Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. We will now refer to the documents produced by the petitioner to consider the said argument raised vehemently by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The said aspect is a crucial issue that has emerged in this case, since it is contended by various respondents that no such policy by way of the Government alone taking land, on lease available/acquisition within the islands, was mooted. The earliest document is Ext.P3 which is a reply given by the Department of Tourism, Union Territory of Lakshadweep to the Director of Tourism, Govt. of India. It is stated therein that modalities for developing three newly identified islands in Lakshadweep as international tourist resort are being worked out in consultation with Ministry of Tourism. Unless the strategy for the development of island resort in three islands of Cheriyam, Suheli Valiyakara and Thinnakara is finalised by the Ministry and final approval of the Island Development Authority is obtained  WA 985, 1117 in the matter, the Lakshadweep Administration cannot proceed further in the matter. Admittedly, the Island Development Authority is chaired by the Prime Minister of India. Therefore, Ext.P3 will show that a final approval of the Island Development Authority was required and Thinnakara is one of the islands mentioned in Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is dated 30.10.1991. This is followed by Ext.P4 reply of the Deputy Director General, Department of Tourism, Govt. of India, to the Administrator, Union Territory, obviously in reply to Ext.P3. This reply will show that the matter was taken up with all concerned Ministries/Departments of the Govt. of India for getting no objection and a note has been forwarded to the Planning Commission which is looking into the other related matters pertaining to opening of these islands. The note is also appended to Ext.P4. A reading of the note will show that the Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep itself has proposed that some islands in the Union Territory be opened for development of international tourism by leasing its lands to private entrepreneurs by inviting global tenders. This proposal was made considering the success of the island resort at Bangaram. The names of the three islands mentioned are Cheriyam, Suheli-Valiyakara and Thinnakara. The details about these islands are mentioned in the note. The special  WA 985, 1117 features of Thinnakara island is mentioned along with the other two islands. Lastly, it is mentioned that specific locations in Lakshadweep and Andaman and Nicobar islands may be opened up on the basis of specified norms (a) to

15. Thus, it is evident from the above documents that there was a clear policy on the part of the Govt. of India in regard to the development of tourism in various parts of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. The activities evolved by certain Government agencies is evident from the fact that the Society for Promotion of Nature Tourism and Sports (SPORTS) which is a Government sponsored co-operative society and is the nodal agency for the promotion of tourism in Lakshadweep invited global tenders for operating tourist resorts with 58 beds at Kadamath and with 20 beds in Minicoy. Ext.P21 is a draft of the IXth Five Year Plan 1997-98 to 2001-02 submitted by Lakshadweep Administration to the Planning Commission with specific suggestions for tourism development. Therein, reference is made to the preparation of a master plan, since the conventional method of tourism development may not suit the islands. In Scheme No.4, with the heading "objective of the scheme in IXth Five Year Plan 1997-98 to 2001-  WA 985, 1117 02" under para 3, (page 296 of the Paper Book), the policy has been spelled the following words: "Tourism has emerged as one of the most income and employment generating industry in Lakshadweep. Encouraged by this and the Bangaram model of development the the Administration has decided to open more uninhabited islands for tourism. Proposals have been submitted to Central Ministry for leasing out uninhabited island - Thinnakara, Suheli Valiyakara and Cheriyam. The Ministry will be calling global tenders for developing these islands as international tourist resorts. As the land is limited, relatively expensive and its transaction is strictly governed by the Lakshadweep (Protection of Scheduled Tribe) Regulation 1964, the land has to be made available to resort at concessional rates so as not to affect the viability of the project. Therefore, it is proposed to make land available to develop at concessional rate of the land value. The Government will take land on lease from land owners and let it out for resort development. Provision under the scheme is made for the lease rent of the land in Suheli, Thinnakara and Cheriyam." The details of the lease rent fixed is available under the heading "A - Physical" for all the respective areas mentioned from 1997-98 to 2001-02. This is in respect of the three islands. This also supports the case of the petitioner that a clear and established policy as such  WA 985, 1117 was existing. Ext.P23 is a notice issued by the Director, Tourism Administration of Union Territory of Lakshadweep dated 7.2.2006, wherein caution is made of the attempt to bring tourists by certain individuals illegally. Therein, it is reiterated that "every effort should be made to stop running of parallel tourism in the islands due to its fragile ecology, limited carrying capacity and for security reasons." This also indicates that the whole policy was evolved considering the strategic importance of the islands and in view of the peculiar circumstances prevailing there. The policy as such for development envisaged absolute Government control and the right to establish the resort was being given on land taken on lease from land owners by Government, and by letting it out by inviting global tenders only. The argument that such a policy will not apply to the projects mooted by 5th respondent cannot, therefore, hold good.

23. We will now come to the case pleaded by respondents 5 to 8 and its acceptability. The 5th respondent is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. According to them, as per Ext.R5(c), they approached the Govt. of India, Department of Tourism by placing its proposal to develop Thinnakara island for tourism as a joint venture with M/s. U.B. Resorts Limited and sought necessary permission. It is stated that the third respondent forwarded the details of the project as per Ext.R5(e), as recommended by the second respondent, to the Ministry of Tourism Government of India. It is their case that the Lakshadweep Pollution Control Committee, as per Ext.R5(g) dated 26.6.1996 gave a No Objection Certificate. Ext.R5(h) is the letter issued by the local panchayat supporting  WA 985, 1117 the efforts of the 5th respondent. Ext.R5(k) is the approval granted by the District Panchayat, Lakshadweep for setting up beach resort at Bangaram and Ext.R5(l) is the No Objection Certificate issued by the Pollution Control Board, Lakshadweep for the project at Bangaram. Ext.R5(m) environmental clearance was issued by the Department of Environment and Forest, Lakshadweep. In the said project, the U.B. Resorts Limited was the party with whom the 5th respondent has entered into certain agreements for execution of the project. It is stated that on 1.9.2005 the society entered into an agreement with another U.B. Group company, viz. V.J.M. Company for implementing the project. Learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submitted that Exts.R1 and R2 produced along with the counter affidavit of respondents 2 and 3 will show that the argument raised by the petitioner regarding invitation of global tender, etc. is wrong. It is submitted that there was no restriction for any private agency to get land on lease to enter into any joint venture with entrepreneurs and to seek permission from the Lakshadweep Administration itself.

30. The stand of the Society and the Administration in this regard which is supported by the other respondents, is that the 5th respondent is a society formed by members of Scheduled Tribe and as there is no restriction with regard to any transaction between a Scheduled Tribe and another Scheduled Tribe, the lease obtained by the 5th respondent society will not come within the mischief of Regulation Nos.3(1) and 3(3). The writ petitioner has got a case going by the averments in the writ petition, in the reply affidavit and the Writ Appeal memorandum that all the members of the 5th respondent society are not members of Scheduled Tribe. The same has been reiterated in the arguments before us. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the 5th respondent society has been formed by the members of three families in Lakshadweep who have been either working as Govt. servants or were Govt. servants. The details of all such persons are given in the reply affidavit in paragraphs 12 to 15. It is also contended that the deponent of the counter affidavit of the 5th respondent society is a retired Director of Agriculture of the Lakshadweep  WA 985, 1117 Administration and he continues to be a member of the Pollution Control Board Committee constituted by the Lakshadweep Administration even after the retirement. (He is not a member of the society.) The President of the 5th respondent society is an Arabic Teacher in a Government School run by Lakshadweep Administration and his brother is the Vice President of the society who is working as Scuba Diving Instructor under the Department of Tourism, Lakshadweep Administration. The wife of the deponent of the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent is its Treasurer and she is a family member of the President and Vice President of the Society and is working as Accountant in the Lakshadweep Administration. The Secretary of the 5th respondent Society is working as Station Manager of M/s. Indian Airlines at Agatti Airport. He was working in the Government Press at Kavaratti under the Lakshadweep Administration. His brother is a Veterinary Assistant Surgeon working under the Lakshadweep Administration. He is one of the members of the society and his wife is also another member. The brother-in-law of the Secretary of the Society is another member and one other member is a retired Surveyor in the Department of Revenue, Lakshadweep Administration. The 5th respondent society has not denied these averments in its rejoinder dated 29/01/2007.  WA 985, 1117