You are on page 1of 5
ATE ATTORNEW t IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS {In the consolidated matter of: - ELAT: 1502/17 ASSOCIATION OF HOTELIERS AND RESTAURANTS (AHRIM) APPELLANT vis MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SECURITY, NATIONAL SOLIDARITY AND ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . MINISTER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, NATIONAL SOLIDARITY AND ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT RESPONDENTS In the presence of: 4, GROWFISH INTERNATIONAL (MAURITIUS) LTD 2. MINISTRY OF OCEAN ECONOMY, MARINE RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND SHIPPING 3. MINISTRY OF TOURISM CO-RESPONDENTS And ELAT: 1507/17 4. THE SEA USERS ASSOCIATION 2. VIRGINIA LAMARQUE 3. XAVIER KOENIG 4. CHRISTOPHE PELLICIER 5. GAEL BECHARD APPELLANTS vis wnivisTRY OF SOCIAL SECURITY, NATIONAL SOLIDARITY AND ENVIRONMENT AND |STAINABLE DEVELOPMENT FiniSTER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, NATIONAL SOLIDARITY AND ENVIRONMENT AND ; PMENT ‘SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPM —— tn tha provence of 4. GROWFISH INTERNATIONAL (MAURITIUS) LTO 2. MINISTRY OF OCEAN ECONOMY, MARINE RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND SHIPPING 3. MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS OF INVESTMENT 4 BOARD CO-RESPONDENTS ‘And in the matter of: - 4, MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SECURITY, NATIONAL SOLIDARITY AND ENVIRONMENT AND ‘SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 2, MINISTER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, NATIONAL SOLIDARITY AND ENVIRONMENT AND ‘SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT APPELLANTS vis . ASSOCIATION OF HOTELIERS AND RESTAURANTS (AHRIM) ‘THE SEA USERS ASSOCIATION VIRGINIA LAMARQUE XAVIER KOENIG . CHRISTOPHE PELLICIER . GAEL BECHARD enone RESPONDENTS In the presence of: 1, THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE APPEAL. TRIBUNAL 2. GROWFISH INTERNATIONAL (MAURITIUS) LTD 3. MINISTRY OF OCEAN ECONOMY, MARINE RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND SHIPPING 4, MINISTRY OF TOURISM 5, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD (CO-RESPONDENTS NOTICE AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKE NOTICE THAT the above named Appellants (then Respondents) feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Determination of the Environment and Land Use Appeal Tribunal delivered on 30" April 2019, allowing the appeals of the Respondents (then Appellants), intend and do hereby appeal to the Supreme Court against the said Determination, in order to have the said Determination quashed, reversed, set aside, amended or otherwise dealt with, as the Supreme Court shall deem fit and proper, on the following grounds of appeal 4. Because the Environment and Land Use Appeal Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal") erred in law in its application of section 54 of the Environment Protection Act when it laid undue STATE ATTORNBY 10. emphasis on section 2 of the Environment Prote: ction Act and adoy eiitale pled a liberal approach to the test Because the Tribunal erred in law when it adopted the wrong legal principles to find Association of Hoteliers and Restaurants (hereinafter referred to a8 *AHRIM") and Sea Users Association (hereinafter referred to as “SUA’) had locus standi to lodge the appeal Because the Tribunal erred in aw when it failed to make a finding of fact that AHRIM and SUA were able to show that the decision taken by Appellant No 2 is likely to cause them undue prejudice as Provided in section 54(2) of the Environment Protection Act. Because the Tribunal erred in law in its analysis of the application of saction 25 (1) and (2)(b) of the Environment Protection Act and it made @ perverse and manifestly unreasonable finding that the downsizing of the project was not sent back to the Environment Impact Assessment (hereinafter referred to as "EIA") Committee or ought to have been matter of a direction from the Respondent No2. Because the Determination of the Tribunal is perverse and manifestly unreasonable as a whole in ‘as much as the Tribunal concludes at the outset that any prayer against the Respondent Not cannot be entertained under the appeal, yet the Tribunal fails to realise that the grounds of appeal have been couched against the “Respondents” and therefore unable to ascertain which ground is against the Respondent No2 only. Because the Tribunal erred in law in ts wrong application ofthe Precautionary Principe in ts analysis of the mere apprehension of the presence of sharks, the lack of information on the presence of sharks, lack of knowledge on shark risk and fish farm to come to the conclusion that the Environment Impact Assessment Licence should not have been granted. Because the conclusion of the Tribunal, that sharks will be attracted lo the site and represent a real risk to other users of the sea and thatthe Fish Aggregating Devices (hereinafter referred to as "FAD") effect created by the presence of fish could accentuate this effect, is perverse and manifestly unreasonable when no such scientiic evidence was placed before it. Because the Tribunal made a perverse and manifestly unreasonable appreciation of Condition 6 of the EIA Licence, which is not a standalone condition, when it concluded that the condition is derisory. Because the Tribunal made a perverse and manifestly unreasonable appreciation of the evidence of the representative of Growfish Intemational (Mauritius) Ltd when he agreed that the sinking of the ages in climatic conditions could be made deeper as inadequacy of material information at the level of the EIA Committee. Because the Tribunal made a perverse and manifestly unreasonatle appreciation of the evidence on the status of cobia fish