2020 Supreme(SC) 23

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
Kapico Kerala Resorts Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 184-186, 187 of 2020, Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 34143-34145 of 2013, 21927 of 2014
Decided On : 10-01-2020

IMPORTANT POINT
There is distinction between dismissal of a special leave petition by a non-speaking order where no reasons are recorded and dismissal of a special leave petition by a speaking or reasoned order – In both cases, doctrine of merger would not apply.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Articles 136 and 141 – Special leave petition – There is distinction between dismissal of a special leave petition by a non-speaking order where no reasons are recorded and dismissal of a special leave petition by a speaking or reasoned order – In both cases, doctrine of merger would not apply – But in cases falling under latter category, reasons stated by Court would attract applicability of Article 141 of Constitution, if a point of law has been declared therein – If what is stated in order of Supreme Court (before grant of leave) happen to be findings recorded by Supreme Court, not amounting to a declaration of law, findings so recorded would bind only parties thereto. (Para 23)

(B) Environment – Development of Resort in a backwater island – Restraint order – If detailed reasons given by High Court or a subordinate Court, find acceptance by this Court, in specific terms, question of scrutinising them for finding out whether they were in passing or in detailed focus, does not arise – Such exercise would tantamount to reviewing decision – Both Vettila Thuruthu and Nediyathuruthu islands are admittedly backwater islands nestled in Vembanad lake – Vembanad lake is an ecologically sensitive area and that considering socio-economic importance of this water body, it had been scheduled under “vulnerable wetlands to be protected” and declared as CVCA – High Court recorded a specific finding that when whole of Vembanad lake is included as a CVCA, subject to a process, Court has to take a view which serves object of area being treated as ecologically sensitive and hence a CVCA – Once main issues arising in common for both islands and dealt with in common by High Court, had received seal of approval from this Court by a reasoned order, there is no scope for revisiting the same on the basis of certain minor ancillary issues not specifically dealt with, in the judgment – Distinctions sought to be made out by appellants are not substantial and Court not inclined to revisit issues already clinched by this Court – Under 2011 Notification the areas identified in Notification had to be declared as CVCAs only through a process of consultation with local fisher, etc. Guidelines are to be put in place for identifying, notifying and implementing CVCA but 2019 Notification straightaway treats named areas as CVCAs and vests their management with Authority with involvement of coastal communities – Alternatives claimed by appellants also do not appear to be viable for them – Substantial issues that arose in common for both islands have already been answered in Vaamika Island ((2013) 8 SCC 760) and distinguishing features sought to be projected, are not so material as to take a different view than one taken therein – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 26, 30, 32, 33, 39 and 40)

Facts of the case:

Challenging a common order passed by the Kerala High Court, first in a batch of writ petitions and then in a batch of review petitions, prohibiting them from carrying on the activity of development of a resort, in a backwater island namely Nediyathuruthu island in Vembanad lake, Alappuzha District of State of Kerala, on the basis of Kerala Coastal Zone Management Plan (KCZMP) and Coastal Regulation Zone Notifications, project proponent has come up with the above appeals. High Court was concerned, in the batch of cases, about development of resorts in two backwater islands, by name Vettila Thuruthu and Nediyathuruthu, located in Vembanad lake, Panavally Panchayat, in Alappuzha district of the State of Kerala.

Findings of Court:

Appellants, situation has gone from bad to worse. Under the 2011 Notification the areas identified in Notification had to be declared as CVCAs only through a process of consultation with local fisher, etc. Guidelines are to be put in place for identifying, notifying and implementing CVCA but 2019 Notification straightaway treats the named areas as CVCAs and vests their management with Authority with the involvement of coastal communities. Therefore, alternatives claimed by the appellants also do not appear to be viable for them.

Result : Appeals dismissed.