PARISTHITHI SAMRAKSHANA SANGHAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a public interest litigation filed by the Paristhithi Sarrirakshana Sangham, mainly with the following two prayers:

(2.) When the writ petition came up for admission it was brought to our notice that sand audit as required under Section 29 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 has not been conducted since the last five years. The Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', is intended to protect river banks and river beds from large scale dredging of river sand and to protect their biophysical environment system and regulate the removal of river sand and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. It is stated in the preamble of the Act that Government had taken note of the indiscriminate and uncontrolled removal of sand from the rivers causing large scale river bank sliding and loss of property. The Government had also taken note of large scale dredging of river sand disturbing the biophysical environment system of the river and hence it was felt expedient in public interest to provide for regulatory measures for the protection of river banks and for removal of sand from rivers. Despite the stringent provisions prescribed under the Act introduced in the year 2001, there have been complaints that indiscriminate sand minding has been going on in various rivers. In the report of the CESS prepared in February, 2004, it is stated that 40 local bodies located on either side of the Muvattupuzha, Periyar and Chalakudy rivers are engaged in the mining of 4802 truck loads of sand per day. It is also stated in the report that "the quantity of sand mining is several folds higher than the natural replenishments and hence imposes severe environmental problems in the river basin environments". In that background the CESS reported that sand auditing should be made mandatory at least once in every three years and necessary changes applied in the resource allocation scheme for reviving the overall environmental quality of the river basins.

(3.) Viewed from the background of the legislation and the report of the expert body, we are afraid the contentions taken by the learned Counsel appearing for the Panchayat that it is not mandatory that there should be a sand audit for every three years, cannot be appreciated. Section 29 of the Act provides for sand audit which reads as follows: