Exhibits P1 and P2 orders mandating entry permits for family members of natives of Lakshadweep are ultra vires the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands (Restrictions on Entry and Residence) Rules, 1967.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2026

Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.04.2019 in W.P.(C) No.28837 of 2014. Appellant was the petitioner in the said W.P.(C).

2. The Writ Petition was filed by the appellant by a minor represented by his parent, seeking to quash Exhibits P1 and P2 orders issued by the 3rd respondent Director of General Administration & Protocol, Union Territory of Lakshadweep. The said orders mandated a procedure to issue, reject, renew, endorse, and cancel the entry permits to various categories of visitors to the Lakshadweep Islands. The contention of the petitioner in the W.P. (C) was that Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P2 orders contravened and replaced the provisions of the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands (Restrictions on Entry and Residence) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1967') and that the 3rd respondent had no authority and lacked competence to issue the same.

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the W.P.(C) inter alia holding that the restrictions imposed vide Exhibits P1 and P2 were only procedural in nature and did not lay down an absolute embargo on family members who are mainlanders from visiting the Islands. The learned Single Judge also concluded that the impugned orders did not create any prohibition in contravention of the Rules of 1967. Since the said Rules had no procedure prescribed to facilitate the visits of the family members who are mainlanders, the same was put in place through the impugned orders. It was thus held that Exhibits P1 and P2 orders were only filling up the lacuna in Exhibit P3 Rules to the extent that they did not take care of the facilitation of entry of mainland family members. It was concluded that there was no arbitrariness or unconstitutionality in Exhibits P1 and P2 orders, and the W.P.(C) was disposed of by clarifying that if and when the appellant makes an application seeking a permit, it shall be processed at the earliest possible time. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, this Writ Appeal has been filed.

4. Heard Sri.Ajit G. Anjarlekar, Advocate for the appellant, Sri.R.V.Sreejith, Advocate, Standing Counsel, for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is erroneous, legally unsustainable and fit to be set aside. The learned Single Judge, it is submitted, had erred in accepting the contention of the respondents that Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P2 were issued only to simplify the procedure of entry of family members of natives into Lakshadweep Islands. The learned Single Judge overlooked that Exhibit P3 Rules of 1967 relating to entry permit rules categorically exclude the family members of the natives of Lakshadweep from requiring an entry permit for entering into or residing in Lakshadweep. The learned Single Judge ought to have found that any order which stipulates that an entry permit is required for family members thus contradicts the stipulations of the Rules of 1967. Since the Rules of 1967 are specific and clear, it was beyond the competency of the 3rd respondent to issue, Exhibits P1 and P2 orders that contradict the Rules. To the extent Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P2 orders violated the Rules of 1967 relating to family members of islanders, the same were fit to be set aside. The learned Single Judge erred in refusing the prayer to do so. Admittedly, the grandfather of the appellant is an islander, and a Government Employee working und