In a significant development that could reshape how environmental penalties are determined in India’s coastal regulation zones, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has directed the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) to reassess its environmental compensation order in a multi-crore penalty case—following the authority’s own admission of computational errors.
The tribunal’s intervention came after a legal challenge questioning the GCZMA’s jurisdiction and penalty calculation methods in a case involving a Rs 39.5 crore compensation order. The appellant argued that the penalty was disproportionately high and unsupported by statutory provisions, bringing into focus major gaps in India’s existing framework for assessing environmental damage.
Central to the challenge was whether the GCZMA, as a regulatory authority under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, had the legal standing to impose such steep financial penalties. The Act itself stipulates that for each contravention, penalties “shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to fifteen lakh rupees,” a range far below the amount in question. This discrepancy formed the crux of the appellant’s argument that the GCZMA’s order lacked statutory grounding.
A key point of contention was regulatory overreach. The petitioner pointed to Section 15(C) of the Environment (Protection) Act, which empowers adjudicating officers—not regulatory authorities—to determine penalties and compensation. By independently calculating the compensation amount, the GCZMA was seen to have bypassed this statutory mechanism, potentially undermining the central government’s designated adjudication process.
Adding to this, the appellant questioned the legitimacy of the formula used to arrive at the Rs 39.5 crore figure. "The formula, which has been relied upon by the GCZMA, has no statutory basis and that the same is not backed by any executive order and hence cannot be applied for imposing penalty under the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986," the petitioner submitted.
Geographical jurisdiction also became a flashpoint. The appellant maintained that certain activities—particularly filling work on the southern side of the site—were conducted outside the No-Development Zone (NDZ) and Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ), located just 43 metres from the High Tide Line (HTL). If accurate, this would place them beyond the GCZMA’s purview, raising questions about whether the penalty was imposed on areas technically outside its authority.
Crucially, the appellant flagged discrepancies in the area measurements used to calculate the compensation. While the GCZMA considered the full 12,700 square metres of the site in its computation, the petitioner claimed that only about 3,360 square metres actually lay within CRZ boundaries. This substantial difference directly impacted the scale of the violation—and, by extension, the fine imposed.
In a notable turn, the GCZMA itself admitted to computational mistakes in determining the area under violation. This concession proved pivotal. The tribunal noted: "In view of the admission on the part of GCZMA that there appears to be some error in calculating the area and hence, they are inclined to recalculate the amount of environmental compensation, we are of the opinion that we should allow this appeal and set aside the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by GCZMA and remand the matter to GCZMA to decide afresh within a period of two months."
The tribunal also ordered that all contentions raised by the appellant remain open for consideration during the reassessment process, ensuring that both sides would have the opportunity to present their cases fully.
This ruling is expected to carry implications beyond the individual case, potentially affecting how environmental compensation is calculated and enforced in future CRZ violations across India. For now, the GCZMA has been tasked with revisiting its order and completing the reassessment within two months—a process that may determine whether regulatory authorities can continue to impose large fines independently, or if stricter legal frameworks must guide such actions moving forward.