The court emphasized that environmental management orders should be based on thorough investigations and inclusive stakeholder dialogue to address public concerns effectively.

JUDGMENT :

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

These two writ petitions have been heard together and am disposing them of jointly on account of the factum of both of them impugning the same order and the factual factors involved being analogous, if not similar.

2. The genesis of the controversy in these cases is in that the Kerala Engineering Research Institute (KERI) made an investigation regarding the “obstruction of flow of the Periyar River near the Vallarpadam bridge at Vaduthala”, to determine the quality and quantity of the legacy sediments. It is reported to have been found by them that the deposit is significant “for a distance of 1 km upstream and 2.083 km downstream of the railway bridge” (sic) and that it is comprised mainly of clay and silt.

3. The District Collector, Ernakulam, thereupon made a report before the Government on 26.10.2021, enclosing the afore study of the KERI; and the matter was then brought to the notice of this Court, while it was hearing W.P(C)No.23911/2018, relating, inter alia, to a plea for rejuvenation of the Perandoor Canal in Kochi. This Court passed an order dated 22.10.2021 in the said Writ Petition, directing the competent Authority to take steps to remove the sedimentation, so as to ensure free flow of water into the backwaters, observing that, unless this is done, what awaits the city of Kochi may be nothing short of a catastrophe.

4. It transpires that the District Collector then reported to the Government that the debris relates to the construction of the International Container Transshipment Terminal, Vallarpadam (ICTT), by the Cochin Port Trust; and that it was the responsibility of two subcontractors - one of them being AFCONS Infrastructure Limited, to have removed it, to restore smooth flow of water. The Officer further reported that this should have been made sure by the Cochin Port Trust.

5. The matter thus was seized to its consideration by the Government; and its Chief Secretary - in his capacity as the Chairperson of the State Executive Committee of the Kerala State Disaster Management Authority, constituted under the provisions of the Disaster Management Act , 2005 (‘Act’, for short) - issued the impugned order on 27.10.2021, directing the Chairperson, Cochin Port Trust, “to take urgent and necessary steps to remove the sedimentation to ensure the free flow of water through the backwaters in Vaduthala within 3 weeks of receipt of this order. ” (sic). The order went on to further say that "this will enable the Hon'ble Court to assess the reparatory damages which may have to be fixed in the event responsibility is found on either the AFCONS Infrastructure Ltd., or other agencies or entities.” (sic)

6. The Cochin Port Trust challenges the aforesaid order through W.P(C)No.24027/2021; while, AFCONS Infrastructure Limited assails it through W.P(C)No.17185/2022.

7. Sri.Nandakumar, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Jayamohan - appearing for the Cochin Port Trust, argued that the impugned order is flawed since it is underpinned on a wrong factual assumption that his client had constructed the ‘ICTT’. He asserted that such construction was done by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways, in conjunction with the Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd., through AFCONS Infrastructure Ltd., which was one of the contractors. He predicated that the impugned order is thus infirm, since no liability could have been cast on his client, particularly its Chairperson, solely because the area where the construction was done