Dismissed

Jana Smparka Samithy v. Union of India

Kerala HC13 Jan 2021WP(C)/7495/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking demolition of resort and hotel structures in Kumarakom. The Court accepted the respondents' submission that the area was excluded from CRZ regulations by the approved State Coastal Zone Management Plan due to the presence of a barrage preventing tidal influence.

What did the court decide?

The Court dismissed the writ petition and closed pending interlocutory applications.

Jana Smparka Samithy Vs Union of India — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942

¶7

WP(C).No.7495 OF 2012(S)

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

JANA SMPARKA SAMITHY,

¶10

REG.NO.ER 431/2011, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, SASIKUMAR PALAKKALAM, ITHITHANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 535.

¶11

BY ADVS.SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF

¶12

SRI.JOBI A.THAMPI SMT.MOLLY JACOB SMT.RABIA BEEGAM T.K.

¶13

RESPONDENTS/S:

¶14

1 UNION OF INDIA

¶15

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF FOREST & ENVIRONMENT, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶16

2 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

¶17

3 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, KERALA, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM -695 001.

¶18

4 THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶19

5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶20

6 THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH PANCHAYATH BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶21

7 THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM-685 001.

¶22

8 THE KUMARAKOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH

¶23

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KUMARAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 563.

¶24

W.P.(C)No.7495 of 2012

¶25

¶26

9 WATER SCAPES (KTDC BACKWATER RESORTS) KUMARAKOM NORTH P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 566.

¶27

10 PARADISE RESORTS, KUMARAKOM SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 563.

¶28

11 ILLICKALAM LAKE RESORTS KUMARAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 563.

¶29

12 THE ZOORI KUMARAKOM KERALA RESORTS & SPA, V-235, A1 TO A54, KAROTTU KAYAL, KUMARAKOM P.O.- 686 563.

¶30

13 ABAD WHISPERING PALMS NEAR NAZRETH ROAD, KUMARAKOM, PIN-686 563.

¶31

14 THE BACKWATER RIPPLES (P) LTD. (BACKWATER RESORTS), BLOCK NO.12,S.NO.175/5, KUMARAKOM SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 563.

¶32

15 COCOBAY RESORTS, KUMARAKOM, PIN-686 563.

¶33

16 KODIYANTHARA RESORTS KODIYANTHRA, KUMARAKOM, PIN-686 563.

¶34

17 COCONUT LAGOON, KUMARAKOM, PIN-686 563.

¶35

18 KUMARAKOM LAKE RESORTS, KUMARAKOM NORTH P.O.-686 566.

¶36

19 LAKE ZONE KUMARAKOM AMMENKARI ROAD, KUMARAKOM -686 563.

¶37

20 GOLD FIELD LAKE RESORTS BLOCK NO.12, NEAR NAZARETH CHURCH, KUMARAKOM SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 563.

¶38

21 EDASSERY KAYAL RESORTS

¶39

WARD NO.9, BLOCK NO.12, NEAR NAZRETH CHURCH, KUMARAKOM, PIN-686 563.

¶40

22 ALUMPARAMBIL HOMES & HOTEL PVT.LTD. KUMARAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 563.

¶41

23 ALEX RESORTS & HOTEL (P) LTD. KUMARAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 563.

¶42

W.P.(C)No.7495 of 2012

¶43

¶44

24 TAJ GARDEN RETREAT PVT.LTD. KUMARAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 563.

¶45

25 EDASSERY ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD. KUMARAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 563.

¶46

26 AVEDA RESORTS & SPA PVT.LTD. KUMARAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 563.

¶47

27 LAGOONA RESORTS, KUMARAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 563.

¶48

R11, R13 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB R17 BY ADV. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS R21 BY ADV. SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR R18 BY ADV. SMT.MARIAM MATHAI R1 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA R2-3, R5-7 BY SR. GP SRI.V.TEKCHAND R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.PRAKASH,SC R8 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI (SR.) R9 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMED,SC FOR KTDC LTD. R10, R12 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR R14, R26 BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE R15, R22 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) R21 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN R23 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI R25 BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN

¶49

R1 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW R1 BY ADV. SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMEDSC FOR KTDC LTD. R1 BY ADV. SRI.TERRY V.JAMES R10 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAGADEESH R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH

¶50

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶51

W.P.(C)No.7495 of 2012

¶52

¶53

JUDGMENT

¶54

Dated this the 13^th day of January, 2021

¶55

S.Manikumar, C.J.

¶56

Petitioner is a registered charitable society, which is seriously concerned about the welfare of the people, the protection of ecology and environment. Respondents 9 to 27 are hotels, resorts and establishments with permanent and pucca structures. Petitioner has contended that all the constructions are in violation of the Coastal Zone Regulation notified by the Union of India, 1^st respondent, vide Exhibits.P2 and P3. Kumarakom Grama Panchayat, 8^th Respondent, has permitted indiscriminate construction in violation of Kerala Municipality Building Rules as well. The respondents 1 to 8 have not taken any action against respondents 9 to 27 even if they are duty bound to monitor the implementation of CRZ Notifications and other laws in force. The illegal constructions are made influencing the officials of the revenue, Panchayath and police departments. Petitioner therefore seeks necessary and appropriate writ or orders to safeguard the life of the people dwelling on the banks of the Vembanad lake and the fishermen folks who are eking their livelihood by fishing operation or else, the entire eco system and environment in the area will be totally destroyed and polluted.

¶57

W.P.(C)No.7495 of 2012

¶58

¶59

Instant writ petition is filed seeking to declare that the construction of permanent structures for the resorts, hotels and other establishments made by respondents 9 to 27 are illegal and liable to be demolished and removed. A direction to respondents 1 to 8 is also sought for demolishing the construction, which according to the petitioner are made in violation of Coastal regulation Zone Notifications and Kerala Municipality Building Rules and other laws. Incidental directions are also sought for.

¶60

Respondent No.21 (Edassery Kayal Resorts) has filed a counter

¶61

affidavit dated 8.8.2012 contending that there is no violation of the Kerala Building Rules. Relevant portions of the same are extracted:

¶62

“3. The Government of India has issued Exhibit.P1 notification on 19^th February, 1991, popularly called as “CRZ Notification”. The notification puts restrictions on the setting up and expansion of industries, operations and process, etc in the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ). The water bodies affected by tidal effect which has got a salinisation of 5 (five) ppt are affected by it. The notofication contemplates that High Tide Line is to be demarcated uniformly in all parts of the country by the demarcating authority in accordance with the general guidelines. The distance wherein activities are prohibited are 500 metres in the landward side from the high tide line. In case of backwaters the distance is 100 metres or width of the river whichever is less. The CRZ areas are classified into four categories, CRZ-I, CRZ-II, CRZ-III and CRZ-IV.

¶63

W.P.(C)No.7495 of 2012

¶64

¶65

As per Cause (3)(i) of the CRZ Notification every State has to prepare the Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) identifying and classifying CRZ areas within their territory. It is respectfully submitted that this is very much essential to identify and locate the CRZ area within their respective areas. In accordance with the notification the Government of Kerala as per G.O.M.S.No.92/94/STED, dated 5^th August, 1994 has approached the Centre For Earth Science Studies (CESS) to prepare the Coastal Zone Management Plan Maps for Kerala. The main objective of the work is to identify the Coastal Regulation Zones with its boundaries and categories as contemplated by the notification.

¶66

In accordance with the notification the CESS has prepared the CZMP's for Kerala. The landward extent of tidal influx in the backwaters or rivers are decided by the measure of salinity, which is an indicator of tidal effect. The CESS while preparing the CZMP has found that if 500 metres norm is adopted, vast stretches of land in Kerala will have to be brought under the CRZ. This will cause difficulty in implementing the regulation on two accounts, viz, (i) these areas are thickly populated with a population density per square kilometer of 2097 in rural areas and 4228 in urban areas: (ii) with about 25% of the state's population living in this coastal stretch, the effective area available for the developmental activities may not be in proportion to the population. Hence declaring several kilometers stretch as regulation will prevent developmental activities, which are crucial for the upliftment of the coastal population. Moreover, the backwater is not prone to erosion problem, unlike the sea coast of Kerala. Hence a lesser regulation zone is proposed for the water bodies, i.e., a

¶67

W.P.(C)No.7495 of 2012

¶68

¶69

regulation not less than 50 metres or the width of the creek, backwater or river, whichever is less from the land-water boundary. The Kuttanad area, though lying below the main sea level, is protected from tidal effects (salt water influx) by the Thannermukkom barrage and Thottappaly spillway in the north and the south respectively. Hence it is excluded from the purview of the notification. The above facts were noticed in the Coastal Zone Management Plan of Kerala.

¶70

Therefore the Kumarakorn areas which are lying in the Kuttanad area are not included within the said CZMP. The entire Kuttanad backwaters are not included in the CZMP for the reason that there is a barrage which restricts the flow of saline water to the Kuttanad area. The entire area of Kumarakom Panchayat falls within the said exempted category. The land in the banks are not CRZ areas. Thus none of the areas on the backwaters of Kumarakom lake falls within the CRZ Notification.

¶71

The CZMP of Kerala was considered by the Task Force of the 1^st respondent constituted for approval of the same in its meeting held on 19^th and 20^th June, 1996. Thereafter it was approved and its approval was communicated as per Letter No. J- 17011/23/92-IA-III, dated 27^th September, 1996. A true copy of the said Letter No. J-17011/23/92-IA-III, dated 27^th September, 1996 issued by the 1st respondent to the 2^nd respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R21 (A).

¶72

It is respectfully submitted that the CZMP's were prepared by the 2^nd respondent and other states in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a public interest litigation. Supreme Court of India, while rendering the judgment on 18^th April, 1996 has directed the States to prepare the CZMP's within a time frame and it has be

¶73

W.P.(C)No.7495 of 2012

¶74

¶75

finalized. The said judgment is reported as Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs Union of India, 1996 (5) SCC 281. The Court also made it clear that once the 1^st respondent finalises the CZMP's the decision thereon shad be 'final and binding".

¶76

As per CRZ Notification, (Ext.P2), Clause 3 (ii) within the frame work of the said approved plans, all development and activities shall be regulated by the State Government or the local authority. Since the approved CZMP of Kerala has not included Kumarakom area within the frame work, Exhibit.P2, notification will not be applicable to the lands where this respondent has constructed the resorts. Thus there is no violation of Exhibit.P2 notification and the constructions made by this respondent are in accordance with law.

¶77

The averment about the violation of Exhibit.P2 notification is also not valid. Exhibit.P2 notification is dated 6^th January, 2011. Since this respondent has constructed the buildings and completed in accordance with the then prevailing law, Exhibit.P2 notification will not be applicable.

¶78

It is respectfully submitted that there is no violation of Kerala Building Rules. The buildings are constructed by this respondent in accordance with law. The buildings are not constructed in violation of the CRZ notification as alleged by the petitioner. The resorts are constructed in en eco friendly manner in accordance with law then existing. These constructions are not harmful to the ecology and environment.”

¶79

A counter affidavit dated 16.1.2013 has been filed by Kumarakom Grama Panchayat (respondent No.8). Relevant portions of the same are extracted:

¶80

W.P.(C)No.7495 of 2012

¶81

¶82

“8. The hotels and resorts of the Respondents 9 to 27 are located on the banks of the Vambanad Lake. As a matter of fact a massive bund, named as "Thaneermukkam bund", which has a length of about 1252 meters and width of 7.56 meters has been constructed across the Vembanad Lake so as to arrest the tidal action as well as to prevent the salt water entering into Kuttanad region. 93 shutters having a width of 12.2 meters have erected to regulate the entry of water.

¶83

In the result, the water body on the southern side of the bund is comprised of fresh water and that part is artificially rendered uninfluenced by tidal action. Demonstrably due to the above reason the panchayath did not consider the banks of Vembanad lake on the southern side of Thaneermukkam Bund as the coastal stretch, which comes within the purview of Coastal Regulation Zone Notification. This was precisely the reason why the distance restriction from the Vembanad Lake in respect of the construction made by the respondent 9 to 27 was not taken into account while numbering the buildings of the respondents 9-27. A statement prepared by the Secretary of the Panchayath showing the lie and location of the hotels and cottage buildings of the respondents 9 to 27 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R8(a).

¶84

It is evident from Exhibit-R8 (a) that the buildings in question were constructed at a time when Kerala Municipality Building Rules were not applicable in the Panchayath area. Therefore, there was no requirement for any building permits in terms of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules the panchayath had no occasion to consider the pre-requisites for the same. The Panchayath has numbered the buildings and building tax

¶85

W.P.(C)No.7495 of 2012

¶86

¶87

assessed in accordance with law. The Panchayath had no occasion to verify the other details with regard to the contentions as raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition.”

¶88

Respondent No.21 in their counter affidavit has explained as to how the constructions were permitted and building numbers assigned. That apart, Kumarakom Grama Panchayat, respondent No.8, has also averred that the buildings in question were constructed at a time when Kerala Municipality Building Rules were not applicable to the Panchayat area.

¶89

Ext.R21(A) dated 27.9.1996 issued to the Chief Secretary,

¶90

Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram by the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Forest and Environment is extracted:

¶91

“APPROVED KERALA STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PLAN

¶92

-------------------------No.J-17011/23/92-IA-111 Government of India Ministry of Environment & Forests I.A. Division Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003 Dated 27th September, 1996

¶93

¶94

The Chief Secretary Govt. of Kerala Thiruvananthapuram KERALA

¶95

W.P.(C)No.7495 of 2012

¶96

¶97

Subject:-Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) of Kerala Sir,

¶98

The Coastal Zone-Management Plan of Govt. of Kerala submitted vide letter No. 221/B1/94/STED dated 29-1-96 has been examined.

¶99

I am directed to convey its approval in accordance with the powers vested in Central Government under Section 3 (3) (i) of CRZ Notification, 1991, subject to incorporating the following conditions/modifications:—

¶100

A. General Conditions :—

¶101

(i) All the relevant provisions of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 1991 as amended in 1994, (after incorporating the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgement dated 18.4.1996) shall be strictly incorporated in the CZMP.

¶102

(ii) No activity that has been declared as prohibited under Section 2 of CRZ Notification, 1991 shall be carried out within the Coastal Regulation Zone.

¶103

(iii) The permissible activities shall be regulated in accordance with Section 3 and follow the norms for regulation as indicated in Section 6 (2) of CRZ Notification, 1991 as amended in 1994.

¶104

(iv) The classification of Coastal Regulation Zone shall be in accordance with Annexure-I, Section 6 (1). For development of Beach Resorts/Hotels in the designated areas of CRZ-III, the guidelines indicated under Annexure-II shall be followed.

¶105

(v) In addition to the information already available with Government of Kerala, all ecologically important and sensitive areas shall be demarcated on the basis of the following sources of information and be classified as CRZ-I.

¶106

(a) National Parks, Sanctuaries and Marine Parks — Information

¶107

W.P.(C)No.7495 of 2012

¶108

¶109

published/available with Ministry of Environment & Forests (MOEF).

¶110

(b) All reserve forests and protected Forests — As marked in the Forest Atlas updated through Biennel Forest Report Status published by Forest Survey of India (scale 1:50,000).

¶111

(c) Mangroves, Mudflats, Coral reefs/Corals — Maps prepared on the basis of Satellite Imagery in the scale of 1 : 25,000 by Space Application Centre, Ahmedabad and the information as published by MOEF.

¶112

(d) Breeding grounds for turtles, horse shoe crabs — Wildlife Institute, Dehradun.

¶113

(e) Historical and Heritage sites — As listed with Archaeological Survey of India, State Departments of Archaeology, Culture and Tourism in addition to the sites, if any, mentioned under specific conditions of this letter.

¶114

(f) Areas rich in genetic diversity — Information published/available with the MOEF.

¶115

(g) Areas of outstanding natural beauty — State Government of Kerala to decide keeping in view the generally recognised perception regarding such areas.

¶116

(h) Sea level rise due to global warming — National Institute of Oceanography, Goa.

¶117

In case requisite information is not available from the sources mentioned above, information obtained from other sources may be used after approval of MOEF.

¶118

(vi) On the basis of further studies or in the event of any additional such information brought to the notice of State/Central Government all areas that are ecologically sensitive and important (as per CRZ Notification) shall be classified as CRZ-I by the Government of Kerala with the prior approval of MOEF.

¶119

W.P.(C)No.7495 of 2012

¶120

¶121

(vii) The State Governments which have prepared maps on 1:25,000 scale through Satellite Imagery for the purpose of delineating the HTL, should submit these maps to the Chief Hydrographer, Govt. of India for the purpose of demarcation. Those State Governments which were not in a position to prepare the maps in this manner, should submit them to the Chief Hydrographer, Govt. of India for the purpose of vetting. It is advisable that whenever there is any doubt, any development activity should only be permitted after ground measurements from the HTL taking into consideration marks left by water, presence of mangroves, mudflats and beach.

¶122

(viii) The Government of Kerala shall delineate LTL, HTL, 200 metres, 500 metres lines and other relevant lines in respect of creeks, backwaters and rivers affected by tidal action so that distances can be measured, whenever required.

¶123

(ix) All uninhabited islands are being classified as CRZ-I (subject to continuation of existing traditional rights, social rights and customary uses) except those islands which have been ,approved by MOEF as CRZ-IV. In case of uninhabited islands classified as CRZ-I, in exceptional cases should a carrying Capacity Study establish that the proposed development will not have adverse ecological impacts, those particular islands could be reclassified as CRZ-IV, subject to prior approval of Ministry of Environment & Forests.

¶124

(x) Government of Kerala shall ensure that all development and activities in CRZ areas take place within the frarmework of the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan. Violation shall be subject to the provisions of Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and other relevant laws.

¶125

(xi) Government of Kerala or any other Authority so designated

¶126

W.P.(C)No.7495 of 2012

¶127

¶128

shall be responsible for monitoring and enforcement of the provisions of CRZ Notifications and CZMP.

¶129

(xii) Approval of this CZMP would not imply approval of any proposed project such as roads, airports, jetties, ports and harbours, buildings etc., indicated in the plan/map.

¶130

(xiii) All mangroves with an area of 1000 square metres or more would be classified as CRZ-I with a buffer Zone of at least 50 metres.

¶131

(xiv) Dredged material will not be disposed within the CRZ area. (xv) Sand dunes will be classified as CRZ-I.

¶132

(xvi) Parks, Play grounds, regional parks, green zones and other non-buildable areas falling within CRZ-II areas are categorised as CRZ-III.

¶133

(xvii) Government of Kerala will not make any changes in the approved categorisation of CRZ areas without prior approval of Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India.

¶134

(xviii) Government of Kerala will give wide publicity to CZMP and indicate the list of places where it is available/can be inspected.

¶135

B. Special Conditions/Modifications/Classifications:

¶136

(i) Details requested for determining various areas proposed for CRZ-II categorisation, namely Kasaragod, Kanhangad, Payyannur, Kannuar, Tellicherry, Badagara, Kozhikode, Tirur, Ponnani, Chavakkad, Kodungallur, Cochin, Parur, Tripunithura, Alappuzha, Kayamkulam, Cherthala, Kollam, Paravur, Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram, Vaikkam have not been furnished by the Government of Kerala. In view of this, it is decided that a Committee may be set up under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary with at least two NGOs as Members to identify and demarcate CRZ-II areas within the proposed CRZ-II areas. For the purpose of determining whether an area is substantially built-

¶137

W.P.(C)No.7495 of 2012

¶138

¶139

up, the ratio of built-up plots to that of total plots is to be ascertained. Where this ratio is 50 per cent or more, such areas (built-up and buildable) are to be classified as CRZ-II provided the same conforms to the criteria of CRZ-II as per CRZ Notification. The remaining areas will be classified as CRZ-I or III as applicable. A copy of the final categorisation of CRZ-II. so made will be set to this Ministry for record.

¶140

(ii) All areas of outstanding natural beauty/historical/heritage areas mentioned in the plan namely Puvar south, PulinkudiKovalam, Sankumugham, Veli, Papanasam-Varkala, Edava, Kappil, Pozhikkara, Mundakkal (Jonnapuram), Thirumullavaram, Palliyamturuth, Alappuzha, Fort Kochi, Cherai, Bekal, Kottikulam, Vettukad, Papanasam, Pozhilckara-Paravur, Neendakara, Arthungal, Kottukal, Anjengo fort, Thangasseri, Karunagapally, Ambalapuzha, Vaikom, Mattancheri, Chennamangalam, Parur, Chemanchery-Quilandy, Bekal will be marked as CRZ-I after identifying spatial extent of these areas, even if these areas are surrounded by CRZ-II or CRZ-III areas.

¶141

(iii) The distance from High Tide Line to which the CRZ regulations will apply in case of rivers, creeks and backwaters shall be kept as 100m (not 50m as proposed) or width of the rivers, creeks or backwaters whichever is less. (iv) The existing discrepancies in the plan i.e. between the running notes, the tables and the map will be rectified.

¶142

The plan submitted by Govt. of Kerala vide Chief Secretary's D.O. letter No.221/B1/94/ STED dated 29th January, 1996 is not in conformity with the conditions indicated above. These modifications may be made and the modified plan and maps should be sent to this Ministry, within a period of two months, for record.

¶143

W.P.(C)No.7495 of 2012

¶144

¶145

Yours faithfully,

¶146

(S.K. Mathur) Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India”

¶147

The above facts are not controverted.

¶148

Accepting the explanation offered in the counter affidavits of

¶149

respondents 8 and 21, we are of the view that the petitioner has not

¶150

made out a case, for issuing any directions, as prayed for. Writ petition

¶151

fails and accordingly dismissed.

¶152

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶153

Sd/-

¶154

S.Manikumar Chief Justice

¶155

Sd/-

¶156

Shaji P.Chaly Judge

¶157

vpv

¶158

W.P.(C)No.7495 of 2012

¶159

¶160

APPENDIX

¶161

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶162

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF PETITIONER SAMITHY WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶163

EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COASTAL REGULATION ZONE NOTIFICATION OF 1991 DATED 19.02.1991 (AS AMENDED UPTO 25.01.2005.

¶164

EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REVISED COASTAL REGULATION ZONE NOTIFICATION DATED 06.01.2011.

¶165

EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.01.2012 SENT BY THE PETITIONER SAMITHY TO RESPONDENTS 1 TO 8.

¶166

EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 7.1.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶167

EXT.P6: COPY OF REPLY TO EXHIBIT.P5 APPLICATION RECEIVED FROM THE 8TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶168

EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 17.7.1996 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶169

EXT.P8: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17.6.2006 FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

¶170

EXT.P9: COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH ORISSA HIGH COURT IN SANJU PANDAY (ADVOCATE) VS. STATE OF ORISSA & OTEHRS.

¶171

EXT.P10: COPY OF THE REMINDER OF EXT.P4 BY E-MAIL DATED 15.3.2012 SENT BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY.

¶172

W.P.(C)No.7495 of 2012

¶173

¶174

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶175

EXT.R8(A): TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PANCHAYATH SHOWING THE LIE AND LOCATION OF THE HOTELS AND COTTAGE BUILDINGS OF THE RESPONDENTS 9 TO 27. EXT.R21(A): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.J17011/23/92-IA-III, DATED 27TH SEPTEMBER, 1996 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶176

/TRUE COPY/

¶177

P.A. TO JUDGE

Jana Smparka Samithy v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jana Smparka Samithy v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.P.Swayam Prabha Vs Payyanur Municipality

The Central Board of Secondary Education Vs Govind T

Punchakkary G. Raveendran Nair Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Anoop Aniyankunju

T.M. Sivan Vs State of Kerala

Elamkunnapuzha Panchayath Apex Council of Residents Association(Eara) Vs Union of India