The court mandated ecological assessments for flood mitigation measures, emphasizing oversight to protect sensitive ecosystems.

JUDGMENT

Syam Kumar V.M., J.

These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the order issued by the Respondent - District Collector, Alappuzha, invoking powers under Section 30 of the Disaster Management Act , 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2005”). Since common questions arise for consideration, these W.P.(C) s are heard and disposed of together. For the sake of easy reference to exhibits and contentions, W.P.(C)

No.16281 of 2019 is taken as the lead case.

2. Ext.P5 order was issued by the 3rd respondent District Collector as the Chairman of the District Disaster Management Authority, suggesting certain flood containment measures to address the perennial issue of flooding of Kuttanad areas during monsoons. The question that comes up for consideration in these W.P.(C)s essentially concerns the legality of such flood containment measures in terms of their ecological impact.

3. Among the various flood mitigation measures suggested in Ext.P5, one relates to enabling unobstructed and easy flow of water from Pampa, Manimala and Achan Kovil rivers through the Thottappally Spillway, which drains flood waters from the said rivers to the Arabian Sea. Towards achieving free flow, Ext.P5 suggested the removal of sand from the Thottappally Spillway as well as the soil accumulated in the Thannirmukkam Bund. Along with the removal of such sand and soil, cutting and removal of the Casuarina Trees, which block the flow of water from the Thottappally Spillway was also suggested.

4. Petitioners challenge Ext.P5 order, contending inter alia, that the sand removal mentioned therein is not an innocuous disaster prevention measure, as it has been made out to be. The real objective behind the same, allegedly, is to permit continuous and unregulated extraction of mineral-rich sand from the area. They contend that Ext.P5 facilitates the unregulated mining of sand from near the Thottappally Spillway, unmindful of its ecological impact. The direct result of the activity that is thus being carried out at Thottappally spillway for the last few years is the devastation of nearly 15 acres of ecologically sensitive area near the Spillway, which is a 'Turtle nesting Grounds' coming under Para 7(1) CRZ-I A(g) of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification , 2011. Species of Olive Ridley and Hawksbill Turtle, which are included in Schedule I of the Wildlife Protection Act , use the said area as nesting grounds. The implementation of Ext.P5 measures, the Petitioners contend, would have a detrimental impact on such protected nesting grounds.

5. After the filing of the W.P.(C) in 2019, in the course of its pendency, statements/affidavits and replies have been filed by the parties. Stakeholders who were not already in the party array were impleaded and interim orders were rendered from time to time inter alia seeking status reports and clarifications. Thereafter, Rule was issued and the W.P.(C) was admitted.

6. We have heard Ms.V.Mangala, learned counsel representing Mr.Thomas M.Jacob, learned counsel for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.16281 of 2019, Mr.Liju V.Stephen, learned counsel for the Petitioner in W.P.(PIL) No.28 of 2025, Mr.P.G.Pramod, learned Senior Government Pleader, Mr.Nagaraj Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader, Mr.M.P. Prakash, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority and Mr.M.P.Sreekrishnan for Respondent No.6 in W.P.(C) No.16281 of

2019 and Mr.S.Vishnu (Arikkattil), learned counsel for Respondent No.7 in W.P. (PIL) No.28 of 2025.

7. The principal grievance of the Petitioners is that Ext.P5 order, which directs the removal of sand from the Thottappally Spillway, had been issued without a