Faizal M.I. v. Director, Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala; Muziris Heritage Project (MRCC); Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority; Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Government of India

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **TUESDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 2ND BHADRA, 1943** **WP(C) NO. 16974 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** **FAIZAL M.I., AGED 51 YEARS S/O. IBRAHIM SHERIF, KATTOOS MANZIL, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688001.** **BY ADV FAIZAL M.I.,(Party-In-Person)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, PARK VIEW, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.** - **2 MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUZIRIS HERITAGE PROJECT, MUZIRIS RESEARCH AND CONVENTION CENTRE (MRCC) NEAR K.K.T.M. COLLEGE, PULLUT P.O., KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR-680663.** - **3 THE SECRETARY, KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, 4TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1.** - **4 THE SECRETARY,** **MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE, INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI110003.** ## **BY ADVS** **SRI.M.P.PRAKASH, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R3 SRI.K.P.HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR E1 SRI.JAGDESSH LAKSHMANAN, CGC FOR R4** ## **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **24.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C). 16974/2021 : **2** : ## **JUDGMENT** ## **S. MANIKUMAR, CJ** Mr.Faizal.M.I., a party in person, has filed the Instant writ petition for the ## following reliefs: i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to abandon the present ship installation at Alappuzha beach and to restore the site to its former preconstruction state. ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents to remove the iron fencing enclosing the vegetative thicket proposed to be developed as an open gym at south end of Alappuzha beach. iii. To direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to conform to the CRZ norms and retain the aesthetics while planning any heritage scheme including new pier and refurbishing the old pier on the Alappuzha Beach iv .To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the government to put in place appropriate rules with particular emphasis to preserve the natural properties of beaches and elsewhere in coastal areas and maintain the same. V. To issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction to meet out justice under the circumstances of the above case. ## 2. Short facts leading to the writ petition are as hereunder: WP(C). 16974/2021 : **3** : 3. Petitioner is a native of Alappuzha town in Alappuzha District, representing a section of public, who are regular morning strollers on the Alappuzha beach. According to the petitioner, the 1[st] respondent – Director, Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, in conjunction with the 2[nd] respondent - Managing Director, Muziris Heritage Project, Muziris Research and Convention Centre, Thrissur, has commenced construction activities purportedly for installing a ship named “Infaq T-81' belonging to the Indian Navy, to be anchored on the landward side of the beach at Alappuzha hardly a few metres from high tide line. Further, the said authorities are also in active discussion with Navy and propose to bring another big ship and also a mammoth Russian made aircraft to the beach. 4. It is the submission of the petitioner that the proposed project of installing ships and aircraft on the pristine sands of the beach is against the norms regulating Coastal Regulation Zone. According to him, the respondent authorities have obviously developed a haphazard plan to subsume a portion of the virgin beach for commercial activities without a thought for the obliteration of the landscape, and the construction would spoil the landscape and destroy the natural environs blessed with picturesque sights. 5. It is further submitted that the installation of the above said behemoth vessels on the verge of or meant for breaking or dismantling, cannot by any stretch WP(C). 16974/2021 : **4** : of imagination be heritage conservation and it would mean overwriting man made property over natural surroundings. According to him, Alappuzha Beach is one of the better known beaches in south India, blessed with undulating white sands and having width and length not surpassed by any other beach elsewhere. The respondents had previously plundered tones of pristine sands in the name of construction of walkway along the beach side in the aftermath of Tsunami in the year 2004 and any further tampering of the natural ambience of the beach would spell death knell of the scenic beauty now existent even after said sand excavations and extraction. Therefore, interference of this Hon'ble Court is sought to direct the respondents to halt construction activities against the CRZ norms and to restore the site to its former state. The proposed construction is also done without any consultation process or public hearing. As a matter of fact, there is not even a display board informing public of the purpose of construction or material details. 6. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the authorities ought to be restrained from acting with impunity and made to conform to the norms under law and also, directions are necessary to retain the aesthetics while carrying out any further constructions in the name of heritage projects in future. The respondent has also fenced off a portion of the beach at the southern end where pine and other trees grow in a thicket. The respondent has laid foundation stone there saying that the area is proposed to be developed as an open Gym and this move is WP(C). 16974/2021 : **5** : also against the CRZ -II statute. 7. It is also submitted by the petitioner that lack of specific guidelines or norms for preservation of natural beach properties have prompted the authorities to act with impunity. According to him, the preservation in the natural state of shells, white sands and prevention of rampant waste disposal, car safari on the beach sands, littering, sand theft on small and large scale etc, are to be ensured. There is a crying need to save the beach from avariciousness of both authorities and public alike. The need is urgent since the respondents have already started construction of the grotesque structure for installing a ship to be moored on the beach against all common and good sense. Hence the instant writ petition is filed. 8. Except Exhibits P1 & P2 news paper reports, and Exhibit P8 representation dated 7.7.2021 addressed to the Secretary to the Government, Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram and others, there are no other authenticate materials to indicate that construction activities carried out for installation of ships to be anchored on the landward side of beach at Alappuzha, are in violation of CRZ-II regulations. 9. It is trite law that a writ petition purely based on newspaper reports is not maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that a writ petition filed on the basis of mere newspapers reports, should not be entertained. Reference can be made to a few decisions, on public interest litigations which read WP(C). 16974/2021 : **6** : thus: ## (i) In **Laxmi Raj Shetty and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu** [(1988) 3 SCC 319], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: “32...............We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliened. A report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein. 33. It is now well-settled that a statement of fact contained in a newspapers is merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. The accused should have therefore produced the persons in whose presence the seizure of the stolen money from appellant No. 2's house at Mangalore was effected or examined the press correspondents in proof of the truth of the contents of the news item. The question as to the admissibility of newspaper reports has been dealt with by this Court in **Samant N. Balakrishna v. George Femandez and Ors.** [1969] 3 SCR 603. There the question arose whether Shri George Femandez, the successful candidate returned to Parliament from the Bombay South Parliamentary Constituency had delivered a speech at Shivaji Park attributed to him as reported in the Maratha, a widely circulated Marathi newspaper in Bombay, and it was said: “A newspaper report without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is of no value. It is at best a second-hand secondary evidence. It is well known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publishes it. In this process the truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible.” WP(C). 16974/2021 : **7** : (ii) In **Vikas Vashishth v. Allahabad High Court** reported in (2004) 13 SCC 485, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "At the very outset, we put it to the petitioner that a bare perusal of the petition shows that it is based entirely on newspaper reports and asked him whether before filing the petition he has taken care to verify the facts personally. His answer is in the negative. In the writ petition all the 21 High Courts have been included as respondents and Union of India has also been impleaded as the 22[nd] respondent. We asked the petitioner what has provoked him to implead all the High Courts as respondents and he states that it is his apprehension that similar incidents may occur in other High Courts though there is no factual foundation for such appreciation. 5. After affording the full opportunity of hearing, we are satisfied that what purports to have been filed as a public interest litigation is nothing more than a "publicity interest litigation". It is writ large that it has been filed without any effort at verifying the facts by the petitioner personally." (iii) In **Rohit Pandey v. Union of India** reported in (2005) 13 SCC 702, Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: ""1. This petition purporting to be in public interest has been filed by a member of the legal fraternity seeking directions against the respondents to hand over the investigation of the case pertaining to recovery of light machine gun, which is said to have been stolen from the army according to reports published in two newspapers, to the Central Bureau of Investigation for fair investigation to ensure that the real culprits who are behind such theft of army arms and ammunition endangering the integrity and sovereignty of the country may be brought to book and action may be taken against them in accordance with law. The only basis for the petitioner coming to this Court are two newspaper reports dated 25-1-2004, and the other dated 12-2-2004. This petition was immediately filed on 16-2-2004 after the aforesaid second newspaper report appeared. On enquiry from the learned counsel, we have learnt that the petitioner is a young advocate having been in practice for a year or two. The Union of India, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Chief Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh, have been arrayed as party respondents. In the newspaper reports, there is no allegation either against the Union of India or against the Chief Minister. WP(C). 16974/2021 : **8** : 2. We expect that when such a petition is filed in public interest and particularly by a member of the legal profession, it would be filed with all seriousness and after doing the necessary homework and enquiry. If the petitioner is so public-spirited at such a young age as is so professed, the least one would expect is that an enquiry would be made from the authorities concerned as to the nature of investigation which may be going on before filing a petition that the investigation be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Admittedly, no such measures were taken by the petitioner. There is nothing in the petition as to what, in fact, prompted the petitioner to approach this Court within two-three days of the second publication dated 12-2-2004, in the newspaper Amar Ujala. Further, the State of Uttar Pradesh had filed its affidavit a year earlier i.e. on 7-10-2004, placing on record the steps taken against the accused persons, including the submission of the charge-sheet before the appropriate court. Despite one year having elapsed after the filing of the affidavit by the Special Secretary to the Home Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, nothing seems to have been done by the petitioner. The petitioner has not even controverted what is stated in the affidavit. Ordinarily, we would have dismissed such a misconceived petition with exemplary costs but considering that the petitioner is a young advocate, we feel that the ends of justice would be met and the necessary message conveyed if a token cost of rupees one thousand is imposed on the petitioner " ## (iv) In **Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra and Ors.** [(2007) 14 SCC 281], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: “18. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. (See **State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu** (1995) ILLJ 622 SC, and **Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr.** [1994] 1 SCR 857. No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. [See **Dr. B.K. Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran** (1996 CriLJ 3983)]. Today people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in Courts and among the public. WP(C). 16974/2021 : **9** : 19. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. It is also noticed that petitions are based on newspaper reports without any attempt to verify their authenticity. As observed by this Court in several cases newspaper reports do not constitute evidence. A petition based on unconfirmed news reports, without verifying their authenticity should not normally be entertained. As noted above, such petitions do not provide any basis for verifying the correctness of statements made and information given in the petition. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore-stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts.” 10. However, from the material on record it could be deduced that acting on the representation dated 7.7.2021, vide Exhibit P9, Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, IA-III Division (CRZ), New Delhi dated 27[th] July, 2021, has forwarded the representation of Mr.Faizal.M.I., the petitioner herein, to the Member Secretary, Coastal Zone Management Authority, Department of Environment, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, to examine and send a report/comments to the complainant, directly under the intimation to the above said Ministry. WP(C). 16974/2021 : **10** : 11. Additional Director/Member Secretary (CRZ), on behalf of Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi, has also requested the Member Secretary, Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, Department of Environment, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, that if the proposed activity is violating the norms of extant CRZ regulations, appropriate action as admissible by law may be initiated. Copy of Exhibit P9 dated 27[th] July, 2021 has also been sent to the writ petitioner. 12. For brevity, Exhibit P9 dated 27[th] July, 2021 is reproduced: “ F. No. 19-13/2019-IA.III Government of India Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change IA-III Division (CRZ) Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh Road, New Delhi-110003 Dated: 27th July, 2021 To The Member Secretary, Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority Department of Environment Government of Kerala Sasthra Bhawan, Pattom P.O., Thiruvanathapuram-695004 Subject: Representation of Shri M.I.Faizal, against construction activities which was commenced for installing a ship to be anchored on the landward side of the WP(C). 16974/2021 : **11** : ## beach at Alappuzzha - regarding. Sir, I am directed to forward herewith a representation of Shri M.1.Faizal, against construction activities which was commenced for installing a ship to be anchored on the landward side of the beach at Alappuzzha leading to change in landscape in CRZ-I area etc. 2. In this regard, it is requested that the matter may be examined and a report / Comments be provided to the complaint directly under intimation to this Ministry. Further, if the proposed activity is violating the norms of extant CRZ regulations, appropriate action as admissible by law may be initiated. Yours faithfully, Encl: As above. Yours faithfully, Sd/(Dr. H. Kharkwal) Additional Director / Member Secretary (CRZ) Copy to: - 1) Shri.M.I.Faizal, Advocate, Room No.129, Municipal Shopping Complex, Opp:District Court, Alappuzha, Kerala. 2) Office Copy/Guard File.” 13. Though directions have already been given by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi, to take appropriate action, if there is any violation of CRZ regulations, even without ascertaining as to whether there is violation of CRZ regulations, the petitioner has approached this Court on WP(C). 16974/2021 : **12** : 12/8/2021 by filing the instant writ petition. 14. In the light of the above discussion, we are not inclined to grant the reliefs sought for. Member Secretary, Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, Department of Environment, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, is directed to act as per the directions in Exhibit P9 dated 27[th] July, 2021, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. With the above direction, instant writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- **S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE** Sd/- smv **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** WP(C). 16974/2021 : **13** : **APPENDIX** WP(C). 16974/2021 : **14** : ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16974/2021** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT APPEARING IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DATED 24/06/2021. Exhibit P1 (A) THE TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE MALAYALAM REPORT APPEARING IN MALAYALAM MANORAMA DATED 24/06/2021. Exhibit P1 (B) THE FULL PAGE OF THE NEWSPAPER IN WHICH THE REPORT DATED 24/06/2021 APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE NEWSPAPER REPORT THAT APPEARED IN INDIAN EXPRESS OUTLINING HERITAGE PROJECT IN ALAPPUZHA DATED 31/12/2020. Exhibit P3 PHOTO LONG VIEW OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION SITE FOR INSTALLING SHIP AT ALAPPUZHA BEACH. Exhibit P3(A) PHOTO-DIGGING FOR LAYING IRON GIRDERS AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE FOR INSTALLING SHIP AT ALAPPUZHA BEACH. Exhibit P3(B) PHOTO- NEAR VIEW OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION SITE FOR INSTALLING SHIP. Exhibit P3(C) PHOTO-SHOT OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION SITE AS ON 02/08/2021 FOR INSTALLING SHIP. Exhibit P4 PHOTO OF THE FENCED OFF PORTION OF THE BEACH ENCLOSING THE PINE TREE THICKET PROPOSED AS OPEN GYM-FRONT VIEW. Exhibit P4 (A) PHOTO OF THE FENCED OFF PORTION OF THE BEACH ENCLOSING THE PINE TREE THICKET PROPOSED AS OPEN GYM-BACK VIEW. Exhibit P5 PHOTO TAKEN OF THE RAMPANT SAND EXCAVATION IN THE AFTERMATH OF TSUNAMI WITH THE HELP OF JCB'S. Exhibit P5(A) PHOTO TAKEN OF THE RAMPANT SAND EXCAVATION IN THE AFTERMATH OF TSUNAMI CRATERS FORMED DUE TO SAND REMOVAL. Exhibit P5(B) PHOTO TAKEN OF THE RAMPANT SAND EXCAVATION IN THE AFTERMATH OF TSUNAMI LOADED SAND ON THE COASTAL ROAD. Exhibit P5(C) PHOTO TAKEN OF THE RAMPANT SAND EXCAVATION IN THE AFTERMATH OF TSUNAMI SAND REMOVAL FROM BEACH.** WP(C). 16974/2021 : **15** : |**Exhibit P6**|**PHOTO OF SCATTERED LITTER AND WASTE WASHED UP**| |---|---| ||**FROM BEACH.**| |**Exhibit P6(A)**|**PHOTO OF COLLECTION SACK INSTALLED FOR**| ||**REMOVAL OF LITTER FLOTSAM AND WASTE WASHED UP**| ||**FROM BEACH IN 2020.**| |**Exhibit P7**|**THE PHOTOS OF HOLES LEFT ON THE BEACH AND**| ||**NEARBY AREAS ON ACCOUNT OF SAND THEFT.**| |**Exhibit P8**|**TRUE OFFICE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION WITH**| ||**POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 07/07/2021 SENT TO THE**| ||**RESPONDENTS.**| |**Exhibit P9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F.NO. 19-13/2019-**| ||**IA.III ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE**| ||**3RD RESPONDENT.**|