IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 22652 of 2011(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ QUILON EDUCATIONAL TRUST, REGD NO.256/2010, REPRESENTED BY IS CHAIRPERSON, NOWFAL, PATTATHIL, AYATHIL, KOLLAM-691 017. BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN, SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR, SRI.K.JAGADEESH. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 2. ADICHANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, OFFICE OF THE ADICHANALLOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ADICHANALLOR- 691 573. 3. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS, UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110 003. *ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED: R4. SRI.ODANAVATTOM VIJAYAPRAKASH, GENERAL CONVENOR, PARISTHITHI SAMRAKSHANA, EKOPANA SAMITHY, KOLAM. (*ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 22/09/2011 IN I.A.NO.14913/2011) R1 BY ADV. SRI. S. RAMESH, SC R2 BY ADVS. SRI.M.V. THAMBAN, SRI.R.REJI, SMT. THARA THAMBAN, SRI.B.BIPIN, SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR. R3 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA ADDL.R4 BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.22652/2011 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 25/03/2011. P2: COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DTD. 07/04/2011. P3: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE EXPERT COMMITTEE ON CONSTRUCTION OF ENGINEERING COLLEGE BY QUILON EDUCATIONAL TRUST:CRZ VIOLATIONS, DTD. NIL. P4: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DTD. 20/06/1996. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.S.O.1758(E) DTD. 21ST JULY, 2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: R3(A): COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 07/11/2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 22652 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a trust which is proposing to set up an Engineering College in its property in Sy.No.90 to 98 in Block No.29 of Adichanalloor Village of Kollam Taluk. It appears that when the construction activity started, the additional 4th respondent filed a complaint before the first respondent on the basis of which Ext.P1 order was issued. The relevant portion of Ext.P1 order is extracted as under: “Now therefore in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of Environmental (Protection) Act 1986 and rule 4 of the said Act the following directions are issued. 1. Shri. Nowfal, the Chairman, Quilon Educational Trust shall immediately stop all construction activities in the CRZ areas on the banks of Ithikara River and will not undertake any activity prohibited W.P.(C) No. 22652 OF 2011 :2 : undecided the CRZ Notification in the said area; 2. The Chairman, Quilon Educational Trust shall, within 15 days of the receipt of this letter, provide an explanation to the Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority the reasons for undertaking the construction in the CRZ area without obtaining the necessary clearance and why further action should not be taken as per the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986. In case the above directions are not complied with, the Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority will be constrained to initiate appropriate action as per the provisions in the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 without any reference.” W.P.(C) No. 22652 OF 2011 :3 : 2. Though the petitioner filed Ext.P2 objection to Ext.P1, on account of the fact that the term of the first respondent expired on 20.7.2011 and that it has not been reconstituted, the prohibitory order still remains in force. It is in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Ext.P1, and for orders enabling the petitioner to continue the construction activities. 3. Taking note of the complaint of the petitioner that re-constitution of the first respondent is getting inordinately delayed, this court passed order dated 20.8.11 directing the 3rd respondent to file an affidavit explaining the steps that have been initiated for the re-constitution of the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent has filed an affidavit explaining the steps that have been initiated for the re- constitution of the first respondent and also produced OM W.P.(C) No. 22652 OF 2011 :4 : dated 7th November, 2008 which interailia provides as under: “In case, the Authority/State Government delays in sending the recommendations on the projects within the stipulated time of 30 days, the project proponent shall be free to submit the proposal directly to the Ministry. The proposal shall be placed before the Expert Appraisal Committee for Infrastructure Development and Miscellaneous Projects (EAC) for its consideration in which the Member Secretary of the concerned Coastal Zone Management Authority or Director, Environment Department of the concerned State shall be directed to be present before the Expert Appraisal Committee with all requisite information pertaining to the project. W.P.(C) No. 22652 OF 2011 :5 : Thereafter, the Expert Appraisal Committee based on the information provided will give its recommendations to the Ministry for taking a decision.” 4. Referring to the above provision of the OM, it is pointed out that in view of the stalemate that is prevailing, it is open to the petitioner to approach the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent will place the matter before the Expert Appraisal Committee For Infrastructure Development and Miscellaneous Projects. 5. Now that the aforesaid course is open to the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to take advantage of the same. Therefore I dispose of the writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to take up the matter with the 3rd respondent who thereupon shall place the matter before the National Coastal Zone Management Authority as W.P.(C) No. 22652 OF 2011 :6 : provided in the O.M. noticed above. It is also directed that a decision on the continuance or otherwise of Ext.P1 shall be taken as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks of the receipt of the objection from the petitioner and orders shall be passed after hearing all the parties concerned. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge