INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL WELFARE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A scheme has been formulated for linking the main land of Cochin with a few of the Islands in the archipelago situated beyond the western backwaters. A body has been constituted for its implementation. The name of the said body is "goshree Island Development Authority" (its acronym is 'gida' ). The scheme involves construction of bridges connecting those islands with the main land - Ernakulam. It also envisages reclamation of an area of 362 hectares in the Vembanad lake abutting the Arabian sea. The cost estimated for this major scheme is roughly 328 crores of rupees. Propounders of GIDA were initially enthusiastic in implementation of the scheme. But such activities had to be slowpedalled when the public interest litigation was launched at the instance of a society registered claiming itself to be interested in the social welfare of general public. The Original Petition filed by them for a writ of prohibition restraining the authorities to stop the project for reclamation and construction of bridges was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court against which the Institute filed this Writ Appeal. A Division Bench which heard the Writ Appeal earlier and dismissed it when the State Government informed the court that the implementation of the scheme would be confined to construction of bridges after obtaining requisite sanction wherever it is required. Government Pleader further pointed out that "the reclamation work is limited to the construction of the bridge and for the purpose of putting up necessary posts for supporting the bridge. " Hence the Division Bench expressed that it is not clear from the averments in the Original Petition as to how the construction of the bridges would cause environmental damage. So the Writ Appeal was dismissed on 30-8-1994. State Government has filed a review petition for apprising the court that reclamation work cannot be limited to the construction bridges. When the review petition was heard, it was agreed by both sides that Writ Appeal can be disposed of afresh in view of this changed stand of the State Government. We then allowed the review petition and heard the Writ Appeal afresh.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has stated at the Bar that they are not opposing the construction of bridges for linking Ernakulam with Vypeen and other islands, but they seriously oppose the proposed reclamation of a vast area in the Vembanad lake towards implementation of the scheme. The proposal regarding use of the reclaimed area is to locate various commercial activities thereon.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate General has advanced broadly two contentions to convince us that the prohibition of land reclamation contained in the notification dated 20-2-1991 would not apply to the proposed reclamation in this case. First is that the land reclamation mentioned in the notification should be of such a nature as to disturb the natural course of sea water which alone would fall within the ambit of the prohibition. Second is that the proposed land reclamation is not expected to take place within the Coastal Regulation Zone.