IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RP.No. 1136 of 2010(H) ----------------------------- WP(C) NO.34311/2009 DTD. 5.8.2010. .......... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 3RD RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------------- KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (A) DEPARTMENT, SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004 BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADVS. SRI.S.SUJIN SRI.NITAN.S. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1,2,4&5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. YASORAM INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD. "YASORAM", CONVENT ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682035, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS, PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, C.G.O.COMPLEX, ROOM NO.534, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003. 3. THE DIRECTOR (IA),MEMBER SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL COMMITTEE(NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS)& MEMBER SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL COMMITTEE(INFRASTRUCTURE &MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS &CRZ)MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS,ROOM NO.744 PARYAVARAN BHAVAN,CGO COMPLEX,LODHI RD,NEW DELHI-3 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE NATIONAL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS, ROOM NO. 744, PARAYAVARAN BHAVAN, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110 003. BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.P.M.M.NAJEEBKHAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.1136/2010 in WP(C).34311/2009 & I.A.17553/2010 in WP(C).34311/2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010. Order 1.Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the review petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-writ petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the State of Kerala and the learned Central Government Counsel on behalf of respondents 2, 3 and 5. 2.The third respondent in the writ petition, namely, Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, is the review petitioner. The judgment sought to be reviewed is issued directing that if the writ petitioner places the revised proposal in the prescribed format, the third respondent will consider that proposal and make its recommendations thereon and forward it to the RP1136/10 &I.A.17553/10 -: 2 :- competent authority in the Central Government. It was also stated that they would do so taking into consideration that all the other authorities have already cleared the project except as regards the question of the place of landing at one end of the bridge. 3.The review petitioner, the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, states that it did not have an opportunity to file counter affidavit and that the observations in the judgment sought to be reviewed would result in regulating the decision- making-process which it may have to undertake following the judgment. 4.It is beyond challenge that a decision of the nature that the State Coastal Zone Management Authority has to take, would necessarily involve many managerial and technical issues and when this Court said that it will be taken that the other authorities have granted clearance, all that is meant is that clearances of the RP1136/10 &I.A.17553/10 -: 3 :- authorities have to be taken as granted wherever clearance has been given. This does not mean that the review petitioner would be tied down to any particular opinion placed before it. 5.The submission of the learned Senior Government Pleader that the Government is also considering the question as to whether permission is to be granted to the writ petitioner and it involves a policy issue. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, that may be a matter of policy and it would not be a matter where the Court would speak on it. Under the aforesaid circumstances, all that is necessary for this Court is to clarify that the State Coastal Zone Management Authority, while deciding on the issue following the judgment sought to be reviewed, would consider all materials that are placed before it. However, would not be confined to any particular aspect reflected in the said judgment and would be free RP1136/10 &I.A.17553/10 -: 4 :- to consider all relevant facts, including the opinion of the Government. This, obviously, has to be done within the limits of its jurisdiction in terms of law. The submission on behalf of the writ petitioner that the review petitioner may decide the matter in a time bound manner is recorded. Though the authorities would notice this request of the writ petitioner, it is not feasible to fix a time limit by a judicial order since different aspects of the matter may have to be considered by the competent authority, as also the Government. The review petition and the interlocutory application are ordered with clarifications as aforesaid. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. Sha/2212