiruvarur District. The contention of the petitioner is that most of the farms are either without licence or in violation of the licence conditions and are also harmful to the serene ecosystem.

2. The subject relating to the coastal aquaculture is governed by the provisions of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005, was taken note of and the District Collector who is the chairperson of the District committee was directed to conduct an inspection by himself or by deputing some subordinate officials and further directions were issued to close down if any culture is being conducted without proper registration and also to close down such operations which are in violation of license conditions and also to make recommendations to revoke or modify the licenses granted. The directions that are issued in paragraph No.5 of the order is extracted hereunder for ready reference,

                  “5. In view thereof, the District Collector, as the Chairperson of the District Committee, shall either by himself or by deputing such subordinate officials, conduct an inspection of the said coastal regulation zone in Thillai Vilagam, Udayamarthandapuram, Thondiyakadu and other nearby villages. If the Chairperson finds that if any culture is being conducted, without proper registration, immediate steps shall be taken to close down such operations. If they are in violation of any license conditions, a recommendation shall be duly forwarded to the competent authority to revoke or modify the license granted. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order, without waiting for the certified copy of the order. The results of the inspections, that is carried on and the final orders that is passed by the first respondent and the committee shall also be communicated in writing to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”

                  Complaining wilful disobedience of the said order, the present Contempt Petition is filed.

3. When notice was issued in the Contempt Petition, a status report was filed by the respondents through the Assistant Director of Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare, Thiruvarur District. It was mentioned that a Sub-Divisional Committee and District Level Committee for Thiruvarur District is functioning and the particulars of its members were given. After the order, inspections were carried out from 19.05.2025 to 24.05.2025, 29.05.2025 and 30.05.2025. They had inspected a total number of 157 farms and found that about 110 farms were duly registered and 47 farms were unauthorised, including 2 farms which are established in the government lands. Pursuant to the inspection, 15 Nos, of shrimp farms were closed. The Tahsildar, Muthupettai issued notice of evacuation to 2 shrimp farms which were located in the government land. The 13 new farms which were undertaking shrimp culture and 8 farms which were operating without renewal of licence were also identified. But the 8 farms had later submitted application for renewal to the committee. The action taken against the 47 farms was presented in a tabulated form and the same reads as follows:-









4. Finally, it was stated that in Thiruvarur District, 156 shrimp farms are functioning of which 119 Nos. having valid licence. It is also stated that the adjudicating officer of the Appellate Authority was notified by the Department of Fisheries, Government of India on 09.04.2025 to adjudicate on penalties. Therefore, it was stated that since action was taken, the Contempt Petition be closed.

5. A reply affidavit was filed by the Contempt Petitioner stating that majority of the ponds were illegal and even the licensed ponds erected bore wells for more than 3 meters resulting in the entire water of the Thillaivilagam and nearby villages turning saline. It is stated that the authorities are in hand in glove with the illegal prawn pond owners and prayed for an appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. After considering the submissions made, by an order dated 25.08.2025, Mr.K.Praveen Raj, the learned counsel practising in this Court was appointed as an Advocate Commissioner in this case, to visit the area by fixing dates of inspection and find out whether any ponds are illegally operating and also verify about the licensed ponds and their compliance of the license conditions and file a report before this Court.

6. The Advocate Commissioner filed his report on 22.09.2025. The report of the Commissioner stated that 120 farms hold valid licences, 8 farms are in the process of renewal, 1 farm is facing a dispute with the Revenue Department and 27 farms have ceased operations and 2 farms are engaged in fresh water cultivation. The list was also furnished in the report. The petitioner had filed an objection to the Advocate Commissioner’s report. The Assistant Director of Fisheries had also filed a detailed report stating that the Advocate Commissioner’s report only confirms the stand taken by the respondent authorities and as such the Contempt Petition is prayed to be closed.

7. In reply thereof, the Contempt Petitioner had specifically mentioned about one - Raj Aquatech Pvt. Ltd, running a number of farms with commercial productivity. Under the said circumstances, the private entity filed an application to implead itself as a respondent in the Contempt Petition, which was also allowed by this Court. It is their case that they are running only 2 farms that too of cultivating fresh water fish and not shrimp farming.

8. The report filed by the Assistant Director had given brief history of shrimp farming. It is stated that in India, the total farm area is of 70,349.41 ha, covering 12 coastal States including Tamil Nadu. In Tamil Nadu, the total farm area is 6220.24 ha, in 12 coastal districts. In the instant Thiruvarur District, it is stated that 614.05 ha with a total water spread area of 461.74 ha was used for shrimp farming activities. It was further stated that the shrimp farming involves 6 departments, viz., (i) Revenue, (ii) Agriculture, (iii) Fisheries, (iv) Forest, (v) Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, (vi) PWD – Water Resources Organisation and the Department of Fisheries and Fisherman Welfare being the nodal department for providing license to the shrimp farmers to the coastal aquaculture authority.

9. It is further stated that for providing license for brackish water aquaculture, a revised structure was introduced by constituting Sub-Divisional Level Committee and District Level Committee with updated members. The Coastal Aquaculture Authority is the competent authority as well as the license issuing authority. The relevant provisions of the Act including Section 13, which provides for registration of coastal aquaculture and Section 13 (8) which has a prohibition of coastal aquaculture in the ecological sensitive areas and the validation provisions contained in the Act are adverted to. It is further stated that the shrimp farms practices adopted on scientific lines and artificial pellet feeds are being used only for feeding shrimps which does not create pollution. It is further stated that no chemicals are being used in shrimp farms and coastal aquaculture authorities have banned the use of chemicals and antibiotics. The Marine Product Export Development Authority of India is monitoring the traceability of chemicals and antibiotics usage in shrimp farms. It is further stated that the saline water from the nearest water sources were being used for shrimp culture. It is stated that after harvesting the pond water is treated with chlorine and only some of the farmers are using the chlorinated water for another culture. The discharged water from these farms if were toxic / polluted, there would have been mass mortality of the plants, animals, associated birds and shore plants which are present in the natural system. For the past 25 years, no such incident was recorded from Thiruvarur, this indicates the shrimp culture pond water was not harmful for the natural eco-system.

10. I have considered the oral submissions made on either side which is in tune with their respective stands taken. Firstly, it has to be seen that the Advocate Commissioner in his report has stated that as far as the Raj Aquatech Pvt. Ltd is concerned, there are no prawn farms. However, the Commissioner had stated that to the best of his ability, he had visited and inspected the farms. The fact that the license was not issued per pond, but they are issuing license to the total extent of the land owned was mentioned in the Advocate Commissioner’s report. The Advocate Commissioner’s report also states that he was able to inspect approximately 70 % of the farms. The fact that the water is turning saline in the village was also complained by the villagers to the Advocate Commissioner.

11. In this regard, it can be seen that there was an order of the District Collector of the Thiruvarur District on 03.09.2002 holding that the shrimp farms to be closed as they are detrimental to the environment and also directly interfering with the livelihood of the common fisherman.

12. This issue has been extensively dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.Jagannath Vs. Union of India((1997) 2 SCC 87). The Judgment dealt about the shrimp farming and the coastal aquaculture in extenso. The Mangrove forest including in the areas and the nature of the coastal portions which found description in the Central Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution (Central Board) Report 1982, is extensively quoted in the said Judgment. To understand about the shrimp farming and its nature and how it affects the environment and the area, it is essential to refer paragraph No.10 to 25 of the said Judgment,

                  “10. Shrimps are basically marine. Shrimps are also called prawns. In commercial jargon, marine prawns are referred to as shrimps and freshwater ones as prawns. Prawns and shrimps are invertebrates and are decapod crustaceans. Sea is their home and they grow to adulthood and breed in the sea. The progeny start their life by drifting into estuaries and such other brackish water areas for feeding. In about 4-6 months the larvae grow into adolescence and go back to their real home of birth, the sea.

                  11. Aquaculture has been practised for many centuries by small farmers and fisherfolk in Asia to improve their living conditions. However, there is a vast difference between the traditional methods and the new commercialised system. The traditional aquaculture, including shrimp, is usually small scale, using low inputs and relies on natural tidal action for water-exchange. In some countries, such as India, Bangladesh and Thailand, there is a tradition of rice/shrimp rotating, with rice-grown part of the year and shrimp and other fish species cultured the rest of the year. Chemicals, antibiotics and processed feeds are not used in the traditional method. In this low-yield, natural method, the harvest is small but sustainable over long periods. It has no adverse effect on the environment and ecology. The modern method, on the other hand, is larger in scale and intensive or semi-intensive in nature. It is owned and operated by commercial and often foreign-owned companies which mainly export the shrimp. In intensive aquaculture, selected species are bred using a dense stocking rate. To maintain the very crowded shrimp population and attain higher production efficiency, artificial feed, chemical additives and antibiotics are used.

                  12. The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) — an organ of United Nations Organisation (UNO) — published a report in April 1995 on a Regional study and workshop on the Environmental Assessment and Management of Aquaculture Development. Copy of the report has been placed on record by Mr Santosh Hegde, learned counsel for the State of Karnataka. India was one of the 16 countries who participated in the workshop. Dr K. Alagarswami, Director, Central Institute of Brackish Water Aquaculture, Madras presented a paper titled “the current status of aquaculture in India, the present phase of development and future growth potential”, (hereinafter called Alagarswami Report). It has been published as an Annexure to the workshop-report published by the FAO. Para 5.1.2 of Alagarswami Report gives various types of technologies adopted by the aquaculture industry in India. It would be useful to reproduce the same hereunder:

                  “5.1.2. Types of technology — Changes in technology with time:

Traditional: Practised in West Bengal, Kerala, Karnataka and Goa, also adopted in some areas of Orissa. Coastal low-lying areas with tidal effects along estuaries, creeks and canals; impoundments of vast areas ranging from 2-200 ha in size. Characteristics: fully tidally-fed; salinity variations according to monsoon regime; seed resource of mixed species from the adjoining creeks and canals by auto-stocking; dependent on natural food; water intake and draining managed through sluice gates depending on local tidal effect; no feeding; periodic harvesting during full and new moon periods; collection at sluice gates by traps and by bag nets; seasonal fields alternating paddy (monsoon) crop with shrimp/fish crop (inter monsoon); fields called locally as bheries, pokkali fields and khazan lands.

                  Improved traditional: System as above but with stock entry control; supplementary stocking with desired species of shrimp seed (P. monodon or P. indicus); practised in ponds of smaller area 2-5 ha.

                  Extensive: New pond systems; 1-2 ha ponds; tidally fed; no water exchange, stocking with seed; local feeds such as clams, snails and pond-side prepared feed with fishmeal, soya, oilcake, cereal flour etc.; wet dough ball form; stocking density around 20,000/ha.

                  Modified Extensive: System as above; pond preparation with tilling, liming and fertilisation; some water exchange with pumpsets; pellet feeds indigenous or imported; stocking density around 50,000/ha.

                  Semi-intensive: New pond systems; ponds 0.25 to 1.0 ha in size; elevated ground with supply and drainage canals; pond preparation methods carefully followed; regular and periodic water exchange as required; pond aerators (paddle wheel) at 8 per ha; generally imported feed with FCR better than 1:1.5 or high energy indigenous feeds; application of drugs and chemicals when need arises; regular monitoring and management stocking density 15-25/m [(1996) 3 SCC 212 : JT (1996) 2 SC 196] .

                  Intensive: Ponds 0.25-0.50 ha in size; management practices as above; 4 aerators in each pond; salinity manipulation as possible; central drainage system to remove accumulated sludge; imported feed; drugs and chemicals used as prophylactic measures; strict control and management; stocking density 20-35/m [(1996) 3 SCC 212 : JT (1996) 2 SC 196] .

                  Changes in technology: As already indicated, the initial concept and practice was to develop tide-fed systems. This slowly gave way to pump-fed systems. Presently, the emphasis is on sea water based farming systems for P. monodon with a water intake system extending far into the sea with submerged pipelines, pier system and gravity flow. From sandy clay soils, the present coastal farms are located in sandy soils also with seepage control provisions.”

Alagarswami Report further states as under:

                  “The Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, issued a Notification S.O. No. 114(E) in 1991, under ‘the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986’ declaring coastal stretches as Coastal Regulation Zones (CRZ) and regulating activities in the CRZ. This Notification has implications for coastal aquaculture, particularly those activities within 500 m from the High Tide Line…. No regulations to control the use of chemicals and drugs exist, Pollution Control Board general regulations on effluent discharges include hazardous substances, but they are not specific to aquaculture. In some regions, there is indiscriminate use of chemicals and pesticides, particularly in shrimp farms…. Under the Notification of Union Ministry of Environment and Forests, each maritime State is expected to have its own coastal zone management plan, which would consider aquaculture zonation requirements, along with shoreline development. The zone up to 500 metres from the waterline along the sea is restricted against any construction activity.”

                  13. Alagarswami Report highlights various environmental and social problems created by coastal aquaculture. The relevant part of the report is as under:

“Physical factors

                  Shrimp farming along the coastal area of the whole country is developing at a rapid rate. Huge cyclone protection dykes and peripheral dykes are constructed by the shrimp farmers. In many cases as in Kandleru creek (Andhra Pradesh), the farm areas are the natural drainage areas for floods. Due to physical obstruction caused by the dykes, the natural drain is blocked and flood water accumulates in the hinterland villages. Protests are being made by people in some of the villages against such dykes. The ponds are constructed right on the bank of the creeks without leaving any area for draining of flood water.

                  Right of passage of coastal fishermen

                  The shrimp farms do not provide access to the beach for traditional fishermen who have to reach the sea from their villages. As farms are located and entry is restricted, the fishermen have to take a longer route to the sea for their operations. This is being objected to by traditional fishermen.

Drinking water problems

                  The Corporate sector has purchased vast areas adjoining the villages which, in some cases, include drinking water public wells of the villages. The villagers cannot use these wells anymore as they are located in private land owned by the farmers. This is causing social problems.

Salinisation

                  It is reported that salinisation of land is spreading further landwards and the wells yield only saline water. In Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh protests have been voiced against salinisation. Some of the socially conscious shrimp farm operators are providing drinking water to the affected villages by laying a pipeline from their own freshwater source wherever available. Apart from wells, the agricultural farms adjoining the shrimp farms are reported to be affected. However, there is increasing conversion of paddy fields as in the Bhimavaram area of Andhra Pradesh and even on the fringes of Chilka Lake into shrimp farms.

Mangrove areas

                  The status report on mangroves of India published by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (GOI, 1987) is shown in Table 5. In the earlier years, vast areas of mangrove were destroyed for agriculture, aquaculture and other uses. In the more recent years, the mangroves have been protected by law. However, the satellite imagery pictures show destruction of mangroves in Krishna and Guntur Districts of Andhra Pradesh for construction of shrimp farms. Gujarat State is planning major shrimp culture programmes in the Narmada region adjoining Gulf of Cambay. Protection of mangroves should receive attention.”

                  14. Alagarswami Report further indicates that the demand for shrimp seed is growing with the expansion of shrimp culture and hatchery production is unable to meet it. Exploitation of natural seed resources is growing unabated, particularly in West Bengal, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh. Large quantity of fry by catch are discarded by the fry collectors because their value is insignificant. The report states “elimination of fry in the fry by catch is not only detrimental to the predators thriving on them, but it also creates an ecological imbalance”.

                  15. Agitations by the environmentally conscious people of the coastal areas against polluting aquaculture technologies has been noticed by Alagarswami Report as under:

                  “People's awareness

                  People in general have become aware of the environmental issues related to aquaculture. A current case in point is the agitation against a large commercial farm coming up in Chilka Lake (Orissa). People have demanded an EIA of the project. People in Nellore District in Andhra Pradesh have raised environmental issues and called for adoption of environmentally-friendly technologies and rejection of ‘imported’ technologies from regions which have suffered environmental damage. Protests have been voiced by the local people in Tuticorin area in Tamil Nadu. Both print and visual media take up environmental issues with a great deal of zeal. This appears to augur well for regulating coastal shrimp farming with eco-friendliness.”

                  16. The intensive farming technique and the pollutants generated by such farming have been noticed by Alagarswami in the following words:

                  “In intensive farming, stocking densities are on the increase. In one instance, P. indicus was stocked at 70 post larvae/m [(1996) 3 SCC 212 : JT (1996) 2 SC 196] , almost reaching the levels of Taiwan before the disease outbreak in 1988. This necessitates heavy inputs of high energy feeds, the use of drugs and chemicals and good water exchange. The organic load and accumulation of metabolites in the water drained into the sea should be very high as could be seen from the dark-brown colour and consistency of the drain water.”

                  17. The Alagarswami Report further states that paddy fields are being converted to shrimp farms, as in some parts of Andhra Pradesh (e.g. Bhimavaram). Some paddy lands along the fringe of Chilka Lake have been lost to shrimp farming.

                  18. The report suggests future management strategies — quoted hereunder — for farms and Government in resolving any conflicts or environmental problems:

                  “As shrimp farming is developing fast, the following strategies have been developed for avoiding problems which have arisen in other countries (or reducing their impact):

                  1. India needs to boost production of shrimp through aquaculture with environment and development as a unified motto.

                  2. Since the area available is vast, this can be achieved by application of environmentally-friendly technologies for optimal production rates against maximum production rates.

                  3. Sustainable development or shrimp aquaculture should be guided by the principles of social equity, nutritional security, environmental protection and economic development with a holistic approach to achieve long-term benefits.

                  4. New definitions and parameters of extensive, semi-intensive and intensive culture systems as suited to Indian conditions and Government policies rather than copying models of other countries (particularly those which have rushed and suffered) and the development of guidelines thereof.

                  5. Diversification of species among shrimps and to integrate fish wherever possible to suit the different agro-climatic and aquatic zones of the country.

                  6. Careful development of Coastal Zone Management Plans under CRZ to meet the requirements of coastal aquaculture development plans with some flexibility (as required) for specific areas.

                  7. Identification of aquaculture zones or careful consideration and provision of buffer zones against possible impact on other land uses; also intermediate buffer zones within aquaculture zones.

                  8. Consideration of the living, social and vocational needs of local people in villages/towns in aquaculture plans in order to avoid conflicts.

                  9. Development of sets of regulations on use/ban of drugs and chemicals, including antibiotics in hatcheries and farms; on abstraction of groundwater and salinisation problems.

                  10. Development of standards for effluent discharge as applicable to local conditions.

                  11. Development of viable technologies for secondary aquaculture to gainfully utilise nutrient enriched farm effluents and encourage farmers to adopt such technologies with the necessary support.

                  12. In view of the fact that coastal farms are located generally in remote areas and cannot be monitored by external agencies on a reasonably effective basis, farmers/group of farmers should equip themselves with facilities to monitor possible important parameters at periodic intervals and maintain such records for their own benefits and for production to inspecting agencies.

                  13. Brackish Water Fish Farmer Development Agencies to be strengthened in all respects, including environmental management and disease diagnosis, prevention and control, through appropriate training and setting up district level laboratories for essential analytical and diagnostic work.

                  14. Manpower development at managerial and technical level.

                  15. Research-extension-farmer group meet for appropriate technologies and feedback.

                  16. Effective monitoring and enforcement of regulations, use of nets and fishing in any specified water for a period not exceeding two years. Thus, legal provisions were made on fisheries matters in India nearly a century ago.”

                  19. Alagarswami's Report identifies salinisation of land, salinisation of drinking water wells, obstruction of natural drainage of flood water, passage of access to sea by fishermen and public, self-pollution of ponds, pollution of source water, destruction of mangroves, land subsidence and pressure on wild seed resources and consequences thereof as environmental issues in shrimp culture. Para 6.2 of the report lists the following preventive measures:

                  “6.2 PREVENTION

                  (i) Aquaculture units causing harmful changes to the environment; and

                  (ii) Non-aquaculturists from modifying the environment to the detriment of aquaculture production units.

                  1. Enforcement of legal provisions under the relevant Acts of the Government.

                  2. CRZ regulations to consider specific needs of aquaculture as an expanding production activity and the Coastal Zone Management Plans of the States/Union Territories to carefully plan taking into consideration present situation and future needs.

                  3. Early development of regulations on permissible levels of most significant parameters of water quality keeping in view the limited intervention of aquaculture for promoting growth of stock in the medium.

                  4. Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP) to be insisted upon for larger units and self-assessment/monitoring for smaller units, subject to verification at inspection.

                  5. Zonations and appropriate siting of farms; not to proliferate indiscriminately but to develop in a planned manner for sustaining production (Alagarswami, 1991).

                  6. More hatcheries to be encouraged and supported to meet seed demands to reduce pressure on wild seed resources.

                  7. Feed mills to maintain quality of feeds and to ensure water stability as required; self/external inspection mechanism to be introduced to maintain specific standards.

                  8. Mangrove forests not to be touched for aquaculture purposes.”

                  The FAO Report — based on Alagarswami Report — states the impact of aquaculture on the environment, in India, as under:

                  “The impact of aquaculture on the environment are as follows:

                  By shrimp culture: Loss of agricultural land and mangroves, obstruction of natural drains, salinisation, destruction of natural seed resources, use of drugs and chemicals, and extraction of groundwater. Social conflicts have arisen.”

                  20. Alagarswami Report — quoted by us extensively — is an authentic document relating to the functioning of shrimp culture industry in India. It has rightly been suggested in the report that sustainable development should be the guiding principle for shrimp aquaculture. The industry must develop under the unified motto of Environment and Development. Environmentally-friendly technologies are to be adopted with a view to achieve optimal production. The report calls for a ban on the use of drugs, chemicals and antibiotics in the shrimp culture farms. The report clearly indicates that except the traditional and improved traditional, the other methods of shrimp aquaculture are polluting and as such may have an adverse impact on the environment.

                  21. Mr M.C. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has taken us through the NEERI Reports and other voluminous material on the record. He has vehemently contended that the modern — other than traditional — techniques of shrimp farming are highly polluting and are detrimental to the coastal environment and marine ecology. According to him only the traditional and improved traditional systems of shrimp farming which are environmentally friendly should be permitted. Mr Mehta has taken us through the Notification dated 19-2-1991 issued by the Government of India under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (the Act) (CRZ Notification) and has vehemently contended that setting up of shrimp farms on the coastal stretches of seas, bays, estuaries, creeks, rivers and backwaters up to 500 metres from the High Tide Line (HTL) and the line between the Low Tide Line (LTL) and the HTL is totally prohibited under para 2 of the said notification. The relevant part of the Notification No. S.O. 114(E) dated 19-2-1991 is as under:

                  “2. Prohibited Activities.—The following activities are declared as prohibited within the Coastal Regulations Zone, namely:

                  (i) setting up of new industries and expansion of existing industries, except those directly related to waterfront or directly needing foreshore facilities;

                  (ii) manufacture or handling or storage or disposal of hazardous substances as specified in the Notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forests No. S.O. 594(E) dated 28-7-1989, S.O. 966(E) dated 27-11-1989 and G.S.R. 1037(E) dated 5-12-1989;

                  (iii) setting up and expansion of fish-processing units including warehousing (excluding hatchery and natural fish drying in permitted areas);

***

                  (v) discharge of untreated wastes and effluent from industries, cities, or towns and other human settlements. Schemes shall be implemented by the authorities 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.

***

                  (viii) land reclamation, bunding or disturbing the natural course of sea water with similar obstructions, except those required for control of coastal erosion and maintenance or clearing of waterways, channels and ports and for prevention of sandbars and also except for tidal regulators, storm water drains and structures for prevention of salinity ingress and for sweet water recharge.

***

                  (x) harvesting or drawal of groundwater and construction of mechanisms therefor with 200 m of HTL; in the 200 m to 500 m zone it shall be permitted only when done manually through ordinary wells for drinking, horticulture, agriculture and fisheries;

***”

                  22. According to Mr Mehta the shrimp culture industry is neither “directly related to waterfront” nor “directly needing foreshore facility” and as such is a prohibited activity under para 2(i) of the CRZ Notification. Mr Kapil Sibal on the other hand has argued that a shrimp farm is an industry which is directly related to waterfront and cannot exist without foreshore facilities. Relying upon Oxford English Dictionary Mr Sibal contended that “waterfront” means land abetting on the sea, that part of a town which fronts on a body of water. According to him “foreshore” in terms of the said dictionary means the part of the shore that lies between the High Tide and the Low Tide. According to Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary, International Edn., the expression “foreshore” means “that part of a shore uncovered at low tide”.

                  23. It is, thus, clear that the part of the shore which remains covered with water at the High Tide and gets uncovered and becomes visible at the Low Tide is called “foreshore”. It is not possible to set up a shrimp culture farm in the said area because it would completely submerge in water at the High Tide. It is, therefore, obvious that foreshore facilities are neither directly nor indirectly needed in the setting up of a shrimp farm. So far as “waterfront” is concerned it is no doubt correct that a shrimp farm may have some relation to the waterfront in the sense that the farm is dependent on brackish water which can be drawn from the sea. But on a close scrutiny, we are of the view that shrimp culture farming has no relation or connection with the “waterfront” though it has relation with brackish water which is available from various water bodies including sea. What is required is the “brackish water” and not the “waterfront”. The material on record shows that the shrimp ponds constructed by the farms draw water from the sea by pipes, jetties etc. It is not the “waterfront” which is needed by the industry. What is required is brackish water which can be drawn from any source including sea and carried to any distance by pipes etc. The purpose of CRZ Notification is to protect the ecologically fragile coastal areas and to safeguard the aesthetic qualities and uses of the sea coast. The setting up of modern shrimp aquaculture farms right on the sea coast and construction of ponds and other infrastructure thereon is per se hazardous and is bound to degrade the marine ecology, coastal environment and the aesthetic uses of the sea coast. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the shrimp culture industry is neither “directly related to waterfront” not “directly needing foreshore facilities”. The setting up of shrimp culture farms within the prohibited areas under the CRZ Notification cannot be permitted.

                  24. Para 2(viii) of the CRZ Notification quoted above, prohibits the bunding or disturbing the natural course of sea water with similar obstructions. A bund is an embankment or dyke. Alagarswami Report in para 4.3.2 (quoted above) has specifically mentioned that huge cyclone protection dykes and peripheral dykes are constructed by the shrimp farmers. The report further states that due to physical obstruction caused by the dykes the natural drain is blocked and flood water accumulated in the hinterland villages. The report notices that the shrimp ponds are constructed right on the bank of the creeks without leaving any area for draining of flood waters. A shrimp farm on the coastal area by itself operates as a dyke or a bund as it leaves no area for draining of the flood waters. The construction of the shrimp farms, therefore, violates clause (viii) of para 2 of the CRZ Notification. In view of the findings by the Alagarswami Report it may be useful to hold an inquiry/investigation to find out the extent of loss occurred, if any, to the villages during the recent cyclone in the State of Andhra Pradesh because of the dykes constructed by the shrimp farmers.

                  25. Annexure 1 to the CRZ Notification contains regulations regarding Coastal Area Classification and Development. The coastal stretches within 500 m of HTL of the landward side are classified into four categories, namely, CRZ-I, CRZ-II, CRZ-III and CRZ-IV. Para 6(2) of the CRZ Notification lays down the norms for the development or construction activities in different categories of CRZ areas. In CRZ-III Zone agriculture, horticulture, gardens, pastures, parks, playfields, forestry, and salt manufacture from sea level may be permitted up to 200 m from the high tide line. The aquaculture or shrimp farming has not been included as a permissible use and as such is prohibited even in this zone. A relevant point arises at this stage. Salt manufacturing process like the shrimp culture industry depends on sea water. Salt manufacturers can also raise the argument that since they are wholly dependent on sea water theirs is an industry “directly related to waterfront” or “directly needing foreshore facilities”. The argument stands negatived by inclusion of the salt manufacturing industry in CRZ-III Zone under para 6(2) of the CRZ Notification otherwise it was not necessary to include the industry therein because it could be set up anywhere in the coastal regulation zone in terms of para 2(1) of the CRZ Notification. It is thus obvious that an industry dependent on sea water cannot by itself be an industry “directly related to waterfront” or “directly needing foreshore facilities”. The shrimp culture industry, therefore, cannot be permitted to be set up anywhere in the coastal regulation zone under the CRZ Notification.”

13. The United Nation’s report regarding natural resource degradation as a result of shrimp farming was considered in paragraph No.38 of the said Judgment which reads as under,

                  “38. All the reports referred to by us clearly indicate that the expansion of modern shrimp ponds in the coastal areas has meant that local fishermen could only reach the beach by trespassing at great risk on shrimp farms or by taking a long detour. Local people have not only lost access to their fishing grounds and to their sources of riverine seafoods and seaweeds, but they also have to relinquish social and recreational activities traditionally taking place on their beaches. The UN Report gives the following picture regarding natural resource degradation as a result of shrimp farming:

                  “In areas densely covered with intensive shrimp farms, however, the industry is responsible for considerable self-pollution and particularly for bacteriological and viral contamination. Each hectare of pond produces tons of undigested feed and faecal wastes for every crop cycle. This induces the growth of phytoplankton, protozoa, fungus, bacteria and viruses (like the Vibrio group growing in shrimp faeces and in large part responsible for the 1988 collapse of Taiwan's production) (Lin, 1989). The overuse of fertilizers and of veterinary and sanitary products such as antibiotics adds to the water pollution problem. It also contributes to the decreasing resistance of the shrimp stock. Where intensive shrimp farms are densely spaced, waste-laden water tends to slosh from one pond to another before it is finally discharged into the sea. Shrimp producers are extremely concerned about assured supplies of clean water as it is vital for their immediate economic returns.

                  Large amounts of sedimentation in intensive shrimp ponds is posing serious disposal problems for shrimp farmers. From 100 to 500 tons of sediment per hectare per year are apparently accumulating. Since only some 10 tons of feed is used to produce about 5 tons of shrimp per hectare per year, this raises questions about where such incredible quantities of sediment come from (Rosenberry, 1994a:42). Ponds are cleaned after each crop cycle and the sediments are often discarded in waterways leading into the sea, or they are sometimes used to build dykes. Their putrefaction inside and outside the ponds causes foul odour, hypernutrification and eutrophisation, siltation and turbidity of water courses and estuaries, with detrimental implications on local fauna and flora. …

                  Biodiversity Losses: The impacts of semi-intensive and intensive shrimp aquaculture on biodiversity (‘the totality of genes, species and ecosystems in a region’) are multiple. This is because of the land area they cover; the water they pollute; the water circulation systems they alter; the wild fish and crustacean habitats they replace; the risks they pose of disease transfer; the impacts of released raised shrimp on the genetic diversity and resilience indigenous shrimp and possibly also their negative impacts on other native fauna and flora. …

                  Health Hazards: Health hazards to local populations living near or working in shrimp farms have been observed in several places. For instance, in Tamil Nadu (Quaid-e-Milleth District near Pondicherry) an approximately 1500 acre large shrimp farm has been reported to have caused eight deaths from previously unknown diseases within a period of two months following the installation of the aquaculture farm (Naganathan et al., 1995:607). There are numerous hazards to public health along the shrimp production chain from the farmers through the various processors to the often distant consumers. The workers employed on shrimp farms handle several potentially dangerous chemicals, and may be exposed to unsanitary working conditions.”

                  According to the UN Report — intensive ponds have a maximum life of only 5 to 10 years. Abandoned ponds can no longer be used for shrimp and there are few known alternative uses for them except some other types of aquaculture. Apparently they can seldom be economically rehabilitated for other uses such as crop land. The extent of abandoned areas by the shrimp industry has been indicated by the UN Report in the following words:

                  “After a production cycle of about four or five months, shrimp ponds under intensive use are cleaned and disinfected and the polluted sludge is removed and often disposed of unsafely. This treatment, however, does not usually suffice to maintain the ponds' productivity for more than five to ten years (Ibid., Annex III/12). Entrepreneurs then move to other areas because of pollution and disease. This mode of production has been called ‘rape and run’ (Csavas, 1994b). The altered milieu of these abandoned ponds inhibits the spontaneous regeneration of vegetation and their use for agriculture, forestry, other aquaculture or related fishing activities. These abandoned areas do not appear in worldwide estimates of areas used for shrimp farming, which for 1993 were estimated to include 962,600 hectares, of which 847,000 hectares were in Asia. In December 1994 these areas were estimated to have increased worldwide to 1,147,300 with 1,017,000 hectares in Asia (Rosenberry, 1993 and 1994). Globally, areas affected by the industry's practices over the last decade are probably at least one-third larger, or even more if the total infrastructures surrounding the ponds are accounted for.”

                  The UN Report pithily sums up the “conflicts and externalities” as under:

                  “A major portion of the conflicts arising from the expansion of shrimp farming are the result of environmental and social degradation that is not included in the costs of shrimp production. Where the industry assumes no responsibility for damages to other groups arising from its activities, economists call them ‘externalities’. For example, abandoned ponds are usually virtually unusable for other purposes for indefinite periods without costly rehabilitation, which is seldom undertaken. Mangrove destruction, flooding of crops, salinization or pollution of land and water associated with the expansion of shrimp farming all affect the local people depending on these resources.”

Thereafter directions was issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph No.52 of the Judgment, which reads as under,

                  “52. We, therefore, order and direct as under:

                  1. The Central Government shall constitute an authority under Section 8(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and shall confer on the said authority all the powers necessary to protect the ecologically fragile coastal areas, seashore, waterfront and other coastal areas and specially to deal with the situation created by the shrimp culture industry in the coastal States/Union Territories. The authority shall be headed by a retired Judge of a High Court. Other members preferably with expertise in the field of aquaculture, pollution control and environmentprotection shall be appointed by the Central Government. The Central Government shall confer on the said authority the powers to issue directions under Section 5 of the Act and for taking measures with respect to the matters referred to in clauses (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x) and (xii) of sub-section (2) of Section 3. The Central Government shall constitute the authority before 15-1-1997.

                  2. The authority so constituted by the Central Government shall implement “the Precautionary Principle” and “the Polluter Pays Principle”.

                  3. The shrimp culture industry/the shrimp ponds are covered by the prohibition contained in para 2(i) of the CRZ Notification. No shrimp culture pond can be constructed or set up within the coastal regulation zone as defined in the CRZ notification. This shall be applicable to all seas, bays, estuaries, creeks, rivers and backwaters. This direction shall not apply to traditional and improved traditional types of technologies (as defined in Alagarswami Report) which are practised in the coastal low-lying areas.

                  4. All aquaculture industries/shrimp culture industries/shrimp culture ponds operating/set up in the coastal regulation zone as defined under the CRZ Notification shall be demolished and removed from the said area before 31-3-1997. We direct the Superintendent of Police/Deputy Commissioner of Police and the District Magistrate/Collector of the area to enforce this direction and close/demolish all aquaculture industries/shrimp culture industries, shrimp culture ponds on or before 31-3-1997. A compliance report in this respect shall be filed in this Court by these authorities before 15-4-1997.

                  5. The farmers who are operating traditional and improved traditional systems of aquaculture may adopt improved technology for increased production, productivity and return with prior approval of the “authority” constituted by this order.

                  6. The agricultural lands, salt pan lands, mangroves, wetlands, forest lands, land for village common purpose and the land meant for public purposes shall not be used/converted for construction of shrimp culture ponds.

                  7. No aquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp culture ponds shall be constructed/set up within 1000 mts of Chilka Lake and Pulicat Lake (including Bird Sanctuaries namely Yadurapattu and Nelapattu).

                  8. Aquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp culture ponds already operating and functioning in the said area of 1000 mts shall be closed and demolished before 31-3-1997. We direct the Superintendent of Police/Deputy Commissioner of Police and the District Magistrate/Collector of the area to enforce this direction and close/demolish all aquaculture industries/shrimp culture industries, shrimp culture ponds on or before 31-3-1997. A compliance report in this respect shall be filed in this Court by these authorities before 15-4-1997.

                  9. Aquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp culture ponds other than traditional and improved traditional may be set up/constructed outside the coastal regulation zone as defined by the CRZ Notification and outside 1000 mts of Chilka and Pulicat Lakes with the prior approval of the “Authority” as constituted by this Court. Such industries which are already operating in the said areas shall obtain authorisation from the “Authority” before 30-4-1997 failing which the industry concerned shall stop functioning with effect from the said date. We further direct that any aquaculture activity including intensive and semi-intensive which has the effect of causing salinity of soil, or the drinking water or wells and/or by the use of chemical feeds increases shrimp or prawn production with consequent increase in sedimentation which, on putrefaction is a potential health hazard, apart from causing siltation, turbidity of water courses and estuaries with detrimental implication on local fauna and flora shall not be allowed by the aforesaid Authority.

                  10. Aquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp culture ponds which have been functioning/operating within the coastal regulation zone as defined by the CRZ Notification and within 1000 mts from Chilka and Pulicat Lakes shall be liable to compensate the affected persons on the basis of the “Polluter Pays” principle.

                  11. The Authority shall, with the help of expert opinion and after giving opportunity to the polluters concerned assess the loss to the ecology/environment in the affected areas and shall also identify the individuals/families who have suffered because of the pollution and shall assess the compensation to be paid to the said individuals/families. The Authority shall further determine the compensation to be recovered from the polluters as cost of reversing the damaged environment. The authority shall lay down just and fair procedure for completing the exercise.

                  12. The Authority shall compute the compensation under two heads namely, for reversing the ecology and for payment to individuals. A statement showing the total amount to be recovered, the names of the polluters from whom the amount is to be recovered, the amount to be recovered from each polluter, the persons to whom the compensation is to be paid and the amount payable to each of them shall be forwarded to the Collector/District Magistrate of the area concerned. The Collector/District Magistrate shall recover the amount from the polluters, if necessary, as arrears of land revenue. He shall disburse the compensation awarded by the authority to the affected persons/families.

                  13. We further direct that any violation or non-compliance of the directions of this Court shall attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act in addition.

                  14. The compensation amount recovered from the polluters shall be deposited under a separate head called “Environment Protection Fund” and shall be utilised for compensating the affected persons as identified by the Authority and also for restoring the damaged environment.

                  15. The authority, in consultation with expert bodies like NEERI, Central Pollution Control Board, respective State Pollution Control Boards shall frame scheme/schemes for reversing the damage caused to the ecology and environment by pollution in the coastal States/Union Territories. The scheme/schemes so framed shall be executed by the respective State Governments/Union Territory Governments under the supervision of the Central Government. The expenditure shall be met from the “Environment Protection Fund” and from other sources provided by the respective State Governments/Union Territory Governments and the Central Government.

                  16. The workmen employed in the shrimp culture industries which are to be closed in terms of this order, shall be deemed to have been retrenched with effect from 30-4-1997 provided they have been in continuous service (as defined in Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) for not less than one year in the industry concerned before the said date. They shall be paid compensation in terms of Section 25-F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. These workmen shall also be paid, in addition, six years' wages as additional compensation. The compensation shall be paid to the workmen before 31-5-1997. The gratuity amount payable to the workmen shall be paid in addition.”

14. As a matter of fact, it is stated that the Coastal Aquaculture Act, 2005 itself was enacted to implement several directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Section 13 (8) of the Act is extracted hereunder,

                  “Section 13(8) of CAA, Act 2005

                  (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, ---

                  (a) no coastal aquaculture shall be carried on within two hundred metres from High Tide Lines; and

                  (b) no coastal aquaculture shall be carried on in creeks, rivers and backwaters within the Coastal Regulation Zone declared for the time being under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986:

                  Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply in the case of a coastal aquaculture farm which is in existence on the appointed day and to the non-commercial and experimental coastal aquaculture farms operated or proposed to be operated by any research institute of the Government or funded by the Government;

                  Provided further that the Authority may, for the purposes of providing exemption under the first proviso, review from time to time the existence and activities of the coastal aquaculture farms and the provisions of this section shall apply on coastal aquaculture farms in view of such review.

                  Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section, “High Tide Line” means the line on the land up to which the highest water line reaches during the spring tide.”

15. In this regard, the following map itself would demonstrate the nature of the ecologically fragile lagoon of the Muthupet area.



16. As a matter of fact, the Point Calimere which is another ecologically fragile area lies to the south of them and both the wet lands are connected. India is signatory to the Ramsar convention on wet lands, 1971. Article 3 of the convention mandates that each contracting party shall arrange to be informed at the earliest possible time, if the ecological character of any wet land in its territory has changed or is changing or likely to change as a result of ecological development, pollution or other human interference.

17. As per Article 8, the contracting States are to maintain the list of wet lands of international importance. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 25 (1), (2) (v) and (3) of Section 3 and Section 23 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, the Central Government had also made the Wet Lands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017. The rules apply to wet lands of international importance and to such other wet lands as notified by the Central Government, State Government or the Union Territory Administration. Rule 4 contains restrictions of activities in wet lands. The list of prohibited activities is contained therein which includes conversion for non wet lands use and setting up of any industry and expansion of existing industries. It also constitutes the wet land authorities for each state and a National Wet Lands Committee. The State Wet Lands Authority’s functions are also mentioned, which includes to define strategies for conservation and wise use of wet lands within their jurisdiction and review integrated management plan for each notified wet lands.

18. In the said background, the subject matter area was notified as a Ramsar site the Ramsar Site Information Service portal contains the Ramsar Information Sheet, Site map with boundaries, Taxonomic list of plant and animal species occurring in the site, site management plant and the site boundaries. From the information site published, it is seen that the Udayamarthandapuram is one of the bird sanctuary in Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk, Muthupettai Block, which is known for citing a large number of globally EN Asian Open Bill Stork. It was declared as a sanctuary in the year 1988 and is near the confluence of Bamini river – Kannanar river, covering 43.767 ha. It is a seasonal wet land fed by small canals receiving water from Mettur Dam through Koraiyar canal. The southern part of landscape is partly Koraiyar river running west to east and draining into Muthupet mangroves. It remains dry from April to August during which the small tanks in the sanctuary is to store water to sustain the resident bird population. The wet land is representative of flat topography encompassing food plains along river streams within the Cauvery delta and agricultural eco systems. The vegetation cover serves as a good habitat for several birds, butterflies and other fauna. The site is an important staging and breeding ground for several species of water birds. The notable species observed at the site are oriental darter, glossy with the ibis, grey heron and Urasian spoonbill. It is one of the important breeding sites for the darter and urasian spoonbill. Udhayamarthandapuram stores flood water during monsoon overflows and maintain during the dryer periods. The ecological character and the plant species available in the area is mentioned thereunder. It is important to note the following information that is contained, which reads as under,

                  “The presence of carp makes the water more turbid, increases the algal blooms, resulting in decreased growth of aquatic macrophytes. Excess nutrients entering the wetland and the feeding habits of the carp result in suspension of sediment and nutrients. The nutrients fuel the algal blooms, which reduce the water quality and ultimately eliminates the submerged aquatic vegetation. With the loss of submerged vegetation, the water quality continues to deteriorate and fish species and quality declines.”

19. The importance of this area as mentioned in criteria VIII is extracted hereunder for ready reference,

                  “(iv) Criteria 8: The wetland is the breeding ground or nursery for many species of marine fishes, which are vital to the fisheries of the coast. GVS is the spawning and / or nursing ground for commercially important prawns, crabs and fishes. Eastern part of the GVS harbours 23 fish species, mainly mullets, where as the Mullipalam Lagoon at Muthupet has a more direct influence of the sea and harbours more marine species of fish, some 20 species.”

20. The nature of geology and evolution, location and topography is also mentioned in the document, which is extracted hereunder,

                  “Location & Topography: The GVS (ca 350 km²) lies parallel to the Palk Strait for about 45 km, and is separated from it by a sand bank, breached at a few places. The GVS is flanked on the northern boundary by a number of villages. The GVS can be broadly divided into two parts, which are connected to each other only during the rainy season by a small breach.

                  The western part has mangrove forests (120.2 km²) and a lagoon (17 km²), called the Mullipalam Lagoon. The River Korayar is the main source of freshwater. This region is regularly influenced by tidal action due to an opening (ca 1.5 km² long) into the Palk Strait. The depth of the lagoon varies seasonally and does not exceed 2m. Salinity of the lagoon varies from 5-15 ppt (gm/litre) during the monsoon to about 45 ppt during summer.”

21. The mangrove vegetation is also mentioned in the document, which reads as follows,

                  “Mangrove Vegetation: Characteristic mangrove forest is seen at Muthupet, where the River Korayar meets the sea. Avicennia marina is the dominant mangrove species in the area.”

22. The surrounding area of the wet land is the Muthupet Reserve Forest, the particulars of which mentioned in the document reads as follows,

                  “The Muthupet Reserve Forest (mangroves) starts about 40 km to the west of Point Calimere. From 1853 to 1912, the Muthupet forest was under the 'Chatram Department', (rest houses for pilgrims and travellers constructed by the Raja of Tanjore) a branch of the then District Board of Tanjore. After that, the charge of the forests was shared by the Revenue Department and the Chatram Department. In 1937, the forests were declared as a reserve forest, and taken over by the Forest Department. The Talaignayar Reserve Forest (mangroves) is situated about 25 km to the north of Vedaranyam and was notified as a reserve forest in 1931.”

23. The fact that this is also connected with the Point Calimere Wildlife and Bird Sanctuary and which is also declared as a Ramsar site is to be noted. The factors that are affecting the sites ecological character is enumerated in the document, which includes forest destruction. It is specifically mentioned that in Muthupet only 15 % of the mangroves are healthy and there is also spread of prosofis juliflora (Seemai Karuvelam). It specifically takes note of decreased fresh water inflow. It is specifically mentioned that though the Mullipallam lagoon reserves water from the river Koraiyar, the inflow has declined over the years and this was the reason that is attributed by researchers for the natural replacement of two mangrove species with more salt tolerant farms at Muthupet. The estuarine character of the area is also noted. There were extensive river beds which has now turned into bare saline mud flats is also noted. The reason is deduced as the reduced fresh water inflow and the presence of salt having alter the water chemistry affecting the biodiversity is noted. The pollution in the area containing heavy metals such as Nickel, Lead and Zinc in the sediments and the downstream inflows from the industrial and farm pollutants is also noted. It must be seen that M/s Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai had undertaken research works and Mr.V.Selvam, R.Somasundaram, R.Anbazhagan and J.Raju have published two research papers in the years 1998 and 1999 under the topic coastal wet lands mangrove conservation and management – Muthupet mangrove wet lands and mangrove resources and resource utilisation pattern and also coastal wet lands mangrove conservation and management canal fishing in Muthupet mangrove wet lands, a traditional wisdom of local fishers to integrate fishery development with mangrove conservation.

24. As a matter of fact, apart from being declared as a bird santuary, the area is also notified as a Eco-Sensitive Zone, under Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act, vide notification in S.O. 1928(E) dated 07/06/2019, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part -II, Section 3, subsection (ii), bearing No. 1723. The reasons for notifying was contained in the gazette and the same is extracted hereunder:

                  “And Whereas, the Udhayamarthandapuram Birds Sanctuary spread over an area of 0.453 square kilometer (45.28 ha) is situated in Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk of Thiruvarur District in the State of Tamil Nadu; an irrigation tank maintained by Public Works Department was declared as Bird Sanctuary in 1998 (G.O. Ms.No.379 Environment and Forests Department dated the 31st December, 1998) for the conservation of avian fauna that inhabit the water body; AND WHEREAS, the Sanctuary is an important roosting site for local migrants and resident water bird rather than feeding and wintering grounds for the long distant migrant water bird groups such as ducks and waders; the common generalists are Black-crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), Little Cormorant (Phalacrocorax niger) and this site, probably, supports the largest congregation of Openbilled Stork (Anastomus oscitans) (over 5,000), and other notable species which congregate more in numbers during dusk hours for roosting include Oriental White Ibis (Threskiornis melanocephalus);

                  AND WHEREAS, this habitat is ideal for the breeding of three resident species of ducks namely Lesser Whistling Duck (Dendrocygna javanica) Comb Duck (Sarkidiornis mealanotos) and Spotbilled Duck (Anas poecilorhyncha); other species which breed here on the reed beds and floating vegetation are Indian Purple Moorhen, (Porphyrio porphyria), Indian Moorhen (Gallinulla chloropus), Pheasant-tailed Jacana (Hydrophasianus chirurcus), White-breasted Water-hen (Amaurornis phoenicurus); the bird nesting on the ground is Red-wattled Lapwing (Vanellus indicus); and a small number of migratory and partially resident Common Coot (Fulica atra) utilise this wetland for nesting; among the heronry species which occasionally visits in small numbers are the Spot billed Pelican (Pelecanus philippensis), Painted Stork (Mycteria leucocephala), and Eurasian Spoonbill (Platalea leuccorodia);

                  AND WHEREAS, the daily arrival of roosting birds in the dusk and departure to neighbouring wetlands and paddy fields for feeding in the dawn in such a large numbers is the unique feature of this sanctuary and successful management measures will attract more breeding species and wintering species to enhance the diversity which in turn will attract more tourists, birdwatchers and students; the best time to visit the Sanctuary for bird watching is November-January when bird population and species diversity is at the highest and the earthen mounds provide suitable trees for perching and roosting;

                  AND WHEREAS, the Sanctuary is basically an irrigation tank that is used for storing water for agriculture, which receives water from Mettur dam from August onwards which is further supplemented by the northeast monsoons from October till January; the tank remains completely dry from March to August; and as the Sanctuary is basically an irrigation tank, there is no natural forest within the Sanctuary; Babul (Acacia nilotica) plantations were raised by the Social Forestry wing of the Forest Department during 1985-86 and the other major flora in the tank bunds and foreshore are Inca dulce, Prosopis juliflora,Terminalia arjuna, Ficus bengalensis, Syzigium cumini and Pongamia pinnata, etc which are used for roosting and nesting by the migratory birds like Open billed stork, White ibis etc.;

                  AND WHEREAS, the Sanctuary has 55 species of avian fauna visiting and residing in this small tank spread over 45.285 hectare; the common generalists are Black-crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax nycticoras), Little Cormorant (Phalacrocorax niger) etc. and proper successful management measures will attract more breeding species and wintering species, and the sanctuary has good variety of water and land birds e.g. Little grebe (Tachybaptus ruficollius), Grey Pelican (Pelecanus thilippenisis), Little cormorant (Phalacrocorax niger), Great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), Darter (Anhinga rufa), Oriental Honey-Buzzard (Pernis ptilorhynchus), Black-shouldered Kite (Elanus caeruleus), Barhminy Kite (Haliastur Indus), Western MarshHarrier (Circus aeruginosus), Shikra (Accipiter badius), Grey Francolin (Francolinus pondicerianus), Common Quail (Coturnix coturnix), Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) etc.;

                  AND WHEREAS, the good diversity of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, dragonflies, damselflies and butterflies has been recorded in the Sanctuary; example of mammals are Indian Grey Mongoose (Herpestes edwardsii), Three striped palm Squirrel (Funambulus palmarum), Indian flying fox (Pteropus giganteus), Golden Jackal (Canis aureus), Jungle Cat (Felis chaus), Domestic Cow (Bos Taurus) etc; example of reptiles are House Gecko (Hemidactylus frenatus), Spotted Indian Geock (Hemidactylus brookli), Garden Lizard (Calotes versicolor), Green lizard (Calotes calotes), Monitor lizard (Varanus bengalensis,) etc; and example of reptiles are Common Indian Toad (Duttaphrynus melanostictus), Narrow mouthed frog (Microhyla ornate), Painted frog (Kaloula taprobanica), Common tree frog (Polypedatus maculates), Skipper frog (Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis) etc; example of butterflies include Blue Pansy (Junonia orithya), Blue Tiger (Tirumala limniace), Common Bush brown (Mycalesis perseus), Common Emigrant (Catopsilia Pomona), Common Evening Brown (Melanitis ismene), Common Grass Yellow (Eurema hecabe) etc.;

                  AND WHEREAS, the Sanctuary has many endangered species e.g. Great Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), Little Green Heron (Butorides striatus), Yellow Bittern (Lxobrychus sinensis), Chestnut Bittrem (Lxobrychus cinnamomeus), Black Bittern (Dupetor flavicollis), Comb Duck (Sarkidiornis melanotos), etc. and the rare species present in the sanctuary are Spot-billed Pelican (Pelecanus philippensis) and Painted Strok (Mycteria leucocephala);

                  AND WHEREAS, the population of the Eco-sensitive Zone area is around 8700 Nos, most of the people depend on agriculture and the remaining work in the agricultural fields as daily wage workers; the important economy of the area is primarily agriculture and more than 80% of the Eco-sensitive Zone area is in agricultural use and remaining areas are used for fishing, animal husbandry and other related activities;

                  AND WHEREAS, it is necessary to conserve and protect the area, the extent and boundaries of which are specified in paragraph 1, around the protected area of Udhayamarthandapuram Bird Sanctuary as Eco-sensitive Zone from ecological and environmental point of view and to prohibit industries or class of industries and their operations and processes in the said Eco-sensitive Zone;

                  NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clauses (v) and (xiv) of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986) (hereafter in this notification referred to as the Environment Act) read with sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, the Central Government hereby notifies an area with an uniform extent of 0.50 Kilometre in all the directions around the boundary of Udhayamarthandapuram Bird Sanctuary in the State of Tamil Nadu as Udhayamarthandapuram Bird Sanctuary Eco-sensitive Zone (hereafter in this notification referred to as the Eco-Sensitive Zone) details of which are as under, namely:- ….”

25. In the notification details of prohibited activities are mentioned which include discharge of effluents. The State Government has to prepare a zonal master plan and the other steps that are to be taken are also mandated in the notification.

26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.Jagannath’s case (cited supra) had elaborated as to how the traditional fishing methods was not detrimental to environment and it was integrated with the nature, whereas, this shrimp farming is nothing but an industry of rape and run. Thus, the report filed by the Assistant Director of Fisheries that there is no mass destruction of entire flora and fauna in the area and therefore, there is no threat from the shrimp farming and other activities deserves to be rejected and is against the very document prepared by the experts for notifying the area as Ramsar site. The entire inspection that is conducted by the committee and also by the Advocate Commissioner, firstly did not take into account any of the above as they were predominantly concerned about the licenses. The respondents herein have to consider that already the law of the lands have moved from anthropocentric approach to ecocentric approach, by virtue of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India((2012) 3 SCC 277) . This ecocentric approach has been taken to a further level by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the State of Telengana Vs. Mohd. Abdul Qasim((2024) 6 SCC 461) and it has been held that these eco-systems are not objects for protection by humans, but on the other hand have to be treated as subjects with fundamental rights to exist, to proliferate, to survive and to regenerate. The authorities have to approach this pristine eco-system with that view in mind.

27. In this regard, there is absolutely no consideration of Section 13 (8) of the Coastal Zone Aquaculture Licensing Act, 2005, which was extracted supra. No scientific tests or experiments were made to confirm the non use of chemicals or antibiotics. First of all the location of these ponds whether they are within the notified Ramsar site or within the buffer zones of the Reserve Forest as well as Ramsar site and whether such shrimp farming can be permitted in an ecologically sensitive zone and what are the best practices that are to be adopted to conserve the wet land as such with its original qualities of serving as a wet land for the migratory birds and the residential birds and serving as a sink with sediments empowering the farmers and fisherman, besides being the natural guardian of the disaster such as flood, storms etc., was not considered and there is also lack of expertise. More importantly, by eco-centric approach as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mohd. Abdul Qasim’s case (cited supra), was also not taken into account.

28. Further, it can be seen that as per Article (3) of the RAMSAR Convention, 1971, directing the States have to put the wet lands to wise use. Pursuant to the obligation, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India had issued guidelines which contain the details about wise use and unwise use. In the said guidelines, they demarcate the traditional method that is used for the fisherman for harvesting / fishing shrimps would be wise use. The modern method of shrimp farming would be an unwise use. The example of two wet lands in Kol Lands, Thrissur in Kerala - the traditional shrimp culture is a wise use and the wet lands in Kolleru, Andra Pradesh – the modern aquaculture is an unwise use, were given in the said guidelines. This apart, for every wet land, the zone of influence (akin to the buffer zone) has to be identified as per the guidelines framed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India. The same had also to be taken into account.

29. Therefore, when all these factors are brought to the notice of this Court and when it was informed to all the learned counsel appearing on either side that:

                  (a) a thorough inspection has to be done by appropriate experts with all technological and departmental assistance;

                  (b) depending on the detailed report, if there is any violation of the order of this Court, further action can be passed in the Contempt Petition and if all the steps are properly taken, there need not be any further orders; OR

                  (c) If any other steps have to be taken to conserve the wet lands, which are beyond the scope of the Contempt Petition, then the matter can be appropriately referred to the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. The National Environment and Ecological Research Insitute, Nagpur and the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Enviornment, Climate Change and Forests, Government of Tamilnadu, shall take into account, the RAMSAR wetland, the huge number of migratory birds visiting the mangrove forest and all the factors relating to the same, while nominating the experts. Along with them, to take care of the legal requirements and make suggestions with respect to the various notification, advocate/expert in the field, Mr. Yogeswaran, Advocate, M1, Vadhula, No. 18, Brindavan Street, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004 (Ph.95662 54546) is nominated. Such a course was accepted by the learned counsel appearing on either side.

30. In view thereof, the following directions are issued:

                  (i) a three member expert panel consisting of (i) an Expert to be nominated by the National Environment and Ecological Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur; (ii) an expert from the Tamilnadu Forest Department, to be nominated by the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Environment, Climate Change and Forests, Government of Tamil Nadu; and (iii) Mr. Yogeswaran, Advocate -Independent expert is constituted;

                  (ii) The Expert Committee is requested to:

                  (a) conduct a thorough inspection of the entire Udayamarthandapuram-Thillaivilagam, Muthupet - Ramsar site/sanctuary/eco sensitive zone/reserve forest area/ other mangrove forest areas and buffer zones, lagoons and the surrounding area - ;

                  (b) consider the relevant compliances and requirements that have to be made as per the notifications and suggest the short comings and other necessary measures to be taken for the wholesome conservation and protection of the wetland/sanctuary/eco sensitive zone/mangrove forests in question including maintaining its connections with the other sites such as point calimere etc;

                  (c) specific consideration shall be made to the shrimp farming/fish culture of all kinds the desirability/methodologies of having the shrimp farms in the area, whether due licenses have been issued by the authority and the observation of the license conditions including non-use of chemicals, antibiotics and offensive methods or technologies;

                  (d) by studying the fresh water inflow from the Cauvery river to the channels including the quality of the fresh water, the reasons for increased salinity, the conservation of the various facets of the Ramsar site including the nature of the land, the mangrove forest, the breeding and the habitat of the birds which are there and the conservation as the migratory bird site and all other flora and fauna which are the natural habitat of the area;

                  (e) and to carry out such are necessary and incidental tests, checks, findings, measures that generally in the opinion of the committee will be within the ambit of the best interests of the rights of the ecosystem to survive, regenerate, thrive, exist and proliferate; and come out with a detailed report of the measures that are to be undertaken, both short term and long term;

                  (iii) The State Wet Land Authority, the District Administration and the Forest Administration shall make all the arrangements for the Committee to carry out a thorough inspection including any scientific experiments and tests on the water quality, sediments and other tests;

                  (iv) The Ministry of Environment, Climate Change and Forests, Government of Tamil Nadu shall pay the initial remuneration of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the expert members and all the expenses relating to travel and stay shall be borne by the Government of Tamil Nadu;

                  (v) The Committee shall endeavour to complete the exercise within a period of three months and place its report before this Court on or before 11.06.2026;

                  (vi) Call the matter on 12.06.2026.