Kerala High Court
Paristhithi Samrakshana Ekopana ... vs Union Of India on 4 February, 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
TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 15TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.1754 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 16706/2014 DATED 20-05-2015 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS:
1 PARISTHITHI SAMRAKSHANA EKOPANA SAMITHI
REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENOR, ODANAVATTOM VIJAYA
PRAKASH, PARISTHITI - SAMRAKSHANA EKOPANA SAMITHI,
KOLLAM - 691 512.
2 ODANAVATTOM VIJAYA PRAKASH
SHANTHA VILASAM, ODANAVATTOM P.O., KOLLAM- 691 512.
BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FOREST,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3 KERALA STATE BIO-DIVERSITY BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE BIO-
DIVERSITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
4 NATIONAL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, C/O. MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENTAL FOREST, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
5 KERALA STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE COASTAL
ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
- 695 004.
WA.No.1754 OF 2015 2
6 THE REVENUE DIVSIONAL OFFICER
KOLLAM - 691 001.
7 QUILON EDUCATIONAL TRUST
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NOWFAL @ MOHAMMED
NOWFAL, PATTATHIL, AYATHI P.O., KOLLAM - 691 017.
8 SRI.NOWFAL@ MOHAMMED NOWFAL
PATTATHIL, AYATHI P.O., KOLLAM -691 017.
9 ADHICHANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, ADICHANALLOOR GRAMA
PANCHAYATH, ADHICHANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM - 691 573.
R1 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
R2& R6 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SURIN GEORGE
IPE
R4 BY ADV. N.NARAGESH,ASGI
R5 BY ADV. M.P.PRAKASH,STANDING COUNSEL
R7-R8 BY ADV. P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
R7-R8 BY ADV. T.S.HARIKUMAR
R7-R8 BY ADV. K.JAGADEESH
R9 BY ADV. M.V.THAMPAN(BY ORDER)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 4.2.2020,
THE COURT ON 4.2.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.No.1754 OF 2015 3
JUDGMENT
S.MANIKUMAR,CJ Inviting attention of this Court to the direction issued in the judgment in W.P.(C)No.5421/2011 and connected cases dated 20.5.2015, Mr.P.B.Sahasranamam, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7&8 in writ appeal No.1754/2015 submitted that, pursuant to the direction issued to the National Coastal Zone Management Authority, respondent No.4 in W.P.(C) No.16706/2014, there was a hearing before the said Authority, wherein appellants in writ appeal No.1754/2015 also participated and after considering the material on record, the Authority has reached a conclusion that, the project site of M/s.Quilon Educational Trust is outside the CRZ and further decided to permit the Trust to resume the construction of the Engineering College proposed on the site as per the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan. It is further submitted that, the proceedings of the National Coastal Zone Management Authority has been challenged in a separate Writ Petition No.7826/2017 by the appellants herein, which is pending consideration and in the above circumstances, the instant appeal has become infructuous.
2. Per contra, inviting attention of this court to the contention made in the instant appeal, Mr.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel for appellants WA.No.1754 OF 2015 4 submitted that, the issue as to whether Ext.P6 was validly issued or not was raised in the instant writ appeal and therefore, the contention that the said appeal has become infructuous, may not be accepted. In this context Mr.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel for appellants also invited attention of this Court to the prayer made in W.P.(C) No.16706/2014, which are as follows:
i)To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P6 as unjust, illegal and unconstitutional;
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.5 to revoke Ext.P6 and to revive Ext.P1;
iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.5 to consider Ext.P9 application for review of Ext.P6 after hearing the petitioners;
iv) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4th and 5th respondents to take action against the 7th respondent on the basis of Ext.P1;
v) To pass such other orders, directions or writs as may be prayed for and that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record.
4. Appellants have challenged the validity of Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.16706/2014 and sought for the reliefs as stated supra. However, the writ court in W.P.(C) No.5421/2011 and connected cases dated 20.5.2015, after considering the rival submissions of the parties, was not inclined to quash the challenge made to Ext.P6, and in the facts and circumstances, writ court thought it fit that, the National Coastal Zone Management Authority, 4 th respondent in W.P.(C) No.16706/2014, is competent to hear the request of the WA.No.1754 OF 2015 5 Trust, 7th respondent herein, local residents and the appellants before granting clearance to the project as recommended in Ext.P6 and accordingly issued the directions which are reproduced hereunder:
• The Trust [the petitioners in WP(C) No.22890/2011] shall approach the Kerala State Level Monitoring Committee with a proper petition bringing the local residents, who are the petitioners in other writ petitions, in the party array for clearance for the project. The petition to this effect shall be filed within a period of one month from today along with copies of the aforesaid writ petition and this judgment.
• In the event of filing such a petition by the Trust, the Kerala State Level Monitoring Committee, on the strength of this judgment, shall afford the Trust [the petitioners in WP(C) No.22890/2011] and the local residents [the petitioners in WP(C) Nos.5421/2011 & 16706/2014] an opportunity of being heard and shall take a final decision in the matter.
• The National Coastal Zone Management Authority [the 4th respondent in WP(C) No.16706/2014] is directed to hear the Trust [the petitioners No.22890/2011] as well as the local residents [the petitioners in WP(C) Nos.5421/2011 & 16706/2014) before granting clearance to the project as recommended in Ext. P6 in WP(C) No.16706/2014 by the Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority. A final decision in the matter shall be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment before the National Coastal Zone Management Authority.
5. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that when the hearing was taken up by National Coastal Zone Management Authority, an application of WA.No.1754 OF 2015 6 stay was filed before this Court and this Court was not inclined to grant any stay. According to the learned counsel for appellants, there was no other alternative than to participate in the said proceedings before the Authority.
6. The minutes of the meeting held on 24th May, 2016 and Agenda No.5 is also relevant to the context, which read thus:
"Agenda No.5 Re-consideration of the matters pertaining to development of an Engineering College at Adichannlor Village of Kollam District, Kerala.
5.1 The Authority noted the decision of its previous meeting in the subject matter and requested to share the recommendations of the committee constituted to look into the issues related to matter with all the members.
5.2 Shri Bishwanath Sinha, Joint Secretary, informed that the committee met on 21st March, 2016 to deliberate on the note of Kerala CZMA and conclude the matter. Advocates for the petitioners, respondents and the representative from Kerala CZMA attended the meeting. The Committee discussed the consolidated note from the Kerala CZMA, and sought views of all the parties. During the meeting, representative of Kerala CZMA contended that vide Order dated 10"
December 2012, it has been clarified that the project site is out of CRZ area and hence the question of it being in "No Development Zone"
does not arise. The Committee after hearing all the concerned parties, deliberated on their respective contentions. It was discussed that as per CRZ Notification, 2011 all developmental activities permissible under this notification shall be regulated within framework of the approved CZMPs. It was reiterated that as per the CZMP of the Kerala WA.No.1754 OF 2015 7 State which is prevailing, binding and applicable as on date, the project site does not fall under the CRZ and hence the question of it being in the 'No Development Zone', does not arise. The Committee reached to a unanimous conclusion that the project site of the M/s Quilon Education Trust is outside the CRZ and therefore the M/s Quilon Education Trust be permitted to resume the construction of the Engineering College proposed on the site as per the approved CZMP.
5.3 The Authority noted the observations and findings of the Committee vis a-vis the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide their order dated 20th May, 2015. Further the Authority endorsed the recommendations of the Committee, as contained in para 5.2 above, concluding that the project site of M/s Quilon Educational Trust is outside the CRZ area as per the approved CZMP for the State of Kerala. The Authority also desired that Kerala CZMA should file a compliance report in Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in this regard."
7. Be that as it may, both the appellants as well as respondents 7&8 in the instant appeal have been provided with adequate opportunity before the Authority, which resulted in said Authority reaching a conclusion, as per paragraph 5.3 above.
8. Though the learned counsel for appellants submitted that the instant appeal is still alive and not to be dismissed as infructuous for the reasons stated supra, we are not inclined to accept the said contention for two reasons; 1) Appellants have participated in the proceedings before the Authority challenging the directions issued and the said WA.No.1754 OF 2015 8 directions have culminated into a final conclusion on 24 th May, 2016, which cannot be upset and reversed in the instant writ appeal and 2) As stated supra, the decision taken by the National Coastal Zone Management Authority is the subject matter in Writ Petition No.7826/2017.
9. For the reasons stated supra, the instant Writ Appeal has become infructuous and accordingly it is dismissed. However, liberty is open to the appellants to raise all permissible grounds in Writ Petition No.7826/2017.
Sd/-
S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
smv JUDGE