<p>The Centre had turned down the Maharashtra government's request during MVA regime for delegating the powers under the Environment Protection Act (EPA) 1986 to the Forest Department to deal with CRZ (Coastal Regulation Zone) offences.</p>.<p>Instead, the Centre had asked Maharashtra to strengthen its Coastal Zone Management Authority (CZMA) which, it said, is empowered “to take appropriate steps” under the EPA, according to information obtained under the RTI Act by NatConnect Foundation.</p>.<p>The EPA empowers only the environment secretary, the district collector, the pollution control board and the sub-divisional officer (SDO) to file cases for violations, the then State Environment Minister Aaditya Thackeray said in his letter of request to the MOEFCC. Thackeray, therefore, pleaded for empowering the Forest Department with the authority to file cases under the EPA. </p>.<p>"Union Environment, Forest and Climate Change Minister Bhupender Yadav and his predecessor Prakash Javadekar have in identical but separate letters turned down the plea and said multiple authorities enforcing one statute is likely to increase compliance burden as well as harassment for the public,” NatConnect Director B N Kumar said in a press statement. </p>.<p>Describing the Centre’s response as “unfortunate” and "politically motivated", Kumar said the Union ministers rejection was based on a wrong premise that the CZMAs are empowered under the EPA.</p>.<p>On the contrary, Kumar said, MCZMA member secretary Narendra Toke made it very clear to NatConnect during hearing of the NGO’s appeals under the RTI Act that the Authority is not an enforcing agency, but a monitoring one.</p>.<p>“Actually, MCZMA merely passed on directions to the district coastal zone committees on a series of complaints relating CRZ and mangrove violations filed by NatConnect and Shri Ekvira Aai Pratishtan. The district committees are yet to act, despite MCZMA reminders,” he said.</p>.<p>The Bombay High Court had mandated way back in September 2018 that all mangroves in the state must be handed over to the Forest Department to be protected under the Forest Act.</p>.<p>Section 19 of the EPA clearly states that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by the central government or any authority or officer authorised in this behalf by that government, Kumar pointed out.</p>
<p>The Centre had turned down the Maharashtra government's request during MVA regime for delegating the powers under the Environment Protection Act (EPA) 1986 to the Forest Department to deal with CRZ (Coastal Regulation Zone) offences.</p>.<p>Instead, the Centre had asked Maharashtra to strengthen its Coastal Zone Management Authority (CZMA) which, it said, is empowered “to take appropriate steps” under the EPA, according to information obtained under the RTI Act by NatConnect Foundation.</p>.<p>The EPA empowers only the environment secretary, the district collector, the pollution control board and the sub-divisional officer (SDO) to file cases for violations, the then State Environment Minister Aaditya Thackeray said in his letter of request to the MOEFCC. Thackeray, therefore, pleaded for empowering the Forest Department with the authority to file cases under the EPA. </p>.<p>"Union Environment, Forest and Climate Change Minister Bhupender Yadav and his predecessor Prakash Javadekar have in identical but separate letters turned down the plea and said multiple authorities enforcing one statute is likely to increase compliance burden as well as harassment for the public,” NatConnect Director B N Kumar said in a press statement. </p>.<p>Describing the Centre’s response as “unfortunate” and "politically motivated", Kumar said the Union ministers rejection was based on a wrong premise that the CZMAs are empowered under the EPA.</p>.<p>On the contrary, Kumar said, MCZMA member secretary Narendra Toke made it very clear to NatConnect during hearing of the NGO’s appeals under the RTI Act that the Authority is not an enforcing agency, but a monitoring one.</p>.<p>“Actually, MCZMA merely passed on directions to the district coastal zone committees on a series of complaints relating CRZ and mangrove violations filed by NatConnect and Shri Ekvira Aai Pratishtan. The district committees are yet to act, despite MCZMA reminders,” he said.</p>.<p>The Bombay High Court had mandated way back in September 2018 that all mangroves in the state must be handed over to the Forest Department to be protected under the Forest Act.</p>.<p>Section 19 of the EPA clearly states that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by the central government or any authority or officer authorised in this behalf by that government, Kumar pointed out.</p>