SANKET DESAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is espousing public cause is contending inter alia, that he has no personal interest in the issue involved in this petition viz., construction of protection wall along the sea coast at Tithal, Valsad District, which is not in compliance with the specifications laid down by Central Water and Power Research Station (for short 'CWPRS'), Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources and as such, has sought for the following reliefs :-

(2.) We have heard Shri Subramaniam Iyer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri D.M. Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents no. 1 and 2. Respondent no. 3 is served, represented, but none appears. It is the contention of Mr. Subramaniam Iyer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that on account of the protection wall along the sea coast at Tithal, not being in accordance with the design prescribed by the CWPRS and in order to reduce the cost factor, the State of Gujarat having adopted to construct the said protection wall by using a different design than the prescribed one, it would result in future the sea water travelling beyond the sea coast and entering the main land and thereby resulting in water saline being polluted, which would result in drinking water scarcity as well as the damage caused to the land resulting in fertility of the agricultural land being extinguished and as such, he has sought for a direction to the respondent to construct the soil erosion protection wall along the sea coat at Tithal, in accordance with the design prescribed by CWPRS or in the alternate, he has sought for an appointment of High Level Inquiry Committee consisting of experts of CWPRS to study the technical viability of the present and existing protection wall and other similar protection wall in the State of Gujarat and to direct the State Government to take appropriate action against the erring officers. A further direction is also sought for demolition of existing the protection wall along Tithal coast line and to construct the same as per 'Gabian style' in compliance with the design and specifications laid down by CWPRS or in the alternative to direct construction of the said wall as constructed by Swaminarayan Temple at Tithal and to strictly follow the mandatory conditions stipulated by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests granting CRZ clearance for construction of coastal protection wall.

(3.) Respondents on being notified have appeared and second respondent alone has filed the reply affidavits namely, at the first instance, on 28/10/2015 and subsequently on 29/12/2021. Petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply affidavit, on 14/10/2019. The learned Assistant Government Pleader drawing the attention of the Court to the affidavits filed by second respondent would contend that based on the recommendations of CWPRS, the protection wall has been constructed and even after the warranty period fixed under the contract while entrusting the construction of the wall, having expired, said wall has withstood beyond the said period and even now the said wall is in existence without there being any damage and to drive home said contention he has drawn the attention of the Court to the photographs, annexed to the affidavit dtd. 29/12/2021. Hence, he seeks for the writ petition being disposed of by recording the said affidavits.