Lakshadweep Malsya Thozhilali Union represented by its State President Nasar P. v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep; The Sub Divisional Officer, Androth Island; The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Kavaratty Island; The Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Androth Island; Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (represented by Joint Secretary)

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** # **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY MONDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 40302 OF 2016** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **LAKSHADWEEP MALSYA THOZHILALI UNION REPRESENTED BY STATE PRESIDENT,** **MR.NASAR P., ANDROTH ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.P.BIJU SRI.ANISH PAUL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**THE ADMINISTRATOR**| |---|---| ||**UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP,**| ||**KAVARATTI ISLAND, PIN - 682 555.**| |**2**|**THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER**| ||**THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ANDROTH ISLAND,**| ||**UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP - 682 551.**| |**3**|**THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER**| ||**PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT, KAVARATTI ISLAND,**| ||**UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP - 682 555.**| |**4**|**ASSISTANT ENGINEER**| ||**PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT,**| ||**ANDROTH ISLAND,**| ||**UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP - 682 551.**| _**W.P(C).40302/2016**_ 2 **5 MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST & CLAIMATE CHANGE, REPRESENTED BY JOINT SECRETARY, 3RD FLOOR, PRITHVI WING, INDIRA BHAWAN,JOR BAGH, NEW DELHI-110003.** **BY ADVS. SRI.MANU.S, SCGC, ADMINISTRATION OF UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP SRI. P. VIJAYAKUMAR ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** _**W.P(C).40302/2016**_ 3 ## J U D G M E N T Dated this the 12[th] day of July, 2021 ## S. Manikumar, CJ. Instant public interest litigation is filed for the following reliefs: "i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order of this Hon'ble Court directing the respondents to place hollow blocks and granite stones in the alarming sea shore in Androth Island without any delay. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order of this Hon'ble Court directing the respondents to consider Exhibit-P2 representation and take steps to prevent the soil erosion expeditiously." 2. Short facts leading to the filing of writ petition are as under: Petitioner herein is a trade union and it is also a pressure group of Communist Party of India (Marxist). Petitioner union is actively working in Androth Island, Union Territory of Lakshadweep. Androth Island is one of the Islands in Union Territory of India. It is having 4.66 kilometres of length and 1.43 kilometres of width. The total area of the Island is only 4.90 square kilometres and the total population is only 10,720 in the Island. 3. It is submitted that the respondents have not placed hollow blocks and granite stones in large extent of alarming seashore of the _**W.P(C).40302/2016**_ 4 Androth Island. In monsoon seasons, there are high waves from the sea and due to the same, there is large scale of soil erosion. Therefore, the neighbouring peoples are under threat of their life and property. It is also submitted that though the respondents had already stored granite stones in the Island, they have not taken any steps to place the same. Though the petitioner has submitted Exhibit-P2, no action has been taken by the respondents. Hence the writ petition is filed. 4. Grounds raised in the writ petition in support of the reliefs sought for are as under: A. Fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner and to the residents of the Androth Island under the Constitution of India have been violated. B. Respondents are duty bound to protect the Island and to the life and property of the people in the Island. But the respondents are wilfully neglected the same. Therefore interference of this Hon'ble Court is warranted. C. Androth Island is the nearest Island to the main land and has an east-west orientation unlike other Islands lying in the north south direction. This Island lies in the east-west direction between 10* 50N latitude and 73* 38' and 73* 42' E longitude. It is 119 kilometres (64 Nautical Miles) away from Kavaratti Island and 293 kilometres (158 Nautical Miles) away from Kochi. It is the only Island having a very small lagoon area. Therefore the only reason for arising huge waves from the sea and no other Islands are lying like this _**W.P(C).40302/2016**_ 5 Island. Hence it is highly necessary to erect sea wall in the alarming sea shore without any delay. D. In monsoon seasons, there is high waves are arises from the sea and due to the high waves, the soil erosion has been effected to the Island. Therefore the neighbouring peoples are under threat of their life and property. The inaction of the respondents is illegal arbitrary and against the fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. Under these circumstances the only remedy available to the petitioners is to approach this Hon'ble Court. E. The inordinate delay for placing the hollow blocks and granite stones in the alarming seashore, it will cause the existence of the Island. Therefore, it is highly necessary to place the hollow blocks or granite stones prior to the next monsoon season. F. As per Exhibit-P3, it is revealed that the respondents are waiting for commencing the work. But the respondents already stored granite stones for the work. Therefore the reasons stated in the exhibit-P3 are not believable. ## 5. Considering the averments, on 22.6.2021, we passed the following orders: “Lakshadweep Malsya Thozhilali Union represented by its State President, which is stated to be a trade union and a pressure group or Communist Party of India (Marxist), has filed the instant PublicInterest Litigationfor the following reliefs: 1. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order of this Hon'ble Court directing the respondents to place hollow blocks and granite stones in the alarming sea shore in Androth Island without any _**W.P(C).40302/2016**_ 6 delay. 2. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order of this Hon'ble Court directing the respondents to consider Ext. P2 representation and take steps to prevent the soil erosion expeditiously. 2. Reliance has been placed on Ext.P1 photographs, Ext.P2 representation of the petitioner Union dated 17.06.2016 addressed to the Sub Divisional Officer, Androth and Ext. P3 reply dated 19.07.2016, Contentions have been made to the effect that granite stones have already been stored for the purpose of prevention sea erosion; but then, there is no progress. 3. Sri. S. Manu, learned Standing Counsel for the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, on instructions submitted that earlier on the advice of the Ministry of Water Resources. New Delhi, steps were taken in the year 2015 for preventing sea erosion. However, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, New Delhi, additional respondent No.5 was of the opinion that whatever steps taken earlier were not correct and that the said Ministry suggested review of the action taken. He further submitted that since no further instructions have issued by the additional 5[th] respondent to prevent sea erosion, Union Territory of Lakshadweep could not proceed further. 4. Sri. S. Manu further submitted that the submission made by him today based on instructions furnished in the year 2017, and therefore, he seeks further time to get instructions in the matter. 5. Though, we record the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, posed with a _**W.P(C).40302/2016**_ 7 question as to whether the Public Interest Litigation filed by the Lakshadweep Malsya Thozhilai Union, claiming to be a trade Union and a pressure group of Communist Party of India (Marxist) is maintainable, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the signatory is a resident of Union Territory of Lakshadweep and therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. However, he sought time. Post the matter tomorrow (23.6.2021) for hearing on the aforesaid query.” ## 6. On 23.6.2021, we passed the following orders: “Placing reliance on the decisions rendered in Janata Dal v. H.S.chowdhary and others [AIR 1993 Supreme Court 892], People's Union for Democratic Rights and others v. Union of India and others [AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1473] and Delhi Municipal Workers Union (Regd.) v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another [2001 KHC 3148] Mr.Biju.P.P, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that instant writ petition filed by the Lakshadweep Malsya Thozhilali Union, is maintainable. According to him, the issue involved in the writ petition relates to sea erosion and therefore,the same requires to be considered. Erosion has to be prevented. Life and liberty to be preserved. Article 21 of the Constitution of India to be preserved. 2. Mr. Manu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Union Territory of Lakshadweep, is directed to get clear instructions as to how the departments can take steps to prevent sea erosion. _**W.P(C).40302/2016**_ 8 3. Learned Standing Counsel is directed to get instructions as regards the steps taken after 2017, to prevent sea erosion, within one week from today. Post on 1.7.2021. ” 7. On 8.7.2021, a statement has been filed on behlaf of the respondents, which reds thus: “3. At the outset, it is respectfully submitted that the above writ petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The issue raised in the writ petition is regarding anti-sea erosion methods adopted by the Government. It is respectfully submitted that the adoption of various anti-sea erosion methods is a highly technical matter and the same requires intensive study and research. The methods are being adopted by the Government on the basis of suggestions/ recommendations given by the experts in the field from time to time. The petitioner organization doesn't have a case that they are experts in the field of sea shore protection or has conducted any study or research in the field. Admittedly, the petitioner is a labour organization affiliated to a particular political party and a pressure group of that political party. The petitioner has not produced any material evidence to show that the methods suggested by the petitioner i.e. placing of hollow blocks and granite stones, are the most appropriate and scientific anti-sea erosion methods. It is an accepted principle that Public Interest Litigation should not be filed without undertaking proper research. In S.P.Anand v. H.D.Deve Gowda , 1996 (6) SCC 734, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraph 18, held as follows: _**W.P(C).40302/2016**_ 9 "it is of utmost importance that those who invoke this Court's jurisdiction seeking a waiver of the locus standi rule must exercise restraint in moving the Court by not plunging in areas wherein they are not well-versed. Such a litigant must not succumb to spasmodic sentiments and behave like a knighterrant roaming at will in pursuit of issues providing publicity. He must remember that as a person seeking to espouse a public cause, he owes it to the public as well as to the court that he does not rush to court without undertaking a research, even if he is qualified or competent to raise the issue. Besides, it must be remembered that a good cause can be lost if petitions are filed on half-baked information without proper research or by persons who are not qualified and competent to raise such issues as the rejection of such a petition may affect third party rights. Lastly, it must also be borne in mind that no one has a right to the waiver of the locus standi rule and the court should permit it only when it is satisfied that the carriage of proceedings is in the competent hands of a person who is genuinely concerned in public interest and is not moved by other extraneous considerations. So also the court must be careful to ensure that the process of the Court is not sought to be abused by a person who desires to persist with his point of view, almost carrying it to the point of obstinacy, by filling a series of petitions refusing to accept the Court's earlier decisions as concluding the point. We say this because when we drew the attention of the petitioner to earlier decisions of this Court, he brushed them aside, without so much as showing willingness to deal with them and without giving them a second look, as having become stale and irrelevant by passage of time and challenged their correctness on the specious plea that they needed reconsideration. Except for saying that they needed reconsideration he had no answer to the correctness of the decisions. Such a casual approach to considered decisions of this Court even by a person well-versed in law would not be countenanced. Instead, as pointed out earlier, he referred to decisions having no bearing on the question, like the decisions on cow slaughter cases, freedom of speech and expresssion, uniform civil code, etc., we need say no more except to point out that indiscriminate of this important lever of public interest litigation would blunt the lever itself." The petitioner herein has not taken the trouble of doing any research work and has no proper understanding of the issue raised in the Writ Petition. 4. On the other hand, admittedly, the petitioner is a pressure group _**W.P(C).40302/2016**_ 10 of a political party. In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., 2004 (3) SCC 349, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "4. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, said petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding public interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". If not properly regulated and abuse averted it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant or poke ones into for a probe. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity" 5. It is respectfully submitted that the above writ petition is filed for political gains. The petitioner has private or oblique motives behind the filing of the above writ petition which is styled as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The above Writ Petition does not qualify the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in State of Uttaranchal Vs Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC 402 . Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable for want of locus standi. 6. Without prejudice to the above contention, the following facts are submitted for kind consideration. The total shore length of the inhabited islands in Lakshadweep is more than 145 KMs. In the year 1986 a Team of experts under Shri. M.R. Gadre, Chief Research Officer, Central Water and Power Research Station, Pune herein after referred to as "CWPRS, Pune" for brevity, with members from Central Water Commission, Department of Environment, Kerala Construction Corporation and Lakshadweep Administration was set up by the Ministry of _**W.P(C).40302/2016**_ 11 Water Resources to assess the nature and extent of the problem of sea erosion at Lakshadweep Islands, to review the prevalent local methods of preventing sea erosion and to suggest alternative methods and specific pilot schemes, etc. The Team of Experts suggested various low cost solutions in the form of coir bags filled with sand, concrete hollow blocks, gabions made up of PVC coated GI mesh filled with coral pebbles or stones and rows of tetrapods. Out of these solutions, only row of tetrapod has proved to be successful method to an extent for coastal protection. 7. Later, in October, 2011, the Lakshadweep Administration requested the Ministry of Water Resources, Govt. of India to review the aforesaid mode of coastal protection as the same was found ineffective and makes the beaches ugly and unsafe. Accordingly, the Ministry constituted an inter-ministerial expert committee with engineers, ecologists, biologists etc.. The said committee visited the island in April, 2013 and submitted its report on anti- erosion methods in Lakshadweep. In the report it was inter alia recommended that considering the technical advancement, availability of better hydro dynamic and other data/ information on the coastal processes, the existing design which was suggested in 1986 by CWPRS, Pune need to be reviewed. It was also recommended that the CWPRS, Pune may take up the work of review of the present design and recommend changes, if any requires for effective coastal protection. It was further suggested that the Lakshadweep Public Works Department may continue with the present design for shore protection of the critical areas which needs immediate attention till the time the design is reviewed. 8. It is submitted that as recommended by the Inter- _**W.P(C).40302/2016**_ 12 Ministerial Expert Committee, the Administration vide letter dated 19-07-2013 requested the CWPRS, Pune to take up the review of present design. Accordingly, the CWPRS, Pune vide their letter dated 14-03-2014 informed the Administration that the studies for the review of design for the shore protection work has been taken up by them. Thereafter, they sought for certain scientific data required for the purpose of study. As the Administration do not have the qualified staff and machinery at its disposal to collect the data required by CWPRS, Pune, the Administration sought the assistance of the National Centre for Earth Science Studies (NCESS), Thruvananthapuram for the collection of data. The NCESS by letter dated 04-04-2017 submitted an estimate of Rs. 25 Lakh and required 15 month time for the completion of work. After receiving the estimated cost from the NCESS, the Administration decided to get estimate from another agency namely, National Centre for Sustainable Costal Management (NCSCM). After receiving estimate from NCSCM, both the estimates and work plans were forwarded to the CWPRS, Pune for their examination and suggestions, as ultimately the data is being collected for their use. Then, the CWPRS, Pune vide letter dated 10-06-2018 sought for certain clarifications on the work plan given by NCESS. However, the said agency has not responded to the same till date. 9. Later, the issue was discussed in the meeting of Lakshadweep Coastal Zone Management Authority (LCZMA) held on 02-06-2019 and the National Centre for Coastal Research (NCCR) expressed its willingness to collect the entire shoreline data of Lakshadweep. However, the collection of data has not been completed yet, due to the pandemic situation prevailing in the country. A committee has been constituted _**W.P(C).40302/2016**_ 13 under the Chairmanship of Secretary, Environment & Forest, UT of Lakshadweep to implement the shoreline protection measures in Lakshadweep. 10. It is respectfully submitted that CESS, Thiruvananthapuram in collaboration with Department of Science, & Technology, UT of Lakshadweep prepared an Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan (ICZMP) for Lakshadweep islands in June 2005 which was sponsored by Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF), Government of India. Under ICZMP, detailed maps of the islands were prepared showing sites for different activities including coastal protection, which have been identified based on stakeholders' perception and Environment Impact Assessment studies carried out on the development programmes. Island-wise erosion/ accretion prone shorelines were then worked out and it was projected that 46.20 km shoreline is erosion prone whereas shoreline prone to accretion is 42.5 km. It was further reported that global climate change due to greenhouse effect may cause one meter rise in sea level in next century and would result in flooding, land erosion and or even submergence of the islands. However, these islands have an advantage of coral reef edge which acts as living sea defence and can grow at a rate at which the sea level would rise provided the rate of rise in sea level is not excessive. 11. It is submitted that there is no such drastic sea erosion on the sea shores of Androth island as stated in the Writ Petition. All normal erosion and accretion phenomenon's are being closely watched by the department of Science & Technology, Environment & Forest and Public Works Department, UT of Lakshadweep and the critical erosion prone shorelines are _**W.P(C).40302/2016**_ 14 protected by placing tetrapod. The Administration will continue with the said anti-sea erosion method till the studies for the review of present design is completed. Erosion in some parts and accretions in other parts happening at the same time is a natural phenomenon in the islands of Lakshadweep. 12. The Petitioner has not made out a genuine and bonafide case. This Writ Petition has been filed for extraneous considerations. The aim of the petitioner is to gain media attention and publicity at the expense of this Hon'ble Court. There is no merit in the contentions of the petitioner. It has been filed seeking directions in a matter which requires detailed scientific observation and analysis as explained above. The writ petition is filed in a highly negligent manner without undertaking proper research. 13. Hence in any view of the matter, the above writ petition is not liable to be entertained by this Hontle Court and it is most humbly prayed that the same may kindly be dismissed with cost.” 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 9. Exhibit P3 is a communication dated 19.7.2016 issued by the Lakshdweep Administration addressed to the Sub Divisional Officer, Androth Island, which reads thus: “GOVT.OF INDIA ## LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENIGNEER (CIVIL) LPWD SUB DIVISION ANDROTT _**W.P(C).40302/2016**_ 15 ## F.No. W/3/2012/ADSD / 372.- ## DATED 19.07.2016 To, The Sub Divisional Officer, Androth Island. 'Sub: - Forwarding letter regarding placement of concrete Hollow blocks- Regarding --Ref : - 1) F.No .11/1/2016 SDO (AND) 'Dated; 17.06.2016. Sir, Please see the reference cited above regarding the placement of Concrete Hollow Blocks at threatening seashore. This sub division has already submitted detailed estimate for ASE works of affected areas to the higher authorities for sanction and waiting the same for commencing the work. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (M.MOHAMMED) ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL) Phone & fax 0489323 4339” 10. We have considered the averments made in the petition and the statement dated 8.7.2021. 11. Being a matter of sea erosion affecting the residents of Andrott Island, we sincerely hope that the authorities, who have taken up the revision of the design and the method to implement shore protection measures in Lakshdweep, should give their utmost attention for an early and comprehensive design, for shore protection. _**W.P(C).40302/2016**_ 16 12. As stated in the statement, Administration should continue with placing of Tetrapods, along side the areas of soil erosion. Such placing of tetrapods be expedited taking note of the monsoon and likelihood of sea erosion. The statement dated 8.7.2021be honoured in letter and spirit, without giving room for further litigation. We are not calling for any further report for compliance, as we sincerely hope that whatever said is duly implemented. Sd/S. Manikumar, Chief Justice Sd/Shaji P. Chaly, Judge sou. _**W.P(C).40302/2016**_ 17 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40302/2016** **PETITIONER ANNEXURE** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17/06/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PETITIONER TRADE UNION.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19/07/2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**