Kerala High Court
N.R. Shaji vs Union Of India on 7 February, 2016
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic, Dama Seshadri Naidu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1940
WP(C).No. 27497 of 2017
PETITIONERS:
1 N.R. SHAJI, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAJAPPAN,
DISTRICT SECRETARY, AKHILA KERALA DHEEVARA SABHA
(REGISTRATION NO.ER/69/75), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT COMMITTEE,ALAPPUZHA.
2 M.K.RAJU, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAN,
DISTRICT SECRETARY, AKHILA KERALA DHEEVARA SABHA
(REGISTRATION NO.ER/69/75), KOTTAYAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA
SMT.MANJU R. KARTHA
SMT.M.S.SOUJATH
SRI.I.SREEHARI
SMT.K.BINUMOLE THOMAS
RESPONDENTS:
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE
(MOEFCC), INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAVAN,
JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI.110 001.
2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE & CO-OPERATION,
KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.110 001.
3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
AGRICULTURE(NCA)DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001.
5. PROJECT DIRECTOR,KUTTANAD PACHAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN.688 527.
6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,K.D.DIVISION, THANNEERMUKKAM, PIN-688 527.
7. SECRETARY,THANNEERMUKKOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,PIN-688 527.
8. SECRETARY,VECHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN.686 144.
9. KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1,REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.
R. BY ADV. SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN,ADDL.ADVOCATE GENER
R1,R 2 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.R.SABU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 27497 of 2017 (S)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED NOV.7, 2016 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE REPORT
OF THE SWAMINATHAN COMMITTEE (MSSRF).
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE CHERTHALA UNIT OF AKHILA
KERALA DHEEVARA SABHA TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P3.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF NEWS REPORT PUBLISHED BY THE
MANORAMA E-NEWSPAPER DATED 7.4.2017 REGARDING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF ARTIFICIAL ISLAND.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 7.04.2017
SUBMITTED BY THE STATE GENERAL SECRETARY OF
THE KERALA DHEEVARA SABHA BEFORE THE 9TH
RESPONDENT WITH COPIES TO THE OTHER
RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED
25.3.2017.
EXHIBIT P6(A) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P6.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE
MATHRUBHUMI MALAYALAM DAILY NEWSPAPER DATED 6.3.2016
REGARDING RESUMPTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORK.
EXHIBIT P7(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P7 NEWS REPORT
PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHUMI MALAYALAM DAILY NEWSPAPER
DATED 6.3.2018.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL LAYOUT OF THE THANEERMUKKOM
BARRAGE AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTING THE SECOND STAGE OF
THE BARRAGE.
ANNEXURE R6(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LAYOUT OF THE 3RD STAGE OF CONSTRUCTION
OF THE THANNEERMUKKOM BUND.
ANNEXURE R6(c) TRUE COPY OF THE SATELLITE VIEW OF THANNEERMUKKOM BUND
IN THE YEAR 2012
ANNEXURE R6(d) TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE AERIAL VIEW OF THE THANNEERMUKKOM
BUND TAKEN RECENTLY.
ANTONY DOMINIC, C.J. & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
-----------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.27497 of 2017
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2018
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, C.J.
Two individuals claiming to represent the Akhila Kerala Dheevara Sabha have filed this writ petition in public interest with a prayer requiring respondents 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 to initiate action against the illegal reclamation of Vembanad Lake in violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notifications, 2011 and seeking to restrain the aforesaid respondents from reclaiming any portion of Vembanad Lake and making any construction as proposed in Ext.P6. It is the case of the petitioners that in the guise of the implementation of the third phase of construction of the Thannermukkom Regulator cum Bridge, which is a Salt Water Barrier, the official respondents are attempting to do large scale reclamation and formation of islands within the lake and to use the reclaimed portions for tourism purposes. Petitioners say that this proposal is a prohibited activity in terms of the CRZ Notification, 2011 and, therefore, the aforesaid prayers are sought for. W.P.(C)No.27497 of 2017
: 2 :
2. On the direction of this court, a statement has been filed by the 6th respondent. Reading of this statement shows that the Thanneermukkom Regulator cum Bridge serves the purpose of regulating the flow of water using steel shutters and acts as a bridge connecting Cherthala and Vaikom Taluks of Alappuzha and Kottayam districts. It is stated that first and second stages of the work as recommended by the Swaminathan Commission were carried out during 1968 and 1974 respectively. The Thanneermukkom Salt Water Barrage was planned to be of 1402m long and proposed to be constructed in three stages with 93 shutters, i.e., 31 shutters for each stage. It is stated that the Barrage was designed by the Central Water Power Research Station, (CWPRS), Pune and the work complained of is that in connection with the third stage of the project. Insofar as the reclamation complained of by the petitioners, it is stated that there is no reclamation as alleged and the so called link islands are the integral W.P.(C)No.27497 of 2017 : 3 :
parts of the structures, which were constructed during 1965-75 and for the third stage, no new reclamation has been carried out. Further allegation in the writ petition regarding diversion of reclaimed portions for tourism purposes is denied by stating that no proposal for any tourism project or massive construction is planned in the link islands located at the midst locations other than construction of an electrical control room at the southern portion of the link island at the west side. Insofar as the allegation of the petitioners that the work is in violation of the provisions contained in CRZ Notification, 2011, that has been denied by placing reliance on clause iv(d) of paragraph 3 of the notification which exempts land reclamation, bunding or disturbing the natural course of seawater except those measures to prevent sand bars, installation of tidal regulators, laying of storm water drains or for structures for prevention of salinity ingress and freshwater recharge based on carried out by any agency to be specified by MoEF. It is stated that W.P.(C)No.27497 of 2017 : 4 :
the Thanneermukkom Regulator cum Bridge, which is intended for preventing ingress of salinity into the fresh water is thus exempted in the notification itself.
3. Evidently, therefore, the statement filed by the 6 th respondent disproves the averments of the petitioners that there is large scale reclamation in violation of CRZ Notification, 2011, the reclaimed areas are going to be diverted for tourism purposes and massive construction is proposed to be made in the reclaimed area.
In that view of the matter, we are not persuaded to think that this Court should entertain the writ petition. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE jes