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 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 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 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, 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.
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.
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.
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 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 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, 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.
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 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;
(c) Clearance from Lakshadweep Pollution Control 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 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
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, 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.
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, 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 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 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 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:
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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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, 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, 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 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
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 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 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, |Chairman |
|Former Judge, Supreme Court of India | |
|Dr. M. Baba, |Member |
|Executive Director, Advance Training Centre | |
|for Earth System Sciences and Climate, | |
|Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology | |
|(IITM), Pune | |
| | |
|Mr. B.R. Subramaniam, |Member |
|Project Director | |
|Integrated Coastal and Marine Area | |
|Management (ICMAM) | |
|Project under Ministry of Earth Sciences, | |
|Govt. of India | |
| | |
|Prof. M.M. Kamath |Member |
|Chief Engineer (Civil) (retd.) | |
|Vice-Chairman, Expert Appraisal Committee on| |
|CRZ/Infrastructure Projects Constituted by | |
|Ministry of Environment and Forests | |
| | |
|Prof. E.F.N. Ribeiro |Member |
|School of Planning and Architecture, | |
|New Delhi | |
| | |
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:
(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.
(c) Reservation/identification of suitable locations and 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.
(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 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 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.
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.
……………………….……..……J.
(T.S. THAKUR)
………………………….…..……J.
New Delhi (GYAN SUDHA MISRA)
May 11, 2012
