The Union Territory of Lakshadweep Vs Seashells Beach Resort

11 May 2012
Supreme Court
Download

THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP Vs SEASHELLS BEACH RESORT

Bench: T.S. THAKUR,GYAN SUDHA MISRA
Case number: C.A. No.-004625-004626 / 2012
Diary number: 4249 / 2012
Advocates: Vs GAUTAM NARAYAN

Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.5967-5968 of 2012)

Union Territory of Lakshadweep & Ors. …Appellants

Versus

Seashells Beach Resort & Ors. …Respondents

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed by the Union Territory of

Lakshadweep against an order dated 16th January, 2012

Page 2

passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam whereby

the High Court has directed the appellants to process the

applications made by respondent No.1-Seashells Beach

Resort, hereinafter referred to as respondent, for all

clearances including finalisation of CRZ norms and pending

final decision on the same, to permit the respondent to run

the resort established by it at Agatti. The High Court has

further directed the appellants to issue travel permits and

entry passes required by tourists making use of the

accommodation in the said resort.

3. Lakshadweep Administration finds fault with the

direction issued by the High Court on several grounds

including the ground that respondent-writ petitioner before

the High Court had no licence from the Tourism Department

and no clearance from the Coastal Zone Regulatory

Authority or the Pollution Control Board to run the resort

established by it. It is alleged that the direction issued by

Page 3

the High Court amounts to permitting the respondent to run

a resort sans legal permission and authority and without any

check, control or regulation regarding its affairs. The

Administration also points out that diversion of land use qua

different survey numbers in Agatti was obtained by one of

the partners of the respondent for construction of dwelling

houses and not for establishing a commercial establishment

like a tourist resort and that respondent No.1 had misused

the said permission by constructing a resort in the No

Development Zone (NDZ) falling within 50 metres of High

Tide Line and thereby violated the CRZ norms. The

respondent has, according to the Administration,

constructed cottage at a distance of 28 metres from the

High Tide Line on the western side of the sea and thus

violated the terms of the permission given to it. The

Administration further alleges that it had never permitted

the respondent to run a resort and that it had on the basis

of a permission obtained from the local panchayat, which

Page 4

had no authority to issue such permission, started bringing

tourists, including foreign tourists, to the resort on the

pretext that the accommodation was in the nature of ‘home

stay’. The Administration asserts that neither the Union

Territory of Lakshadweep nor the Government of India have

taken any policy decision regarding permitting home stay

arrangements on the Lakshadweep islands and that the High

Court had completely overlooked the fact that all

development in relation to the said islands shall have to be

in accordance with the Integrated Island Management Plan

and the CRZ norms. The Administration also relies upon a

Notification dated 6th January, 2011 issued by the

Government of India in exercise of its powers under Section

3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 which

notification is intended to promote conservation and

protection of the Island’s unique environment and its marine

area and to promote development through a sustainable

integrated management plan based on scientific principles,

Page 5

taking into account the vulnerability of the coast to natural

hazards.

4. When these petitions came before us for preliminary

hearing on 2nd March 2012, this Court while issuing notice to

the respondent and staying the operation of the impugned

order passed by the High Court, directed the petitioner and

respondent No.2 to furnish the following information on

affidavit:

1) Whether the proposed Integrated Island

Management Plan has been finalised for the

Union Territory of Lakshadweep and whether CRZ

for the said territory has been notified?

2) If the CRZ has not been notified or the plan has

not been finalised, the reasons for delay and the

stage at which the matter rests at present and

the particulars of the authority with whom the

matter is pending.

Page 6

3) The total number of the applications received by

the Union Territory of Lakshadweep for setting up

of resorts and stage at which the said

applications are pending/being processed.

4) The nature and extent of the violations which the

administration of the Union Territory of

Lakshadweep have noticed in the proposed

resorts and the action, if any, taken for removal

of such violations. If no action has been

taken/initiated for removal of the violation, the

reasons for the failure of the authorities to do so

and the persons responsible for the

omission/inaction.

5) The particulars of unauthorised resorts being

operated in any part of the Union Territory of the

Lakshadweep and the action proposed to be

taken for closure/removal of such resorts.

Page 7

5. In compliance with the above directions, the

Administrator of the UT of Lakshadweep has filed an

affidavit, inter-alia, stating:

(i) The proposed Integrated Island

Management Plan (IIMP) for Agatti Island in

pursuance of the notification dated 6th January,

2011 of Ministry of Environment and Forests

has not been finalized as yet and is under

finalization with the Administration of Union

Territory of Lakshadweep. The Coastal

Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification for the

whole country including the UT of Lakshadweep

Island has been notified by the Ministry of

Environment & Forests, Government of India

vide CRZ Notification S.O. No. 114(E) dated

19th February, 1991.

Page 8

(ii) In exercise of the powers conferred

under Section 3(3)(i) and 3(3)(ii) of CRZ

Notification dated 19th February, 1991 a Coastal

Zone Management Plan for UT of Lakshadweep

was also notified by the Administration on 22nd

August, 1997 which is in force till date and shall

be in force until 6th January, 2013.

(iii) The Government of India vide

Notification S.O. No. 20(E) dated 6th January,

2011 provided that the Lakshadweep Island

shall be managed on the basis of an Integrated

Island Management Plan (IIMP) to be prepared

as per the guidelines given in the notification.

The notification stipulates that the

Lakshadweep Island Administration shall, within

a period of one year from the date of this

notification, prepare the IIMPs, inter-alia

Page 9

specifying therein all the existing and proposed

developments, conservation and preservation

schemes, dwelling units including infrastructure

projects such as schools, markets, hospitals,

public facilities and the like. The Administration

may, if it considers necessary, take the help of

research institutions having experience and

specialisation in Coastal Resource Management

in the preparation of IIMPs, taking into account

the guidelines specified in the notification.

(iv) Since the Administration of Union

Territory of Lakshadweep did not have the

required expertise for the preparation of such a

comprehensive Integrated Island Management

Plan (IIMP) for which lot of scientific inputs are

required, Centre for Earth Science Studies

(CESS), Trivandrum was approached for

Page 10

preparing the IIMPs for all inhabited and

uninhabited islands. The said Centre is,

according to the Administration, a prestigious

institution under the Ministry of Earth Sciences

having experience and specialisation in coastal

resource management and has extensive

scientific database on Lakshadweep.

(v) The CESS informed the Administration

that IIMP will be prepared within a period of

one year. Work relating to preparation of

Integrated Island Management Plan for Agatti

and Chetlat Island in the first phase of the

study have been completed and the draft plan

for Agatti and Chetlat Islands have been

submitted to Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Administration on 2nd January, 2012 and the

study of remaining islands viz. Kavaratti,

Page 11

Andrott, Minicoy, Kalpeni, Kiltan, Kadmat,

Amini and Bitra have already started and are in

progress.

(vi) The Administration has initiated action

for giving wide publicity to the draft Integrated

Island Management Plan for Agatti Island by

uploading it on Lakshadweep website and will

be published in two newspapers inviting

comments/suggestions from the public as well

as other stake holders in the island. On receipt

of the comments/suggestions, the Island

Administration shall make necessary

changes/modification in the draft plan if

required and final IIMP shall be submitted to

the Ministry of Environment and Forests,

Government of India.

Page 12

(vii) It is expected that the IIMP for Agatti

and Chetlat Island will be finalised by 6th

January 2013 as per the time limit given in the

Notification and until that time the CRZ

notification of 1991 and its Rules i.e. Coastal

Zone Management Plan 1997 shall apply, as

clearly stated in clause 3(ii) of the notification.

6. It is evident from the above assertions made in the

affidavit of the Administrator that while the process of

formulation of IIMPs for Lakshadweep has started, the draft

plan received from the CESS is yet to be evaluated by the

Administrator and sent for approval to the Government of

India. In the meantime, another development has

intervened in the form of UT of Lakshadweep, Department

of Tourism, issuing a Notification dated 28th January, 2010

inviting proposals from local entrepreneurs and registered

organisations from Lakshadweep group of islands for

Page 13

setting up of tourist resorts at Agatti Island fulfilling the

prescribed requirements. The case of the Administration is

that in response to this Notification the Department has

received nine applications for setting up of tourist resorts,

which were to be submitted along with:

(a) Environmental clearance from the Department of

Environment and Forests;

(b) Land use diversion certificate from SDO/DC/Local

Panchayat;

Committee;

(d) Clearance from Coastal Zone Management

Authority.

7. Despite reminders issued to the applicants, none of

them has fulfilled the above conditions till date. In the

result, all the nine applications are awaiting complete

details from the applicants. Respondent also happens to be

Page 14

one of the applicants, out of the nine applicants, three of

whom have started some construction activity which are at

different stages of completion. Respondent is one of the

three applicants who has started raising a construction. The

case of the Administration is that neither the respondent

nor the other applicants have complied with the requisite

conditions including the coastal zone clearance. No final

approval to any one of the applicants has, therefore, been

granted, or could be granted having regard to the fact that

as many as five huts constructed by the respondent are

located in the NDZ area and are, therefore, in violation of

the CRZ Notification 1991 and Coastal Zone Management

Plan, 1997, in which the entire area within 50 meters from

High Tide Line from both sides, western and eastern, is

declared as No Development Zone. According to the

Administration, the respondent has violated the conditions

of the land use diversion certificate, inasmuch as the land

use diversion certificate, permitted construction of dwelling

Page 15

houses away from the NDZ whereas the respondent has set

up a commercial enterprise like a tourist resort, which was

not authorised. According to the affidavit of the

Administration, the Administration proposes to conduct a

detailed inquiry to fix responsibility of officials for not taking

action while construction of five huts in NDZ was being

carried on by the respondent. The affidavit refers to a show

cause notice issued to the respondent to remove the

construction in Sy. Nos. 1300/1, 1301/1A and 1301/1 Part.

Writ Petition No. 1312/2012 was filed by respondent

against the said notice in which the High Court has directed

the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the building

in question.

8. The affidavit further states that a tourist resort owned

by the Administration at Agatti is closed with effect from 4th

February, 2012. The affidavit also refers to five resorts

owned by the Department of Tourism, UT of Lakshadweep,

Page 16

that the Administration runs at different islands which were

constructed during 1980s and 1990s. The affidavit goes on

to state that there is no “home stay” policy and the

Administration has not authorised any owner of house to

run a home stay. On an experimental basis, the ‘Home

based tourism’ was started in Agatti during October-

December 2011 by the Administration. The Administration,

it is asserted, had hired few houses in the village Agatti

which were lying vacant and owners of the said houses

were paid on daily user basis whenever the guests were

staying. That arrangement has now been stopped as a

section of islanders had objected to the same. The

Administration is engaged in discussing with various

sections of society to frame a policy for “home stay”, based

on the Bed and Breakfast scheme of Government of India

which will be applicable to the houses in the village area

and resorts will not be covered under any such policy.

Page 17

9. An affidavit has been filed by Deputy Director, Ministry

of Environment and Forests, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO

Complex, New Delhi , which has taken the same line of

argument as set up by the Administrator in his affidavit

especially as regards the finalisation of IIMPs with the help

of CESS, the issue of Government of India’s Notification

dated 6th January, 2011 and any construction in Coastal

Regulation Zone between 50 meters and 500 meters from

the High Tide Line being in violation of the CRZ Notification

hence liable to be proceeded against by the Lakshadweep

Coastal Zone Management Authority as per the provisions

of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

10. The Director, Tourism in UT of Lakshadweep has

separately filed an affidavit stating only one tourist resort

owned by the Union Territory is operating in Agatti.

11. Respondents No.1 and 2 have also filed an affidavit in

reply, sworn by Mohd. Kasim H.K., S/o Syed Mohammed,

Page 18

one of the partners of respondent No.1. In this affidavit,

the respondent clearly emphasises that although the width

of the ‘No Development Zone’ in respect of Agatti Island is

uniformly 50 meters from the high tide line, the high tide

line is not demarcated till date and the assertion that the

respondent No.1 has violated the CRZ notification and

raised construction in the ‘No Development Zone’ is without

any basis. The respondent has also relied on the certificates

issued by the PWD of the Lakshadweep Administration

which according to the respondent show that the

construction does not fall in the ‘No Development Zone’. It

is further stated that the respondents have obtained the

requisite clearance like the occupancy certificate issued by

the district Panchayat, No Objection Certificate issued by

the Lakshadweep Pollution Control Committee, in principle

approval granted by the petitioner-Administration,

environmental clearance granted by the Department of

Environment and Forests, provisional clearance granted by

Page 19

the Tourism Department, no objection certificate granted

by the village Panchayat and no objection certificate

granted by the district Panchayat.

12. The allegation that the land use diversion certificate

has been violated, is also denied. The Administration was,

according to the respondent, aware from the inception that

the respondent proposed to set up tourist accommodation

over the land held by them through a valid lease in their

favour. The respondent had submitted an application

seeking grant of the land use diversion certificate for the

above project. The Administration had prior knowledge of

the proposed project and had granted the approval to the

same. Since the certificate wrongly mentioned construction

of a dwelling house as the purpose of land use diversion the

error was brought to the notice of the Administration. The

respondent was, however, informed that the certificate had

been granted in a general format and should not cause any

Page 20

worry to the respondent. The respondent has also

vehemently disputed the assertion of the Administration

that no resorts are functional at Agatti. The affidavit refers

to Agatti Island Beach Resort, which has been leased out in

the year 1996 by the Administration to one T. Muthukoya.

It also refers to multi-storeyed tourist accommodation

being operated on Agatti Island. Photographs of these

establishments have been placed on record. It enlists as

many as six different establishments which, according to

the respondent, are being run as tourist resorts. The

affidavit also disputes the assertion of the Administration

that the Home Stay has been discontinued w.e.f. February

2012. The affidavit refers to what is described as parallel

tourism resorts set up with the active permission of the

Administration.

13. The Administration has filed an affidavit in rejoinder

sworn by one Asarpal Singh, Deputy Resident

Page 21

Commissioner for UT. Apart from reiterating the assertion

made by the Administration in the affidavit, it alleges that

the use of local material is forbidden in Lakshadweep

islands as the locally available sand being coral dust is not

allowed to be used for building purposes. All the building

material is, therefore, imported from the mainland. The

thatched roof over the hutments is also a false roofing as

the cottages are air-conditioned and the thatched roof is

only a camouflage. The rooms visible in the photographs

are actually pucca constructions. The structures are made

of cement and concrete. The accommodation is according

to the Administration advertised for a price ranging

between Rs.6000-12000/- per day.

14. We have referred copiously to the pleadings of the

parties only to draw the contours of the controversy before

us. Broadly speaking only two questions arise for our

determination in the backdrop set out above. These are:

Page 22

(1) Whether the High Court was in the facts and

circumstances of the case correct in allowing the

interim prayer of the respondent and permitting

him to run the resort? and

(2) If the answer to question No. 1 be in the negative,

what is the way forward?

We shall deal with the questions ad-seriatim.

Re. Question No. 1

15. Appearing for the appellant-UT Administration of

Laskshdweep, Mr. H.P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor

General of India contended that the High Court had without

adverting to the several aspects that arose for

consideration permitted the respondent to run the resort

simply because the respondent is alleged to have engaged

47 employees who were likely to be affected if the resort

was shut down. Mr. Raval submitted that permitting the

respondent to run a resort which was established in

Page 23

complete violation of the CRZ regulations and contrary to

the land use diversion certificate granted in its favour was

tantamount to placing a premium on an illegality committed

by the said respondent.

16. Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the

respondents, on the other hand argued that the

Administration was adopting double standards inasmuch as

they were permitting certain resorts to operate while the

resort which had secured the requisite permissions, was

being prevented from doing its legitimate business. It was

contended that in the absence of a policy forbidding ‘home

stay’ arrangement for tourists visiting the Islands the

refusal of the Administration to permit the resort for being

used even as ‘home stay’ was arbitrary. It was also

contended that while there were allegations of breach of

the conditions, subject to which the authorities had granted

Page 24

clearances, such allegations were levelled only after the

respondent had approached the High Court for redress.

17. The High Court has not indeed done justice to the

issues raised by the parties, whether the same relate to the

alleged violations committed by the respondent-

entrepreneur in setting up of a resort or the Administration

permitting similar resorts to operate in the garb of ‘home

stay’ arrangement while preventing the respondent from

doing so. The High Court has not even referred to the

Notification dated 6th January, 2011 issued by the

Government under Section 3 of the Environment

(Protection) Act, 1986 or the effect thereof on the

establishment of the project that does not so far have a

final clearance and completion certificate from the

competent authority and is being accused of serious

violations. The High Court’s order proceeds entirely on

humanitarian and equitable considerations, in the process

Page 25

neglecting equally, if not more, important questions that

have an impact on the future development and

management of the Lakshadweep Islands. We are not,

therefore, satisfied with the manner in which the High

Court has proceeded in the matter. The High Court

obviously failed to appreciate that equitable considerations

were wholly misplaced in a situation where the very

erection of the building to be used as a resort violated the

CRZ requirements or the conditions of land use diversion.

No one could in the teeth of those requirements claim

equity or present the administration with a fait accompli.

The resort could not be commissioned under a judicial order

in disregard of serious objections that were raised by the

Administration, which objections had to be answered before

any direction could issue from a writ Court. We have,

therefore, no hesitation in holding that the order passed by

the High Court is legally unsustainable. Question No. 1 is

Page 26

accordingly answered in the negative, and the impugned

order set aside.

Re. Question No. 2

18. Lakshadweep or Laccadive is a cluster of islands

situate at a distance ranging from two hundred to four

hundred and forty kms. from the main land known for their

natural beauty but fragile, ecological and environmental

balance. Most of the islands are not inhabited, the total

population living on the islands including Agatti, which is

the largest in size, being just about sixty thousand. The

island is of great attraction for tourists both domestic and

international who approach this unique destination by sea

as also by air. The islands are centrally administered and

have been the concern of the Administrators as much as

the environmentalists. All the same there has not been

much development activity in the area largely because of

absence of any vision plan as to the manner and extent and

Page 27

the kind of development that would suit the area keeping in

view its locational advantages and disadvantages. Progress

in this direction is so slow that it is often overtaken by the

pressure of the up market forces that push tourism inflow

in these areas to higher levels with every passing year.

While entrepreneurs may be keen to invest and develop

facilities for tourists and infrastructure for locals living on

the islands, the question is whether such pressure ought to

disturb the Administration’s resolve to permit only a

planned development and management of these islands on

a basis that is both ecologically and economically

sustainable.

19. Given the fact that no vision or master plan for the

development of the islands has been prepared so far,

developments made over the past few decades, may be

haphazard. Mr. Raval, however, submitted that the

Government of India was conscious of the importance of

Page 28

the region and had in terms of Notification dated 6th

January, 2011 directed the preparation of an integrated

management plan for the islands. While broad guidelines

were available in the said Notification, the details have to

be worked out by experts not only in science, environment

and the like but also town-planners who will have a major

role to play in how the islands should develop. Having said

that Mr. Raval fairly conceded that the draft IIMPs for two

of the islands received from the CESS have not been

evaluated by the U.T. Administration nor does the

Administration have the assistance of any expert body that

can look into the draft IIMPs and suggest modifications,

improvements or alterations in the same. That being so

neither the Lakshadweep Administration nor the

Government of India were according to Mr. Raval averse to

the constitution of an expert Committee that could assist

the Lakshadweep Administration in finalising the IIMPs so

Page 29

that the same is submitted to the Government of India for

approval at the earliest.

20. Mr. Giri, learned counsel for the respondents too had

no objection to the appointment of a committee of experts

to do the needful. He however urged that since the

committee could be requested to examine other aspects of

the controversy also the same could be headed by a former

Judge of this Court.

21. Notification dated 6th January, 2011 issued by the

Government of India under Section 3 of the Environment

(Protection) Act, 1986 read with sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of

the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, inter alia,

provides for the preparation of Integrated Islands

Management Plans for each of the islands in Lakshadweep.

These IIMPs have to specify all the existing and proposed

developments, conservation and preservation schemes,

dwelling units including dwelling infrastructure projects

Page 30

such as, schools, markets, hospitals, public facilities and

the like. The notification further provides that development

activities in the island shall be included in the IIMPs in

accordance with the rules and regulations and building bye-

laws of local town and country planning for the time being

in force in the islands and that all activities in the islands

including the aquatic area shall be regulated by the

Lakshadweep Islands Administration on the basis of the

IIMPs. Notification also gives certain guidelines which have

to be kept in view while preparing the IIMPs. It makes the

UT Coastal Zone Management Authority responsible for

enforcing and monitoring the notification and assisting in

the task of constituting District Level Committees under the

Chairmanship of District Magistrate concerned with at least

three representatives of local traditional coastal

communities. Notification also enumerates the activities

that shall be prohibited on the islands including destruction

of corals, mining of sand in and around coral areas,

Page 31

construction of shore protection works, disposal of

untreated sewage or effluents, and disposal of solid wastes

including fly ash, industrial waste, medical waste etc. It

also permits setting up of new industries and expansion of

existing industries except those directly related to

waterfront or directly needing offshore facilities. Suffice it

to say that the Notification draws the contours of the IIMPs

envisaged thereunder, but leaves the details to be worked

out by the Lakshadweep Administration if necessary with

the help of experts in the relevant fields.

22. The issue of the Notification, in our view, is a step

forward in the direction of providing an integrated

sustainable development of the islands along planned and

scientific lines, taking into consideration all the relevant

factors. As noticed in the earlier part of this order draft

IIMPs for two islands, one of which happens to be Agatti,

Page 32

have already been submitted which are yet to be finalised

by the Lakshadweep Administration.

23. In the light of the above we have no difficulty in

directing the constitution of an Expert Committee with a

request to it to look into the matters set out in the terms of

reference which we are setting out herein below. The

Lakshadweep Administration has proposed that the

Committee could comprise of four expert members from

different fields named in the memo filed by the

Administration under the chairmanship of Justice R.V.

Raveendran, former Judge of Supreme Court of India. Mr.

Giri has no objection to the composition of the Committee

being as proposed. We are also inclined to accept the

proposal submitted in this regard. We are hopeful that the

setting up of the Committee will not only provide expert

assistance to the Lakshadweep Administration and

eventually the Government of India in the preparation and

Page 33

approval of the IIMPs for the islands in question but also

expedite the entire process for the general benefit of the

people living on the islands as also for those visiting the

place as tourists. Once the IIMPs are in place, all

development activities will have to be regulated in

accordance with the said plans which will make it so much

easy for the Administration to grant approvals and

clearances for activities that are permissible under such

plans for the areas reserved for the same. It will also

provide for a broad framework for the future development

of the islands without disturbing the ecological or

environmental balance and affecting the beauty of the area.

24. That brings us to yet another aspect which has been

debated at some length by learned counsel for the parties

before us concerning the alleged violation of CRZ and the

land use diversion certificate by the respondent. It is not

possible for us to express any opinion on any one of those

Page 34

aspects for the same would require inspection and

verification of facts on the spot apart from examination of

the relevant record concerning the issue of the permission

and the alleged violation of the conditions subject to which

they were issued. That exercise can, in our opinion, be

more effectively undertaken by the Expert Committee not

only in relation to the respondent but also in relation to all

other resorts and commercial establishments being run on

the islands. So also the question, whether the

Administration committed any violation of the CRZ

Regulations by granting permission to any resort in the

name of ‘home stay’ or committed any other irregularity or

adopted any unfair or discriminatory approach towards any

one or more resorts or commercial establishments is a

matter that can be looked into by the Committee.

25. Suffice it to say that allegations and counter-

allegations made by the parties against each other in

Page 35

regard to the violation of the CRZ and other irregularities in

the matter of establishment and/or running of resorts and

‘home stay’ and grant of permits to tourists visiting the

islands can also be examined by the Expert Committee and

action, if any, considered appropriate by it recommended in

the Report to be submitted to this Court. While doing so,

the Committee shall also examine whether any official of

the Lakshadweep Administration has wilfully or otherwise

neglected the discharge of his duties whether the same

related to violation of CRZ norms or any other act of

omission or commission. The Committee may examine

whether there is any criminal element in any such neglect

or act of omission or commission on the part of any of the

officials in the Lakshadweep Administration.

26. We are told that CBI had been at one stage asked to

look into certain violations alleged in relation to the affairs

of the islands. The Committee may examine the said report

Page 36

also and recommend, if necessary, any investigation to be

conducted by the CBI into the alleged blameworthy conduct

of the officers if there be any need for such investigation.

27. In the result, we appoint the following Committee of

experts:

Justice R.V. Raveendran, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India

- Chairman

Dr. M. Baba, Executive Director, Advance Training Centre for Earth System Sciences and Climate, Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM), Pune

- Member

Mr. B.R. Subramaniam, Project Director Integrated Coastal and Marine Area Management (ICMAM) Project under Ministry of Earth Sciences, Govt. of India

- Member

Prof. M.M. Kamath Chief Engineer (Civil) (retd.) Vice-Chairman, Expert Appraisal

- Member

Page 37

Committee on CRZ/Infrastructure Projects Constituted by Ministry of Environment and Forests

Prof. E.F.N. Ribeiro School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi

- Member

28. Director, Science and Technology, Lakshadweep

Administration, shall be the nodal officer, responsible for

organising and providing the necessary administrative,

secretarial and logistic support required by the Committee.

The Committee shall endeavour to work on the following

broad terms of reference:

(I) The Committee shall use its expertise for evaluation of

the draft IIMPs received from CESS or others that may

be received in due course, and make such additions or

alterations in the same as it may consider proper

having regard, inter alia, to the following:

Page 38

(a) The development already in existence and the

future developments, conservation and

preservation of the entire area keeping in view the

statutory Notification dated 6th January, 2011

issued by the Government of India under the

provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986.

(b) The impact of the proposed development on the

livelihood of indigenous population and the various

vulnerability issues.

areas for creation of public and semi-public facilities

for development of tourism in the islands.

(d) Redevelopment/sustainable development of

inhabited and/or uninhabited areas of each island

as independent and self contained units or as part

of a larger development plan along scientific lines.

Page 39

(II)The Committee may consider and recommend

incorporation in the IIMP, Development Control

Regulations governing the developmental activity in

accordance with the final proposals on the IIMP for the

purpose of islanders’ seeking clearances for permissible

development activities on the islands. Such regulations

may also include setting up of an appellate authority for

the grievance redressal of the islanders with respect to

such clearances. The Committee may suggest an outer

time frame within which the Authority may have to

respond to the applications of the islanders seeking

permission for development activities.

(III) The Committee may examine the desirability and the

feasibility of running ‘home stays’ for tourism purpose

in the islands and may suggest the same to be

incorporated in the IIMPs. The Committee may examine

and suggest necessary guidelines keeping in mind

Page 40

environmental, economic and security considerations

for running of such Home stays including norms/rules

for such ‘home stays’ and the number of ‘home stays’

to be permitted, the number of permits to be granted,

the norms for identification of houses for homestays,

and the facilities to be offered etc.

(IV)The Committee may in its wisdom and discretion make

suggestions on any other issue concerning the islands

which it may deem fit.

29. The Committee shall examine allegations regarding

violation of the CRZ and other irregularities committed by

the respondent or by other individuals/entities in relation to

establishment and/or running resorts and ‘home stays’ in

the islands. Allegations regarding irregularities in the

matter of grant of permits to the tourists visiting the

islands as also in regard to permissions granted to the

resort owners/home stays to operate on the islands shall

Page 41

also be examined by the Committee. So, also the

Committee shall be free to examine whether any official of

the Lakshadweep Administration has been guilty of any act

of omission or commission in the discharge of his official

duties and if considered necessary recommend action

against such officials.

30. The remuneration payable to the Chairman and the

members of the Committee is not being determined by us.

We deem it fit to leave that matter to be decided by the

Committee keeping in view the nature of work to be

undertaken by it and the time required to accomplish the

same.

31. The Chairman of the Committee may, in his discretion

co-opt or associate with the Committee, any other expert

member from any field considered relevant by it or take the

assistance of any scientific or expert body considered

necessary for completion of the assignment.

Page 42

32. The Committee shall evolve its own procedure

including the place and time of the meetings, division of

work, powers, duties and responsibilities of members etc.

33. The Lakshadweep Administration shall provide to the

Committee the requisite information, documents, material,

infrastructure or any other requirement for the successful

implementation of the objectives of the Committee.

34. The expenses incurred directly or indirectly for the

functioning/management of the Committee shall be borne

by the Administration.

35. The Committee is requested to submit a preliminary

report about the steps taken by it as far as possible within

a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order.

36. The matter shall be posted for orders before the Court

after the receipt of the preliminary report.

Page 43

……………………….……..……J. (T.S. THAKUR)

………………………….…..……J. New Delhi (GYAN SUDHA MISRA) May 11, 2012