Allowed

Ashraf C.A. v. the Secretary

Kerala HC8 Sept 2021WP(C)/6330/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a mandatory direction to construct anti-erosion sea walls along the Snehatheeram and Thalikkulam sea shore to protect against coastal erosion and safeguard life. The court noted the delay was due to fund paucity but emphasized the State's duty under the right to life, issuing directions to complete construction before the next monsoon.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to complete the construction of anti-erosion sea walls at the disputed stretch at least before the next monsoon.

Ashraf C.A. Vs the Secretary — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 17TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 6330 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 ASHRAF C.A. AGED 43 YEARS S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN MOULAVI, AL-CANAL HOUSE, MANJALY, MANNAM P.O., NORTH PARAVOOR.

¶8

2 ABUBACKER, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN MOULAVI, PRESENTLY AT AL KHAIL MALL, KANAL EMIGRATION SERVICE CENTER, 2ND FLOOR, OFFICE NUMBER-11, AL QUOZ, DUBAI, REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS BROTHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, ASHRAF C.A, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN MOULAVI, AGED 43, AL-CANAL HOUSE, MANJALY, MANNAM P.O., NORTH PARAVOOR.

¶9

3 HARI, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.KARAPPAN, KOLLABI HOUSE, THALIKULAM P.O., THAMBANKADAVU, THRISSUR.

¶10

4 LAIJU, AGED 33 YEARS S/O.SREERAMAN, MAYOOR HOUSE, THALIKULAM P.O., THAMBANKADAVU, THRISSUR.

¶11

5 SUBRAMANIYAN, AGED 60 YEARS S/O.VELAYUDHAN, THALIKULAM P.O., THAMBANKADAVU, THRISSUR.

¶12

6 HARIDAS, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.CHANDRAN, ERANEZHATHU HOUSE, THALIKULAM P.O., THAMBANKADAVU, THRISSUR.

¶13

BY ADVS. K.R.SUNIL S.U.NAZAR KUM.SABI C SHAJI SMT.AISWARYA VENUGOPAL K.V.SASIDHARAN

¶14

WP(C) NO. 6330 OF 2021

¶15

¶16

RESPONDENT/S:

¶17

1 THE SECRETARY THE STATE IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695033.

¶18

2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695033.

¶19

3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR, PIN-680001.

¶20

4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ADDITIONAL IRRIGATION DIVISION, THRISSUR, PIN-680020.

¶21

5 ADDL.R5.THALIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT THALIKULAM, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 680 569.

¶22

6 ADDL.R6.KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY THAMPANOOR, KSRTC BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, OVER BRIDGE, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶23

ADDL.R5 AND R6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 6/7/21 IN I.A. 1/21 IN WPC 6330/21(M).

¶24

BY ADVS.

¶25

GOVERNMENT PLEADER M.P.PRAKASH

¶26

OTHER PRESENT:

¶27

SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶29

08.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

WP(C) NO. 6330 OF 2021

¶31

¶32

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶33

===================

¶34

WP(C) No. 6330 OF 2021

¶35

===================

¶36

Dated this the 8^th day of September 2021

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

The above writ petition is filed with the following

¶39

prayers;

¶40

“ i. To issue Writ of Mandamus, Orders or Directions, directing the respondents to forthwith construct the Anti Erosion sea walls in between the Snehatheeram as well as Thalikulam sea shore to a distance about 300-400 mtrs now lying open directly to the Arabian Sea.

¶41

ii. Such other Orders, Directions deem fit on facts and in the interests of justice.”

¶42

2. The main grievance of the petitioners is that, the

¶43

respondents are not constructing the anti erosion sea wall in between the Snehatheeram as well as Thalikkulam sea shore

¶44

to a distance of about 300-400 mtrs now lying open directly

¶45

to the Arabian Sea. The petitioners takes me through Ext.P7

¶46

WP(C) NO. 6330 OF 2021

¶47

¶48

photographs which will show the situation clearly.

¶49

The learned Government Pleader submitted that, a

¶50

statement is filed by the 3^rd respondent. It will be better to

¶51

extract paragraph 2 and 3 of the statement.

¶52

“ 2. It is submitted that the request from the 1^st petitioner was received on 26.07.2018. Accordingly the proposal amounting to Rs.1060 Lakhs for the work “Construction of sea wall for a length of 1765m from 25m south of CP 1341 towards north up to 117m north of CP 1349 in Thalikulam Grama Panchayath” which covers the land of petioners, was submitted to Government for necessary sanction and due to paucity of funds, the estimate was not sanctioned. The proposal was again revised for an amount of Rs. 14.00 Crores for obtaining sanction under Flood Management and Border Area Programme (FMBAP) for the year 2021. This proposal can be submitted to Government only after the Central Government issues the Guidelines for FMBAP 2021-26. Hence, the contention of the petition lacks merit.

¶53

3. The petitioner has requested to NOC to construct compound wall in his own land and for this, no NOC is required from Irrigation Department. The proposal amounting to Rs.1060 Lakhs for the “Construction of sea wall for a length of 1765m from 25m south of CP 1341 towards north up to 117m north of CP 1349 in Thalikulam Grama Panchayath which covers the land of petitioner, was submitted to Government for necessary sanction and due to paucity of funds, the estimate was not sanctioned. The proposal was again revised for an amount of Rs. 14.00 Crores for obtaining sanction under Flood Management and Border Area Programme (FMBAP) for the year 2021. This proposal can be submitted to Government

¶54

WP(C) NO. 6330 OF 2021

¶55

¶56

only after the Central Government issues the guidelines for FMBAP 2021-26. The work can be carried out only after getting necessary sanction. The statement given by the petitioner cannot be accepted at any cost, since even before receiving any request from the petitioner, the proposal had been prepared. Even now in Anti Sea Erosion proposal for 2021-22, the work “ASE- Construction of sea wall for a length of 225m from 45m south of CP 1341 towards north in Thalikulam Grama Panchayath” for an amount of Rs. 200.00 Lakhs which covers the petitioner's area has been prepared for obtaining Administrative sanction from Government.”

¶57

From the above statement it is clear that, the authorities are taking steps to construct the wall and the

¶58

delay is only because of the paucity of fund.

¶59

It is true that, there may be some financial difficulty to the government for constructing the wall. But, the right to life is also a fundamental right of the petitioner. They apprehend danger to their life. It is the duty of the state to see that the life of the petitioners are protected. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the statement filed by the 3^rd respondent, I think, there can be a direction to the

¶60

WP(C) NO. 6330 OF 2021

¶61

¶62

respondents to complete the work of constructing the anti erosion sea wall at least before the next monsoon.

¶63

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in the following manner;

¶64

The respondents are directed to complete the entire process including the construction of anti erosion sea wall in between the Snehatheeram as well as Thalikkulam sea shore

¶65

to a distance about 300-400 mtrs, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate before next monsoon start in Kerala.

¶66

(Sd/-)

¶67

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶68

JUDGE

¶69

¶70

WP(C) NO. 6330 OF 2021

¶71

¶72

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6330/2021

¶73

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶74

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26.07.2018. Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE SECRETARY THALIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 11.09.2018. Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.11.2018.

¶75

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 13.12.2018 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER THALIKKULAM. Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.07.2018 AND ITS TYPED COPY. Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 04.10.2019.

¶76

Exhibit P7 THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LIE AND NATURE OF THE AREA, THE PARTIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SEA WALLS AND THE AREA NEARLY 300-400 MTRS HAVING NO PROTECTION WALLS.

¶77

Exhibit P8 THE COPY OF NEWS ITEMS AND DECLARATION OF THE STATE CHIEF MINISTER AS WELL AS THE MINISTRY OF PART AFFAIRS CAME IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY CAME ON 02.06.2021.

¶78

Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF TH NEWS PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 26.05.2021

¶79

Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PUBLISHED IN

¶80

WP(C) NO. 6330 OF 2021

¶81

¶82

THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 27.05.2021.

¶83

// True Copy // PA to Judge

Ashraf C.A. v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashraf C.A. v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.M.George Vs State of Kerala

Bindu a Joy Vs LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Mathunni E.I. Vs State of Kerala

Beaulah Grace Albert Vs Rose Jose

Dr. Amrutha K Sadasivan Vs National Medical Commission

Rds Project Ltd. Vs Central Public Works Department(Cpwd)