APPU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner. a resident of Kovalam. has filed this original Petition in the public interest for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to quash Ext. P4 proceedings of the Government of Kerala permitting the construction of a mosque at Kovalam beach on Government puramboke land.

(2.) KOVALAM is a place of tourist attraction and a tourism complex has come into existence at the KOVALAM Beach . The area developed as a tourism development complex was in the possession of the State of Kerala till 1968. Thereafter the entire development complex was handed over to the second respondent. namely. the India Tourism Development Corporation (I. T. D. C. ).

(3.) IF there is any breach of conditions of the licence. it is open to the Government to resume the land. The licence itself in this case is granted after the construction itself was almost over and it may be open to the Government. if found necessary. to terminate the licence and resume the land. Whether a licence of this nature should be granted or not in the circumstances of the case is a matter for the Government to decide. The decision in such cases is not a judicial or quasi-judicial determination. It is only an administrative action of the Government. taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case there is no dispute that there was an ancient mosque which gat submerged under the sea due to sea erosion. the Muslims in the locality are mostly poor and they were having their prayers in a thatched shed constructed for that purpose. It is in the place of the thatched shed a mosque for the purpose of prayer only has been put up. The total area occupied by the mosque and its lite is only 15 cents. The administrative decision taken at the highest level of the Government is not a matter for interference by this court in proceedings under Art. 226 of the constitution. Lord Diplock in C. C. S. U. v. Minister for Civil Services. (1984) 3 w. L. R. 1174 stated at page 1197: ". . . The reasons for the decision-maker taking one course rather than another do not normally involve questions to which. IF disputed. the judicial process is adapted to provide the right answer. by which i mean that the kind of evidence that is admissible under judicial procedures and the way in which it has to be adduced tend to exclude from the attention of the court competing policy considerations which. if the executive discretion is to be wisely exercised. need to be weighed against one another a balancing exercise which judges by their upbringing and experience are illqualified to perform. . . ". The Supreme Court in Shri. Sachidanand Pandey and another v. State of West Bengal and others (A. I. R. 1987 SC 1109) considering the validity of the grant of a plot of land carved out of the zoological gardens in alipore in Calcutta to the Taj group of hotels stated at page 1127: "the proposition that a decision must be arrived at after taking into account all relevant considerations. eschewing all irrelevant considerations cannot for a moment be doubted. We have already pointed out that relevant considerations were not ignored and. Indeed. were taken Into account by the Government of West Bengal. It is not one of these cases where the evidence 1s first gathered and a decision is later arrived at one fine morning and the decision is incorporated in a reasoned order. This is a case where discussions have necessarily to stretch over a long period of time. Several factors have to be independently and separately weighed and considered. This is a case where the decision and the reasons for the decision can only be gathered by looking at the entire course of events and circumstances stretching over the period from the initiation of the proposal to the taking of the final decision. It is Important to note that unlike Mohinder Singh Gill's case where the Court was dealing with a Statutory Order made by a statutory functionary who could not. therefore. be allowed to supplement the grounds of his order by later explanations. the present is a case where neither a statutory function nor a statutory functionary is involved but the transaction bears a commercial though public character which can only be settled after protracted discussion. clarification and consultation with all interested persons. " On these grounds. the grant of land to the Taj group of hotels was upheld.