High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2015-01-30Writ petitions dismissed.

Abdulla Kunhamu v. The District Collector Kasaragod and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 27136 of 2014 (S)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Ashok Bhushan
A. M. Shaffique
Judgment Date: 2015-01-30
Court Decision / Holding: The petitions are dismissed. There is no demonstrated illegality in granting environmental clearance or in the Harbour project; the court found no basis to interfere with regulatory compliance under the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 or CRZ norms.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdulla Kunhamu

Respondents

The District Collector, Kasaragod
State of Kerala
The Executive Engineer, Kasaragod Division Harbour Engineering Clock Tower Junction, Near Railway Station, Kasaragod
Chandragiri-Keezhur Kadappuram Poozhi Thozhilali Co-operative Society Ltd., Keezhur Kadappuram, Chandragiri, Kasaragod
Chandragiri Grama Panchayat, Chandragiri
Divisional Manager, Southern Railway, Palakkad Division, Olavakkode
The Chamnad Grama Panchayat, Chamnad, Kasaragod

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri M. Sasindran
• Sri V. Venugopal

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Girija Gopal
• Sri A. Balagopalan
• Sri M. S. Imthiyaz Ahammed
• Sri C. S. Dias, SC, Railways

Case Synopsis & Summary

These writ petitions were filed as public interest litigation challenging dredging and removal of sand from the confluence area of the Chandragiri river and the Arabian Sea near Kasaragod. The petitioners alleged that extensive mining and mining-related activities were undertaken without obtaining environmental clearance as required under the Environmental Protection Act, 1986, and without compliance with CRZ norms. The Government of India had granted environmental clearance for the construction of a Fishing Harbour at Kasaragod by the Harbour Engineering Department, subject to conditions and an environmental management plan. The petitioners contended that excavated sand was being sold in an unauthorised manner and that regulatory procedures were not followed. A counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents, including a copy of the environmental clearance dated 14 July 2006 issued under the CRZ Notification, 1991, was filed. The court noted that the clearance was granted with protective conditions and that the environmental management plan had to be implemented. It observed that the petitioners did not plead concrete facts to show illegality or non-compliance, and that there was no demonstrated illegal action requiring judicial intervention. The court also referred to Deepak Kumar v State of Haryana (2012) 4 SCC 629 as a citation but treated it as a reference, not controlling the matter. Ultimately, the petitions were dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Environmental Protection Act, 1986CRZ Notification, 1991Coastal Regulation Zone Notification (CRZ), 2011

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners challenge the dredging and sand removal at the Chandragiri river confluence on grounds of alleged non-compliance with environmental norms and CRZ requirements. They contend that large-scale mining and sand extraction occurred without mandatory environmental clearance under the Environmental Protection Act, 1986, and without adhering to CRZ norms, despite a government- issued clearance for a fishing harbour. They rely on public interest to press for stricter scrutiny, reference to media reports and petitions filed with authorities, and cite Deepak Kumar v State of Haryana (2012) 4 SCC 629 as supportive authority. They urge the court to stay or quash activities pending full compliance with environmental norms and statutory clearances.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defend the project on the basis of statutory clearances already granted, including environmental clearance under the CRZ Notification, 1991 issued on 14 July 2006, and subject to conditions and an environmental management plan. They assert that the Harbour Engineering Department’s fishing harbour project was legally approved, that the CRZ regime and environmental safeguards were adhered to, and that the petitioners have not pleaded concrete facts of illegality such as unauthorized mining or sale of sand. The Government counter-affidavit emphasizes regulatory compliance and contends that no illegality is evident in the clearance process or project implementation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others	(2012) 4 SCC 629	Mentioned Only	The judgment notes the case as a reference by the petitioners but does not rely on it to decide the matter.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abdulla Kunhamu v. The District Collector Kasaragod and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/10TH MAGHA, 1936** **WP(C).No. 27136 of 2014 (S)** **----------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** ## **----------------------** **ABDULLA KUNHAMU, AGED 59 YEARS S/O.KUNHAMU MOIDEENKUTTY, KALLATRA HOUSE KIZHUR PADINHAR, KALNAD, KASARAGOD CHANDRIGIRI, KERALA-671317.** **BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.V.VENUGOPAL** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **-------------------------** **1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD-671121.** ## **2. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** ## **3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,** - **KASARAGOD DIVISION HARBOUR ENGINEERING CLOCK TOWER JUNCTION, NEAR RAILWAY STATION KASARAGOD-671121.** **4. THE CHANDRAGIRI - KEEZHUR KADAPPURAM POOZHI THOZHILALI CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., KEEZHUR KADAPPURAM, P.O.CHANDRAGIRI-671317, KALANAD KEEZHUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **5. THE CHANDRAGIRI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHANDRAGIRI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671317.** **6. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD DIVISION, OLAVAKKODE-678002, PALAKKAD.** **PJ** **....2/-** **..2..** ## **WP(C).No. 27136 of 2014 (S)** **----------------------------------------** ## **7. THE CHAMNAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT,** **CHAMNAD, KASARAGOD-671317 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **R1-R3 BY SEPCIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.GIRIJA GOPAL R4 BY ADVS. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED R6 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.DIAS,SC, RAILWAYS** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-01-2015, ALONG WITH WPC. 32524/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** ## **WP(C).No. 27136 of 2014 (S)** ## **----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** - **P1: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MADHYAMAM DAILY DATED 9.6.2014.** **P1(A): TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1.** - **P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS.** - **P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RAILWAY DIVISIONAL MANAGER, PALAKKAD.** - **P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE RESIDENTS OF THE KEEZHUR AREA WHO ARE MEMBERES OF PARISTHTI SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI, KEEZHUR.** - **P5: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS FROM THE COASTAL REGULATIONS NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE DATED 6.1.2011.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **R3(A): COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.208/08AD DAETD 12/12/08** - **R3(B): COPY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE ISSUED FROM MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NO.10-5/2006-IA III DATED 14/7/06** **R3(C): COPY OF LAY OUT OF THE HARBOUR.** ## **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag.CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.** *** * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.Nos.27136 & 32524 of 2014 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 30[th] day of January 2015 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **Ashok Bhushan, Ag.CJ** Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. These writ petitions have been filed as public interest litigations alleging large scale dredging and removal of sand from confluence area of Chandrigiri river and Arabian sea without obtaining any environmental clearance as per the provisions of Environmental Protection Act, 1986. As per the directions of this Court, a counter affidavit has been filed by the learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of the 3[rd] respondent in W.P.C.No.27136/2014 which has also been adopted in W.P.C.No.32524/2014 by a memo. Along with the Counter affidavit, order of the Government of India dated 14/07/2006 which is the environmental clearance under the CRZ Notification, 1991 has been W.P.C.No.27136/2014 2 annexed. The said clearance has been granted with certain conditions and protection measures which amply safeguard the protection of environment. Petitioners have come up with the main allegations that without obtaining environmental clearance, extensive mining operations are being carried out. Certain photographs have also been filed along with W.P.C.No.32524/2014. Petitioners have also referred to the judgment in **Deepak Kumar v State of Haryana and Others** _[(2012) 4 SCC 629]_ . 3. Present is the case where the Government permitted construction of a Fishing Harbour at Kasargod by the Harbour Engineering Department for which environmental clearance was granted. Clearance, having granted under the CRZ notification 1991, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in proceeding the construction work by the respondents. Environmental management plan has also been referred to under which the respondents have to proceed and carry on the project. W.P.C.No.27136/2014 3 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the excavated sand is being sold in an unauthorised manner. No such facts and details have been pleaded in these writ petitions, on the basis of which the said issue can be considered by this Court in this public interest litigation. We do not find any merit in these two writ petitions and hence the same are dismissed. **(ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)** ## **(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)** jsr W.P.C.No.27136/2014 4 W.P.C.No.27136/2014 5