IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19432 of 2010(S) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- ASSOCIATION FOR ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PROF.S.SEETHARAMAN, HIGH ROAD, ALUVA-683 104, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR SICIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695004, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 2. THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, (SF), MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPPALLY PO, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 024, KERALA. 3. KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., T.C.XI/266, KESTON ROAD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN-682020. WP(C).No. 19432 of 2010(S) 2 ADDL. 5. INKEL-KSIDC PROJECTS LTD., INKEL CENTRE, SEA-PORT AIRPORT ROAD, THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI-682 021. ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED VIDCE ORDER DT.3.8,2010 IN IA.9677/10. ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SMT.MARIAM MATHAI FOR R3 SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR R3 SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR ADDL R5 SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR ADDL.R5 SMT.MARIAM MATHAI FOR ADDL.R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JAMES MATHEW KADAVAN FOR R2 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19432 of 2010(S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, FOREST AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, G.O(Rt). NO.68/2010/F&WLD, DATED 10TH FEBRUARY, 2010. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF LETTER SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE CHAIRPERSON, ANGAMALY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DATED 28.4.2010 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF ORDER NO.E3-861/2010, DATED 16.6.2010 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.6.2010 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF LETTER SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY ON 27.10.2010 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R2(a): COPY OF REQUEST LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R2(b): COPY OF REQUEST LETTER SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 5.3.2010. EXHIBIT R2(c): COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.E3-861/10 DATED 2.4.10. EXHIBIT R2(d): COPY OF MINUTES OF OTHE COMMITTEE DATED 3.6.10. EXHIBIT R3(a): COPY OF ORDER DATED 9.9.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. WP(C).No. 19432 of 2010(S) 2 EXHIBIT R5(a): COPY OF ORDER DATED 9.9.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R5(b): LAYOUT PLAN SHOWING THE 30 ACRES OF LAND ASSIGNED TO KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, AND SUBSEQUENTLY LEASED OUT TO 5TH RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.19432 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. The Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent accepting the proposal to cut 299 trees and 265 bamboo herd from the land originally belonged to the TELK now reassigned to KSIDC. According to the petitioner, this is totally ignoring the opinion of the third party expert. It is also contended that the principle of sustainable development is totally ignored under the guise of developmental activities of the third respondent and therefore, the Court has to interfere in the said order quashing Exhibit P3. 2. In pursuance of the direction of this Court, the Manager (Legal) of KSIDC and the 5th respondent filed an affidavit. Along with the affidavit a rough sketch of the lay out is placed on record. As we note from the submissions of the learned counsel and the affidavit, out of the land acquired for TELK, about 52 acres came to be reassigned to KSIDC. About 30 acres from this land is leased out to the 5th respondent for the purpose of developing the same as an industrial estate. So far as rest of the 22 acres, it is with the KSIDC and they are also developing the same. WP(C).19432/10 2 3. The allegation is that while forming the lay out of industrial estate, the trees which are in existence, numbering 299, had to be cut and the committee concerned has already taken a decision on the recommendation and the acceptance is also there. From the affidavit of respondents 3 and 5, we note that in the place of the trees which are proposed to be cut now, they would plant trees, so also the bamboo herd. The permission at the time of allotment was subject to a specific condition that a number of trees must be planted along the boundary of the plots allotted and so also on both the sides of the approach road from National Highway-47 to the land of the third respondent except at the boundary pertaining to the TELK. We also note from the counter affidavit placed on record that subsequent to development of a portion of the property, instead of leaving the area undeveloped, certain trees came to be planted by TELK and those trees are coming in the way of planned development of the industrial estate. As an industrial estate has to be formed, industrial sites cannot be allotted to the prospective allottees haphazardly. Unless the respondents are permitted to remove these trees there will not be a properly planned development of the area as an industrial estate. 4. As already precaution and safeguard being undertaken from the allottees that all along the boundaries of the site the planting of trees would be undertaken apart from the two sides of the approach WP(C).19432/10 3 road from the National Highway-47, we find that there will not be any damage to the surroundings. The ecology will be maintained with this proposition of planting trees all around the boundary of the proposed sites and also on either side of the approach road to National Highway- 47. It is pertinent to mention that the proposal of industrial area is only for non-polluting industries like I.T, logistics etc. In that view of the matter, we find that the ecology will be maintained in surrounding area. With the above observations, noting the undertaking of the third and fifth respondents that they would abide by the terms of allotment by planting necessary trees, we dispose of the Writ Petition. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs