Kerala High Court
M.P.Liyakathali vs The Union Of India on 7 August, 2020
Author: S. Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1942
WP(C).No.3334 OF 2006(S)
PETITIONERS:
1 M.P.LIYAKATHALI
KOYA, AGED 40, SHALAPPADA, KAVARATHI,
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP.
2 P.AMEER SO.LATE N.M.KOYA HAJI
AGED 35, PUTHIYATHANODA, KAVARATHI,
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.)
SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS,
NEW DELHI.
2 THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR,
KAVARATHI, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP.
3 LAKSHADWEEP ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,,
KAVARATHI, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP.
W.P(C).3334/2006
2
4 THE LAKSHADWEEP POLLUTION CONTROL
COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
KAVARATHI, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP.
5 KAVARATHI VILLAGE (DWEEP) PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON,
KAVARATHI, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP.
6 THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
PANAMPILLY AVENUE, KOCHI-682 036.
R1 BY SRI.JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN, CGC
R1 BY ADV. SRI.JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN CGC
R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN ASST.S.G OF
INDI
R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.MANU.S, CGC, ADMINISTRATION
OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP
R1 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.RAGHUNANDANAN
R1 BY ADV. SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER
BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN SC LAKSHADWEEP
ADMN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P(C).3334/2006
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2020 S. Manikumar, CJ Instant public interest litigation is filed for a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P8 in so far as it purports to amend para 2 (ii) and Annexure III of the CRZ Notification, 1991. Petitioner has sought for a declaration that the amendment introduced by SO329(E) dated 12.4.2001 in so far as it relates to para 2 (ii) and Annexure III of the CRZ Notification is unconstitutional, illegal and incompatible with the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 and the CRZ Notification, 1991. Petitioner has also sought for a mandamus restraining the respondents from establishing an oil storage facility near the Power House of the Lakshadweep Electricity Department at Kavaratti. Petitioner has further sought for a direction, directing the respondents to shift the existing power house to the southern end of Kavaratti Island.
2. Record of proceedings shows that on 15.11.2011, when the matter came up before the learned Single Judge, a submission has been made by learned Standing Counsel for Lakshadweep Administration that the power house has already been shifted from the place in question. However, taking note of the averments in the writ W.P(C).3334/2006 4 petition, writ court observed that it is a matter involving public interest and referred the writ petition to a Division Bench dealing with public interest litigation. Thus, the matter is listed before us.
3. Order dated 15.11.2011 of learned Single Judge in W.P(C). No.3334 of 2006 is reproduced:
"The petitioners challenge the validity of an amendment made to the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Regulations, whereby oil storage facilities have been taken out of the purview of the CRZ restrictions in coastal areas. The petitioners are residents near the power house of the Lakshadweep Electricity Department at Kavaratti. The oil burnt in the process of functioning of the power house contaminates the source of drinking water of the petitioners is the allegation raised. Therefore, they have been clamoring for shifting of the power house to uninhabited area at the southern end of the Kavaratti Island, for the past several years. But, in addition, now another attempt is made to establish an oil storage facility also near the power house. According to the petitioners, the said facility, if established, would be in violation of the CRZ notification. They would submit that the establishment of the oil storage facility would seriously affect the right to live of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned Standing Counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration would submit that the power house has already been shifted from the place in question. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that if that be so, there is no necessity to continue oil storage facility there. Whatever that be, I am of the opinion that the issue raised in this writ petition has a public interest element as W.P(C).3334/2006 5 well. An order in this writ petition would have far reaching effect also. Therefore, I am of opinion that it is only appropriate that this writ petition be considered by the Bench hearing public interest litigation in view of the public interest element involved. Accordingly, I refer this writ petition for consideration by the Division Bench hearing public interest litigations.
Place the matter before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice for appropriate orders."
4. On this day, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the parties submitted that notification impugned in the writ petition has been subsequently superseded by CRZ Notification, 2011 and that submission of learned counsel is placed on record.
In the above said circumstances, nothing survives in the writ petition for further adjudication. Writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/-
S. Manikumar, Chief Justice Sd/-
Shaji P. Chaly, Judge sou.