J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is a company holding lands in Survey Nos.481/1, 484, 496, 498, 499 and 500 of Nadama Village in Ernakulam District. The aforesaid land of the petitioner was not included in the Coastal Zone Management Plan prepared in terms of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991. However, in the Coastal Zone Management Plan prepared in terms of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011, the property of the petitioner was included. According to the petitioner, the inclusion of the property of the petitioner in the said Coastal Zone Management Plan is on account of the wrong fixation of the High Tide Line in the Coastal Zone Management Plan. The Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 is now replaced by the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019 and the preparation of the Coastal Zone Management Plan pursuant to the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019 is underway. The petitioner, in the circumstances, preferred Ext.P9 representation before the first respondent seeking appropriate decision to exclude the property of the petitioner from the Coastal Zone Management Plan. The writ petition is filed thereafter seeking directions to the first respondent to consider Ext.P9 representation.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. When the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government found discrepancies in the pre-draft Coastal Zone Management Plan prepared by the National Centre for Earth Science Studies pursuant to the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019 and a Committee was constituted to examine the discrepancies and rectify the same. It was pointed out by the petitioner that an identical writ petition has been disposed of with a direction to the said Committee to submit its report to the State Government within three months, in terms of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.26055 of 2018. In the light of the said judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for disposal of the writ petition with a direction to the said Committee to examine the grievance voiced by the petitioner in the writ petition also.

4. It is seen that the Coastal Zone Management Plan prepared by the State Government pursuant to the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 has been approved by the competent authority on 28.02.2019 and the same has become final and has been in force for the last two years. In so far as the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 has been replaced by the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019 and the Coastal Zone Management Plan pursuant to the said notification is under preparation, it is unnecessary to consider the correctness of the Coastal Zone Management Plan prepared pursuant to the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011. It is also seen that the draft of the Coastal Zone Management Plan pursuant to the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019 is yet to be finalized. The Committee referred to by this Court in W.P.(C) No.26055 of 2018 is one constituted by the Government to rectify the anomalies found in the pre-draft Coastal Zone Management Plan prepared by the National Centre for Earth Science Studies.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the State Government to forward Ext.P9 representation expeditiously to the Committee constituted by the Government, as referred to in the judgment of this court in W.P.(C) No.26055 of 2018, with a request to examine the grievance voiced by the petitioner in the representation also in the matter of finalizing the draft of the Coastal Zone Management Plan. The petitioner shall produce certified copy of this judgment for compliance before the competent authority of the Government. It is made clear that if for any reason, the grievance of the petitioner is not addressed in the draft of the Coastal Zone Management Plan finalized by the Committee, the petitioner would be free to raise objections to the draft of the Plan as and when it is publish