IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANIKUMAR, SHAJI P.CHALY, JJ.
Suresh Kumar S, S/o Surendran – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
W.A. No. 1643 of 2021 & W.P. (C) No. 21078 of 2021
Decided on : 01-11-2022
Constitution of India - Article 21, Article 38 (1) of part 1V - Disaster Management Act, 2005 - Section 72 - Removal of the sand bar for - Flood management and mitigation - Petitioner seeks to set aside resolution passed by Grama Panchayat whereby the Panchayat has decided to cancel the stop memo issued by the Secretary, requiring to stop mining of sand – Whether case is maintainable – Held, There can be no doubt that being a welfare state, it is duty-bound under the constitution to protect the interests and wellbeing of the citizens without fail; without which the other fundamental rights guaranteed under part 111 of the constitution would be meaningless and ineffective - Appeal and petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Shaji P. Chaly, J.
The captioned writ appeal and the public interest writ petition are materially connected in respect of removal of a sandbar from the Thottappally Spillway region in Alappuzha district, and the segregation of the atomic mineral from the sand so removed. Therefore, with the concurrence of all parties, they were heard together and proposed to pass this common judgment. The fundamental issue raised by the appellant and the petitioners is that in the guise of removal of the sand bar for flood management and mitigation invoking the Disaster Management Act 2005, mining is being carried out without securing adequate clearances from the respective statutory authorities.
2. Writ Appeal No. 1643 of 2021 is filed by the writ petitioner challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17.11.2021 in W. P. (C) No. 15520 of 2021 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition basically holding that there is no sand mining taking place at Thottappally Spillway consequent to removal of the sandbar, but the sandbar is removed invoking the powers under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (Act 2005), in order to protect the people of Kuttanad area from flooding. It was also found that Section 72 of the Act 2005 has an overriding effect over the provisions of other laws, since it is intended to protect the very life of the citizens, without which the words right, liberty, o freedom and even the word Constitution will have no meaning.
3. In the public interest writ petition, the petitioner is the President of a registered trade union said to be constituted for the protection and welfare of fishermen community in the State of Kerala. In the said writ petition, petitioner seeks to set aside Ext. P18 resolution passed by the Purakkad Grama Panchayat dated 09.09.2021 whereby the Panchayat has decided to cancel the stop memo dated 01.06.2020 issued by the Secretary to the Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd., requiring to stop mining of sand from Thottappally Pozhimugham (river mouth) and for a further writ of mandamus to restrain Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. (KMML) Kollam, Indian Rare Earths (India) Ltd. (IREL), Mumbai and Laxyo Energy Ltd., Madhya Pradesh, respondents 9 to 11, from functioning the atomic minerals separation plant installed in the CRZ prohibited zone, without getting clearance and sanction from the CRZ authorities as contemplated under the Coastal Regulation Zone notification, 2011.
4. For the disposal of the appeal and the writ petition, the facts and documents available from W.A.No. 1643 of 2021 are relied upon.
5. The writ petition leading to the writ appeal is filed by the petitioner challenging the permission given to the KMML to conduct sand mining from Thottappally Spillway region. According to the appellants, Ext. P2 order passed by the State Government dated 31.05.2019 and the agreement executed thereto are in blatant violation of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (Act 1957) and the Coastal Regulation Zone notifications 2011 and 2019.
6. According to the appellants, the Kuttanad region in Alappuzha District during heavy monsoon gets inundated and consequent to which severe loss and damages to the people and agriculture is caused. It was taking into account the said fact that the Government of India by its 1st five year plan of 1954 constructed an artificial channel to collect and drain the flood water from the rivers before it entered into the Kuttanad region. It is the case of the appellants that the artificial channel is designed in such a manner that from a place called Veeyapuram in Alappuzha District, the flood water is drained through the artificial channel and it passes through the Purakkad Panchayat area and ends at Thottappally Spillway from where the flood water is drained out into the Arabian Sea.
7. It is further submitted by the appellants that, for draining the flood water from the artificial channel to the Arabian Sea, a small portion of the bea
Bank of India v. Ketan Parekh [(2008) 8 SCC 148]
Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India and Others [(2016) 6 SCC 408]
Gurusimran Singh Narula v. Union of India and Another [(2021) 1 SCC 152]
Jal Mahal Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. K. P. Sharma and Others [(2014) 8 SCC 804]
Kapico Kerala Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Others [(2020) 3 SCC 18]
Praneeth K. and Others v. University Grants Commission and Others [AIR 2020 SC 5510]
Sajithkumar E. P. v. Assistant Educational Officer and Others [2016 (4) KHC 353]
Sarwan Singh and Others v. Kasturi Lal [(1977) 1 SCC 750]
In times of disasters, the Disaster Management Act, 2005 will and should override the provisions of other laws, because the Act, 2005 is intended to protect the very life of the citizens, without whi....
The court mandated ecological assessments for flood mitigation measures, emphasizing oversight to protect sensitive ecosystems.
The District Disaster Management Authority exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing a general order without emergent circumstances, violating provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
The Chairman of the District Disaster Management Authority exceeded jurisdiction by issuing orders without an emergent situation, violating provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
Valid SEIAA-approved DSR mandatory precondition for sand mining auctions, EC grants; State cannot amend without statutory appraisal/approval; invalid DSR voids leases/EC; operations illegal, compensa....
Valid District Survey Report approved by SEIAA mandatory before sand mining auctions/leases; State amendments without statutory appraisal illegal; mining without it violates environmental laws.
Hon’ble Apex Court made it clear that no direction either interim or final was given by it prohibiting even mining activities within 10 kms. of the boundaries of National Parks or Wildlife Sanctuarie....
Any quarry operations shall be permitted only by way of lease agreement, as per Article 299 (I) of the Constitution of India.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.