SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 55827

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
SURESH KUMAR. S – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WA NO. 1643 OF 2021 | WP(C) 15520/2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: LIJU.V.STEPHEN, INDU SUSAN JACOB
For the Respondents: SRI.VISHNU J., M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, K.JOHN MATHAI, JOSON MANAVALAN, KURYAN THOMAS, PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM, JIJO PAUL KALLOOKKARAN, P.PRAVEEN, LATHA ANAND, S.VISHNU, M.N.RADHAKRISHNA MENON, S. KANNAN, SRI P G PRAMOD, MANU S., DSG OF INDIA, M.P.PRAKASH, SC, KCZMA

The court ruled that the Disaster Management Act's provisions can override environmental regulations in critical situations to protect public safety and mitigate disaster effects.

Headnote:(A) Disaster Management Act, 2005 - Sections 2(d), 2(e), 6, 18, 30, 39, and 72 - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Section 2 - Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 - Issues regarding sand mining under the guise of flood management - The court found that removal of the sandbar is justified under the Disaster Management Act, prioritizing the safety of the public over other regulatory concerns, as the sandbar obstructs flood water flow. (Paras 1-82)

(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that policy decisions made by the State regarding disaster prevention should be respected and that courts are limited in their interference unless actions are arbitrary or irrational. (Paras 69-70)

Facts of the case:
The case involves appellant petitions challenging the legality of sand mining activities conducted in the Thottappally Spillway region, alleging that these operations are being carried out without proper approvals and in violation of environmental laws. (Paras 1-10, 13, 23)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the legality of the actions taken under the Disaster Management Act due to the critical need for flood mitigation, asserting that the intent of Section 72 gives precedence to managing disasters over the Coastal Regulation Zone prohibitions. (Paras 24-74)

Issues: The main issues included whether the removal of the sandbar constituted illegal mining and whether the Disaster Management Act overrides other environmental regulations when public safety is at stake. (Paras 11-12, 23)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the safety and welfare of citizens, especially in the context of the 2018 floods, dictate the necessity and legality of the sandbar removal under the Disaster Management Act, thereby affirming the State's actions. (Paras 24-66)

Result: Writ appeal and public interest writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. jurisdictional outline of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. grounds for challenges to mining permissions (Para 5 , 6 , 10)
3. historical context of flood management (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 11)
4. legal compliance of mining operations (Para 13 , 14)
5. priority of disaster management over environmental laws (Para 59 , 68)

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 t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top