IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 20104 of 2004(R)
1. BHASKARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, PADANNA
... Petitioner
2. JYNESWARAN, S/O.VASU, PALLATHU PARAMBIL,
3. PHILO, W/O.VAVACHAN, KUTTANKAL,
4. ANILA SOMA, S/O.SOMAN, THUNDIPARAMBIL,
5. RAVEENDRAN, S/O.KUNJAN, CHAKIATHARA,
6. RAJEEVAN, KANNOTH HOUSE,
Vs
1. MULAVUKADU PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
3. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
For Respondent :SRI.SUNNY XAVIER, ACGSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :08/12/2006
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
..........................................................
W.P.(C) No.20104 OF 2004
...........................................................
DATED THIS THE 8TH DECEMBER, 2006
J U D G M E N T
Heard both sides.
2. My attention was drawn by the learned Central Government
Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent-Union of India to the fact that
the judgment of this Court in Parthan A.C. v. Nayarambalam
Grama Panchayat (ILR 2006(3) Kerala 465) covers the very same
issue. The learned counsel submitted that this Court will be justified in
disposing of this Writ Petition passing the same directions which have
been passed by this Court in that case. On going through the
judgment, I find that the said judgment takes care of Mulavukad
Panchayat also, which is the 1st respondent in this case.
3. Under these circumstances, in view of the reasons stated in
the judgment in Parthan’s case (supra) and subject to the
observations contained in that judgment, this Writ Petition will stand
disposed of directing the Department of Science, Technology and
Environment under the 2nd respondent-Government or such other
appropriate authority, to take immediate steps for moving the
additional 4th respondent-Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority
and request the said authority to take a decision for modification or
amendment of the Coastal Zone Management Plan appropriately in
WP(C)N0.20104 of 2004
-2-
the light of the observations made in Parthan’s case. It will be open
to the additional 4th respondent-Authority to take a decision on the
basis of the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioners in this
case or their representatives. The additional 4th respondent shall
afford sufficient opportunity to the petitioners as well as the 1st
respondent before any decision is taken in the matter. The petitioners
are hereby permitted to submit detailed representations raising all
their claims and contentions in the matter. Representations, if any,
shall be submitted by the petitioners within one month of their
receiving copy of this judgment. On receiving such representations,
the Department of Science, Technology and Environment will take
necessary steps to place them before the additional 4th respondent-
Authority within one month therefrom. Enquiries will be conducted by
the Authority and a decision taken as directed in the judgment in
Parthan’s case (ILR 2006(3) Kerala 465). All the directions issued
by this Court in Parthan’s case will apply to this case also and it is
needless to reiterate that the observations of this Court in para.17 of
the judgment in Parthan’s case will be relevant to this case also.
The parties will suffer their respective costs.
tgl/- (PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)
WP(C)N0.20104 of 2004
-3-