IMPORTANT POINTS
146A. Affidavits in Public Interest Litigation.-A person filing a Public Interest Litigation, in addition to the requirements stipulated in the other rules of this Chapter, shall precisely and specifically affirm in the affidavit to be sworn to by him the public cause he is seeking to espouse, that he has no personal or private interest in the matter, that there is no authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court or the High Court on the question raised and that the result of the litigation shall not lead to any undue gain to himself or to anyone associated with him. 146B. Costs in Public Interest Litigation-Not withstanding anything contained in these rules the Court may direct the petitioner in a Public Interest Litigation to pay such amounts as may be fixed by the Court as compensation or costs to all or any of the respondents in the event of the litigation being found to be vexatious, frivolous or malafide.

JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, J.

Instant public interest writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the State of Kerala, respondent No.1 to constitute a committee including the 2nd to 7th respondents along with a recognised Hydrologist to study and submit a report before this Court regarding the deposits of sand and silt in the rivers, lakes and dams within the State of Kerala. Petitioner has sought for a mandamus directing the said respondent to submit a plan of action before this court regarding the ways in which the sand, silt and other materials found in the rivers, lakes and dams can be effectively removed, by which water flowing capability of the rivers, lakes and the water storage capacity of the dams can be improved. Further mandamus sought for is to command the Chief Secretary, State of Kerala to constitute a committee to submit a report before this Court regarding how far and how effective can the naturally found deposits of sand in the rivers and dams be used as an alternative to the Metal Sand obtained by way of quarrying and its subsequent processes.

2. Petitioner claims to be a person involved in social and environmental activities for more than 30 years. Petitioner has contended that he has approached this Court, being aggrieved by certain relevant issues, which the petitioner believes to be of utmost concern which needs an urgent attention of this Court. Petitioner is alarmed with the past floods that occurred in the State of Kerala in the years 2018 and 2019 including the landslides that occurred.

3. According to the petitioner, both these floods and the allied catastrophics have resulted in mass deposit of sand and silt in 44 rivers in the State and in 57 dams in the State, which thereby has directly reduced the water flowing capacity of the rivers and the water storage capacity of the dams. According to him, the extreme heavy rain and the consequent inundation of the State in the years 2018 and 2019 was a direct, violent, sudden and irresistible act of the nature. But the consequent deposits in the form of sand, is even now lying in the rivers and dams across the State without any interference, which if not acted upon, will fetch horrendous situation in the near future.

4. The petitioner has invited the attention of the court by referring to the Amicus Curiae report, Ext.P1 submitted by Adv. Jcob P. Alex in W.P(C). No.2651 of 2019 (The Foundation for Restoration of Natural Values, Represented by its President Dr. E. Sreedharan v. State of Kerala & Others), before this Court. In Ext.P1, it is stated that reduced reservoir capacity due to siltation is one among the cause for the deluge that occurred in the State, in Kerala Floods of 2018. In Ext.P1, it is stated that in Kerala, there is no practice of preparing inundation maps for emergency action plans.

5. Petitioner has further contended that Kerala State Disaster Management Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, 2nd respondent as a body established under the Disaster Management Act of 2005 is duty bound by way of Section 22 of the Act to implement a State plan and to act as the coordinating and monitoring body for management of disaster in the State. He has referred to Section 22(2)(b) of the said Act, which empowers and mandates the 2nd respondent to examine the vulnerability of the different parts of the State to different forms of disaster and specify the measures to be taken for prevention or mitigation of the sand and consequently, effective removal the accumulated sand and silt particles in the rivers and dams within the State comes under the functions of the 2nd respondent, which if not performed before the strengthening of monsoon in Kerala, will fetch devastating problems.

6. Petitioner has further contended that Central Water Commission, 4th respondent is re