IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 W.A.No.263 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN R.P.NO.9 OF 2008 IN W.P.(C).NO.29084/2007 DATED 09/01/2008. .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 &2 IN R.P./PETITIONERS IN W.P.(C):- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.THOMAS HOLIDAYS & RESORTS INDIA PVT. LTD., POOVAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 525, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHAJI THOMAS. 2. SHAJI THOMAS, S/O.M.K.THOMMAN, MANJANKAL HOUSE, KAKKANADU LANE, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. BY ADV. SRI.S.JAMES VINCENT RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NO.3 & PETITIONER IN R.P./ RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C):- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY & DIRECTOR, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. 2. THE KULATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, UCHAKKADA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY ASST.S.G. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR R2 BY ADV.SRI.JAJU BABU. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu,C.J. & K.M.Joseph,J. --------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.263 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 29th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT K.M.Joseph,J. Writ petitioners are the appellants. They call in question the order passed by the learned Single Judge in R.P.No.9 of 2008 dated 9.1.2008. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition - W.P.(C) No.29084 of 2007 - by judgment dated 5th October, 2007, directing the Panchayat to take up Exhibit P7, consider the same in the light of Exhibit P6 as well as the judgment of the apex Court in Susetha v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006 AIR SCW 4026), ensure that the proposed construction at the location shown in Exhibit P2 does not offend Exhibit P6 and pass final orders on Exhibit P7. (2) Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the Panchayat has filed the Review Petition. Taking note of the objection of the Panchayat, the learned Single Judge clarified that he had given direction in the judgment in the writ petition to take up Exhibit P7 and decide the same taking into consideration Exhibit P6 as well as the judgment of the apex Court. The learned Single Judge further clarified that it is open to the Panchayat to have a correct interpretation of Exhibit P6 by taking decision on Exhibit P7. Such exercise was directed to be completed within two weeks from the date of that order. (3) We heard Sri.S.James Vincent, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.Jaju Babu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Panchayat. (4) Sri.James Vincent, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, draws our attention to the decision of the apex Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.5038 of 2002 and would submit that the W.A.No.263 of 2008 - 2 - interpretation of Exhibit P6 cannot prohibit construction of bridges across canals within the appellants' campus and in the light of the decision of the apex Court and Exhibit P6 clearance, which has been granted by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India, there cannot be any objection to the grant of permission as sought for in Exhibit P7 for construction of bridge. (5) Sri.Jaju Babu, learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat points out that in Exhibit P6 there is no mention of any bridge as such. (6) We would think, having regard to the prayer made by the petitioners, which was to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P7, which is an application filed by the appellants/petitioners to grant permission for construction of a bridge across a canal, the proper relief that was to be granted was to direct the Panchayat to consider Exhibit P7 in accordance with law. In such circumstances, modifying the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we only direct the 2nd respondent-Panchayat to take up Exhibit P7 and take a decision thereon in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants as well within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as indicated above. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice K.M.Joseph Judge vku/-