SUBRAMANIAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are closely interlinked and they are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. The parties and Exhibits are referred to in this judgment, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in W.P.(C) No. 30870 of 2019.

(2.) The petitioner is a Grama Panchayat. The western boundary of the petitioner is Muthiam beach. During the year 2009, the Department of Water Resources of the State Government had decided to construct a sea wall throughout the beach side of the Panchayat for protecting the adjacent areas of human habitation, and when steps have been taken for the said purpose, the 12 th respondent had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.6448 of 2009 for appropriate reliefs alleging that the area is a natural habitat of turtles and construction of the sea wall in such an area would harm the ecology. Ext.P1 is the judgment in the said writ petition. In terms of the Ext.P1 judgment, this Court disposed of the writ petition recording the undertaking of the Water Resources Department of the State Government that construction of sea wall would not be undertaken at a length of 217 meters, and directing the Chief Secretary of the State Government to convene a meeting of all concerned and take a decision as to whether sea wall has to be constructed at that place. It is alleged by the petitioner that although sea wall has not been constructed at the place mentioned in the judgment in the light of the undertaking recorded, a decision is yet to be taken by the Chief Secretary of the State Government as directed in the judgment. It is also alleged by the petitioner that due to the non-availability of the sea wall, the human habitation near the beach including the road connecting Kadalundi Nagaram and Parappanangadi which was situated about 100 meters away from the beach has been completely destroyed by the sea. It is also alleged by the petitioner that the life of the people has become miserable and hundreds of people are shifted to relief camps. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the place is not a habitat at all for turtle any more and there is absolutely no need for keeping the area mentioned in Ext.P1 judgment without constructing the sea wall. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions to the State Government to construct sea wall in the area left over, as mentioned in Ext.P1 judgment also.

(3.) W.P.(C) No.29730 of 2019 is filed by two residents of the locality. The case set out by the petitioners in the said writ petition is that pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment, Ext.P6 order was issued by the Chief Secretary directing that sea wall need not be constructed in the place mentioned in the judgment; that the area is not a habitat at all for turtles anymore; that the people in the locality are subjected to untold miseries for want of sea wall and that since Ext.P6 decision was taken on the premise that the area is a habitat for turtles, the same has to be reviewed. The petitioners seek appropriate directions to the State Government on that basis.