w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Pappinisseri ECO Tourism Society v/s Union of India Ministry of Environment and Forests Represented by its Principal Secretary & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- ECO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51505HR2015FTC057017

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN1919PTC000911

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1941PTC003461

Company & Directors' Information:- D. N. ECO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U37200MH2019PTC335147

    W.P.(C).No.22707 of 2010 (K)

    Decided On, 19 August 2010

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. J. CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. RAVINDRAN

    For the Petitioner : M/s. P/B. Sahasranaman, T.S. Harikumar, P.U. Shailajan, K. Jagadeesh, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1 to 3, T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan Assistant Solicitor General, R4, S. Ramesh, R5, K.V. Sohan, Standing Counsel, R6, Government Pleader.



Judgment Text

J. Chelameswar, C.J.


Admit. Sri. T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, learned Assistant Solicitor General takes notice for respondents 1 to 3. Sri. S. Ramesh, Standing Counsel takes notice for 4th respondent. Sri. K.V. Sohan, Standing Counsel takes notice for 5th respondent and learned Government Pleader takes notice for the additional 6th respondent.


2. The impugned order, Ext.P1 in the instant writ petition is an order purportedly passed in exercise of the powers under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:


?16. Now, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 the following directions are hereby given:-


I. President and office bearers of the Pappinissery Ectourism in general, and Shri. A.V. Ajay Kumar, Vice President in particular, Near Pappinisseri Panchayat Office, P.O., Pappinisseri, Kannur, Kerala-670561 will stop all activities relating to the mangrove theme park at Pappinissery Panchayat, Kerala.


II. Chairman, Kerala State Costal Zone Management Authority (KSCZMA) will cause an inspection of the project site alongwith officials of Kerala Forest Department, Centre for Earth Science Studies, Thiruvananthapuram, to assess the damage/destruction carried out in the CRZ area from undertaking developments related to mangrove theme park Pappinissery and submit a report thereof, within 15 days from date of receipt of these directions to MoEF.


17. In case, the above directions are not complied with the ministry will be constrained to initiate action under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 with any reference.?


3. It may be mentioned here that the activity which is directed to be stopped is alleged to be an activity which is detrimental to the environment. Another public interest litigation, W.P.(C) No. 12623 of 2010 making such a complaint that the activity of the writ petitioner is detrimental to the environment safety is pending consideration by this Court.


4. However, the case of the petitioner in the instant case is that, Ext.P1 the impugned order was issued without any notice to the writ petitioner, apart from the illegality of the said order otherwise.


5. In view of the submission that the order was passed without notice to the petitioner, on an earlier occasion when the matter was taken up on 12.08.2010, we thought it appropriate to call upon the learned Assistant Solicitor General to obtain instructions as to whether a notice preceded the impugned decision. Today when the matter is taken up, Sri. T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, learned Assistant Solicitor General made a categoric submission that the impugned direction is not preceded by notice as a matter of fact. However, he vehemently submitted that Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 does not contemplate the issuance of any such notice.


It is a submission prima facie difficult to accept that an administrative action affecting the rights of the citizens could be taken without any opportunity being given to the citizens whose rights are sought to be affected. We, therefore, deem it appropriate that the

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

impugned order be kept in abeyance until further orders, subject to the following conditions: 1) The petitioner shall not carry on any further construction activity or any commercial activity in the site in dispute. 2) The petitioner shall not also in any way alienate the property or any part of it or create any encumbrance thereon.
O R