IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29572 of 2011(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ R.S. UNIITHAN, MUTHALAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KUMBAZHA. P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL, SMT.NIMA JACOB. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND WILD LIFE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 4. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-3. 5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SABARIMALA DEVASWOM, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-3. R1 BY ADV. MR.P. PARAMESHWARAN NAIR, ASST. S.G. OF INDIA. R4 & R5 BY ADV. MR.V.V. NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC, TDB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 29572 of 2011(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION SCHEDULE OF 1187 M.E. PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MAP OF VARIOUS STALLS AT SABARIMALA. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WPC 3460/2011 DATED 26-4-2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.29572 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioner says that he is a devotee of Lord Ayyappa and visits Sabarimala. By separate judgment today, we have dismissed the claim of a person in relation to a contract for elaneer stall, which is shop No.15 in the kuthaka schedule, which was shifted to Marakkoottam. The petitioner herein contends that the present proposal to have the elaneer sales at Marakkoottam will be adverse to the interests of the devotees and the environment and would contradict the earlier directions of this Court in Ext.P3 judgment. 2. For one thing, the petitioner has no commercial interest. The question is whether what he raised needs to be decided as a public interest issue by forking the distribution of elaneer from Marakkoottam. Provision for elaneer aside the trekking path from Pamba to Sannidhanam may be necessary. It is within the managerial wisdom of those concerned with immediate control of the process of pilgrimage that proper sites are found for distribution of elaneer through shops. In WP(C).No.29572/2011 2 their wisdom, the TDB officials shifted shop No.15 to Marakkoottam. That is not under challenge in this writ petition. The only question is the convenience or inconvenience that would be caused with the elaneer point at Marakkoottam. As of now, the auction of the said elaneer point has also been conducted. The distribution of elaneer from Marakkoottam has to be done in such a manner that it would not hinder the proper movement and regulated flow of the devotees in terms of the directions as may be issued by those who are in control of the location. 3. The next aspect is the impact on the environment and forest. This is governed by the directions given in paragraph 15 of Ext.P3. The Forest Department and the TDB will do the needful through the Eco Development Committee, or otherwise, to manage the issue of accumulation of husks. While the petitioner would have thought of filing this writ petition now, in the wake of a further elaneer point in Marakkoottam, if public interest really prompted it on the issue of non- removal of accumulated husks during the season, it could have thought of bringing it to the notice of the authorities earlier. The need to properly manage the waste including husks would be taken care of by the Forest authorities and the TDB authorities. Having regard to these factors, we do not find any contradiction to any direction contained in WP(C).No.29572/2011 3 Ext.P3, which is issued requiring managerial exercise by TDB authorities and the Forest authorities to ensure that the environment including forest is not put to peril and waste is properly managed. Having regard to the directions given above, that the elaneer point will not be a hindrance for the regulated flow of devotees, we do not find that any further directions are called for in this writ petition. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS/17.11