IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 OP.No. 19982 of 1995(S) ----------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- BAKEL SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHY, KASARKODE, REP. BY ITS CONVENOR, DR.D. SURENDRANATH, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT METHA NIVAS, PADIYOTTUCHAL P.O., (VIA) PAYYANNOOR - 670 307. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST, NEW DELHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP, BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, SECRETARIATE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DIRECTOR OF TOURISM(REQUISITION AUTHORITY), SECRETARIATE, TRIVANDRUM. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARGOD. 5. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA), KASARGOD. 6. SECRETARY, BOARD OF REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM. 7. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 8. M/S.N.M. SALIM AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PLANNERS, 6/315, Y.M.C.A CORSS ROAD, CALICUT - 673 001. OP No. 19982 OF 1995 ADDL. 9. BAEKL RESORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BAKEL. (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER ON CMP No. 3855/96 DATED 06.02.1996). R1 & R7 BY ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL, SRI.P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR. R2 TO R6 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER, SMT.K.MEERA. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.GEORGE C.P.THARAKAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP NO. 19982 OF 1995 ORDER ON CMP. NO. 36477/95 IN OP NO.1998/95 DISMISSED. SD/- S.R. BANNURMATH, CHIEF JUSTICE 09.09.09 SD/- A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.No. 19982 OF 1995 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Petitioner organisation viz, Bakel Samrakshana Samity, Kasaragode, claims that it has been constituted for the purpose of upholding the cause of local people who are against “lop-sided decision making process”. The organisation further claims that it wants to preserve the historically important areas and prevent ecological and environmental degradation. 2. Petitioner has filed this Original Petition way back in the year 1995 as a Public Interest Litigation alleging that the proposed project envisaged by the Union of India and the State Government to implement a thousand Crore tourism project in Kasaragode District would result in destruction of ecology and also historical importance of the Bakel area. The prayers in the Original Petition are extracted hereunder: “i. issue a writ certiorari to quash Exhibit P6, P7, O.P. No.19982 of 1995 -:2:- P8, P9, P11, P12, P16 and P20. ii. issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from the implementing the 1000 crore Bakel Tourism Project at Bakel, Kanhangad, Kasargod District except after conducting the Environment Impact Assessment, carrying capacity study and coastal Management Study. iii. issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents constitute an Expert Committee constituting veteran environmentalists, expert, scientists and technicians and humanists to look into the viability and feasibility of the Bakel Tourism Project.” 3. As mentioned by us earlier this Original Petition has been pending before this Court since 1995. Much water has flowed under the bridge thereafter. 4. When this Original Petition came up for consideration today, Smt.K.Meera, learned Senior Government Pleader has placed before us a communication received by her from the Government. The Government of India had declared Bakel as Special Tourism Area in 1992 and Bakel Tourism Authority was formed for the purpose of implementation of the above project. Later, Bakel Resort Development Corporation was established. O.P. No.19982 of 1995 -:3:- After preparing a master plan, the Company had proceeded to implement the scheme. As part of the scheme in the area the Company had acquired 220 acres of land for developing beach resorts of international standards. These resort sites have been developed by the Company. The communication will further reveal that while implementing the project, special care has been taken not to disturb the ecology or historical importance of the area in question. Adequate safeguards have been taken to preserve these vital components at appropriate places. 5. We do not propose to deal with each and every item of the several projects indicated under the Scheme at this stage, for the obvious reason that the Government appears to have made a major headway in implementation of the project in question since 1995. We have carefully perused the averments contained in the Original Petition and we have also perused the materials available on record. At this distance of time we do not find any reason to keep this Original Petition pending on the files of this Court, since O.P. No.19982 of 1995 -:4:- the project in question has taken shape to a considerable extent. More importantly, many of the apprehensions projected by the petitioner seem to be misconceived and baseless. Therefore, the Original Petition is closed. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. A.K. Basheer, Judge. ttb