Union Territory of
Lakshadweep & Ors. Vs. Seashells Beach Resort & Ors.
[Civil Appeal Nos. of
2012 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.5967-5968 of 2012]
O R D E R
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
These
appeals have been filed by the Union Territory of Lakshadweep against an order
dated 16th January, 2012 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
whereby the High Court has directed the appellants to process the applications
made by respondent No.1-Seashells Beach Resort, hereinafter referred to as respondent,
for all clearances including finalisation of CRZ norms and pending final
decision on the same, to permit the respondent to run the resort established by
it at Agatti. The High Court has further directed the appellants to issue
travel permits and entry passes required by tourists making use of the accommodation
in the said resort.
3.
Lakshadweep
Administration finds fault with the direction issued by the High Court on
several grounds including the ground that respondent-writ petitioner before the
High Court had no licence from the Tourism Department and no clearance from the
Coastal Zone Regulatory Authority or the Pollution Control Board to run the
resort established by it. It is alleged that the direction issued by the High Court
amounts to permitting the respondent to run a resort sans legal permission and
authority and without any check, control or regulation regarding its affairs.
The Administration also
points out that diversion of land use qua different survey numbers in Agatti was
obtained by one of the partners of the respondent for construction of dwelling houses
and not for establishing a commercial establishment like a tourist resort and
that respondent No.1 had misused the said permission by constructing a resort in
the No Development Zone (NDZ) falling within 50 metres of High Tide Line and thereby
violated the CRZ norms. The respondent has, according to the Administration, constructed
cottage at a distance of 28 metres from the High Tide Line on the western side
of the sea and thus violated the terms of the permission given to it.
The Administration further
alleges that it had never permitted the respondent to run a resort and that it
had on the basis of a permission obtained from the local panchayat, which had no
authority to issue such permission, started bringing tourists, including
foreign tourists, to the resort on the pretext that the accommodation was in the
nature of ‘home stay’. The Administration asserts that neither the Union Territory
of Lakshadweep nor the Government of India have taken any policy decision regarding
permitting home stay arrangements on the Lakshadweep islands and that the High
Court had completely overlooked the fact that all development in relation to
the said islands shall have to be in accordance with the Integrated Island
Management Plan and the CRZ norms.
The Administration also
relies upon a Notification dated 6th January, 2011 issued by the Government of
India in exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986 which notification is intended to promote conservation and protection
of the Island’s unique environment and its marine area and to promote
development through a sustainable integrated management plan based on
scientific principles, taking into account the vulnerability of the coast to
natural hazards.
4.
When
these petitions came before us for preliminary hearing on 2nd March 2012, this
Court while issuing notice to the respondent and staying the operation of the
impugned order passed by the High Court, directed the petitioner and respondent
No.2 to furnish the following information on affidavit:
1. Whether the proposed
Integrated Island Management Plan has been finalised for the Union Territory of
Lakshadweep and whether CRZ for the said territory has been notified?
2. If the CRZ has not been
notified or the plan has not been finalised, the reasons for delay and the
stage at which the matter rests at present and the particulars of the authority
with whom the matter is pending.
3. The total number of the
applications received by the Union Territory of Lakshadweep for setting up of resorts
and stage at which the said applications are pending/being processed.
4. The nature and extent
of the violations which the administration of the Union Territory of
Lakshadweep have noticed in the proposed resorts and the action, if any, taken for
removal of such violations. If no action has been taken/initiated for removal of
the violation, the reasons for the failure of the authorities to do so and the
persons responsible for the omission/inaction.
5. The particulars of
unauthorised resorts being operated in any part of the Union Territory of the
Lakshadweep and the action proposed to be taken for closure/removal of such
resorts.
5.
In
compliance with the above directions, the Administrator of the UT of
Lakshadweep has filed an affidavit, inter-alia, stating:
i.
The
proposed Integrated Island Management Plan (IIMP) for Agatti Island in
pursuance of the notification dated 6th January, 2011 of Ministry of
Environment and Forests has not been finalized as yet and is under finalization
with the Administration of Union Territory of Lakshadweep. The Coastal Regulation
Zone (CRZ) Notification for the whole country including the UT of Lakshadweep Island
has been notified by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of
India vide CRZ Notification S.O. No. 114(E) dated 19th February, 1991.
ii.
In
exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(3)(i) and 3(3)(ii) of CRZ
Notification dated 19th February, 1991 a Coastal Zone Management Plan for UT of
Lakshadweep was also notified by the Administration on 22nd August, 1997 which
is in force till date and shall be in force until 6th January, 2013.
iii.
The
Government of India vide Notification S.O. No. 20(E) dated 6th January, 2011
provided that the Lakshadweep Island shall be managed on the basis of an
Integrated Island Management Plan (IIMP) to be prepared as per the guidelines given
in the notification. The notification stipulates that the Lakshadweep Island Administration
shall, within a period of one year from the date of this notification, prepare
the IIMPs, inter-alia specifying therein all the existing and proposed developments,
conservation and preservation schemes, dwelling units including infrastructure projects
such as schools, markets, hospitals, public facilities and the like. The
Administration may, if it considers necessary, take the help of research institutions
having experience and specialisation in Coastal Resource Management in the
preparation of IIMPs, taking into account the guidelines specified in the notification.
iv.
Since
the Administration of Union Territory of Lakshadweep did not have the required expertise
for the preparation of such a comprehensive Integrated Island Management Plan (IIMP)
for which lot of scientific inputs are required, Centre for Earth Science Studies
(CESS), Trivandrum was approached for preparing the IIMPs for all inhabited and
uninhabited islands. The said Centre is, according to the Administration, a prestigious
institution under the Ministry of Earth Sciences having experience and
specialisation in coastal resource management and has extensive scientific database
on Lakshadweep.
v.
The
CESS informed the Administration that IIMP will be prepared within a period of one
year. Work relating to preparation of Integrated Island Management Plan for
Agatti and Chetlat Island in the first phase of the study have been completed
and the draft plan for Agatti and Chetlat Islands have been submitted to Union Territory
of Lakshadweep Administration on 2nd January, 2012 and the study of remaining
islands viz. Kavaratti, Andrott, Minicoy, Kalpeni, Kiltan, Kadmat, Amini and
Bitra have already started and are in progress.
vi.
The
Administration has initiated action for giving wide publicity to the draft
Integrated Island Management Plan for Agatti Island by uploading it on
Lakshadweep website and will be published in two newspapers inviting
comments/suggestions from the public as well as other stake holders in the island.
On receipt of the comments/suggestions, the Island Administration shall make necessary
changes/modification in the draft plan if required and final IIMP shall be
submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.
vii.
It
is expected that the IIMP for Agatti and Chetlat Island will be finalised by
6th January 2013 as per the time limit given in the Notification and until that
time the CRZ notification of 1991 and its Rules i.e. Coastal Zone Management
Plan 1997 shall apply, as clearly stated in clause 3(ii) of the notification.
6.
It
is evident from the above assertions made in the affidavit of the Administrator
that while the process of formulation of IIMPs for Lakshadweep has started, the
draft plan received from the CESS is yet to be evaluated by the Administrator
and sent for approval to the Government of India. In the meantime, another
development has intervened in the form of UT of Lakshadweep, Department of
Tourism, issuing a Notification dated 28th January, 2010 inviting proposals
from local entrepreneurs and registered organisations from Lakshadweep group of
islands for setting up of tourist resorts at Agatti Island fulfilling the
prescribed requirements. The case of the Administration is that in response to this
Notification the Department has received nine applications for setting up of tourist
resorts, which were to be submitted along with:
a. Environmental
clearance from the Department of Environment and Forests;
b. Land use diversion
certificate from SDO/DC/Local Panchayat;
c. Clearance from Lakshadweep
Pollution Control Committee;
d. Clearance from
Coastal Zone Management Authority.
7.
Despite
reminders issued to the applicants, none of them has fulfilled the above
conditions till date. In the result, all the nine applications are awaiting
complete details from the applicants. Respondent also happens to be one of the
applicants, out of the nine applicants, three of whom have started some construction
activity which are at different stages of completion. Respondent is one of the three
applicants who has started raising a construction.
The case of the Administration
is that neither the respondent nor the other applicants have complied with the requisite
conditions including the coastal zone clearance. No final approval to any one
of the applicants has, therefore, been granted, or could be granted having
regard to the fact that as many as five huts constructed by the respondent are located
in the NDZ area and are, therefore, in violation of the CRZ Notification 1991 and
Coastal Zone Management Plan, 1997, in which the entire area within 50 meters from
High Tide Line from both sides, western and eastern, is declared as No Development
Zone.
According to the Administration,
the respondent has violated the conditions of the land use diversion certificate,
inasmuch as the land use diversion certificate, permitted construction of dwelling
houses away from the NDZ whereas the respondent has set up a commercial enterprise
like a tourist resort, which was not authorised. According to the affidavit of
the Administration, the Administration proposes to conduct a detailed inquiry
to fix responsibility of officials for not taking action while construction of five
huts in NDZ was being carried on by the respondent.
The affidavit refers
to a show cause notice issued to the respondent to remove the construction in Sy.
Nos. 1300/1, 1301/1A and 1301/1 Part. Writ Petition No. 1312/2012 was filed by respondent
against the said notice in which the High Court has directed the parties to maintain
status quo in respect of the building in question.
8.
The
affidavit further states that a tourist resort owned by the Administration at
Agatti is closed with effect from 4th February, 2012. The affidavit also refers
to five resorts owned by the Department of Tourism, UT of Lakshadweep, that the
Administration runs at different islands which were constructed during 1980s
and 1990s. The affidavit goes on to state that there is no “home stay” policy
and the Administration has not authorised any owner of house to run a home
stay. On an experimental basis, the ‘Home based tourism’ was started in Agatti during
October- December 2011 by the Administration.
The Administration, it
is asserted, had hired few houses in the village Agatti which were lying vacant
and owners of the said houses were paid on daily user basis whenever the guests
were staying. That arrangement has now been stopped as a section of islanders
had objected to the same. The Administration is engaged in discussing with
various sections of society to frame a policy for “home stay”, based on the Bed
and Breakfast scheme of Government of India which will be applicable to the
houses in the village area and resorts will not be covered under any such
policy.
9.
An
affidavit has been filed by Deputy Director, Ministry of Environment and
Forests, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, New Delhi , which has taken the same
line of argument as set up by the Administrator in his affidavit especially as
regards the finalisation of IIMPs with the help of CESS, the issue of
Government of India’s Notification dated 6th January, 2011 and any construction
in Coastal Regulation Zone between 50 meters and 500 meters from the High Tide Line
being in violation of the CRZ Notification hence liable to be proceeded against
by the Lakshadweep Coastal Zone Management Authority as per the provisions of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
10.
The
Director, Tourism in UT of Lakshadweep has separately filed an affidavit
stating only one tourist resort owned by the Union Territory is operating in
Agatti.
11.
Respondents
No.1 and 2 have also filed an affidavit in reply, sworn by Mohd. Kasim H.K.,
S/o Syed Mohammed, one of the partners of respondent No.1. In this affidavit,
the respondent clearly emphasises that although the width of the ‘No
Development Zone’ in respect of Agatti Island is uniformly 50 meters from the
high tide line, the high tide line is not demarcated till date and the assertion
that the respondent No.1 has violated the CRZ notification and raised construction
in the ‘No Development Zone’ is without any basis.
The respondent has also
relied on the certificates issued by the PWD of the Lakshadweep Administration which
according to the respondent show that the construction does not fall in the ‘No
Development Zone’. It is further stated that the respondents have obtained the
requisite clearance like the occupancy certificate issued by the district
Panchayat, No Objection Certificate issued by the Lakshadweep Pollution Control
Committee, in principle approval granted by the petitioner-Administration, environmental
clearance granted by the Department of Environment and Forests, provisional
clearance granted by the Tourism Department, no objection certificate granted by
the village Panchayat and no objection certificate granted by the district
Panchayat.
12.
The
allegation that the land use diversion certificate has been violated, is also denied.
The Administration was, according to the respondent, aware from the inception
that the respondent proposed to set up tourist accommodation over the land held
by them through a valid lease in their favour. The respondent had submitted an
application seeking grant of the land use diversion certificate for the above project.
The Administration
had prior knowledge of the proposed project and had granted the approval to the
same. Since the certificate wrongly mentioned construction of a dwelling house
as the purpose of land use diversion the error was brought to the notice of the
Administration. The respondent was, however, informed that the certificate had
been granted in a general format and should not cause any worry to the
respondent. The respondent has also vehemently disputed the assertion of the
Administration that no resorts are functional at Agatti.
The affidavit refers
to Agatti Island Beach Resort, which has been leased out in the year 1996 by
the Administration to one T. Muthukoya. It also refers to multi-storeyed tourist
accommodation being operated on Agatti Island. Photographs of these establishments
have been placed on record. It enlists as many as six different establishments which,
according to the respondent, are being run as tourist resorts. The affidavit
also disputes the assertion of the Administration that the Home Stay has been
discontinued w.e.f. February 2012. The affidavit refers to what is described as
parallel tourism resorts set up with the active permission of the
Administration.
13.
The
Administration has filed an affidavit in rejoinder sworn by one Asarpal Singh,
Deputy Resident Commissioner for UT. Apart from reiterating the assertion made
by the Administration in the affidavit, it alleges that the use of local material
is forbidden in Lakshadweep islands as the locally available sand being coral
dust is not allowed to be used for building purposes. All the building material
is, therefore, imported from the mainland.
The thatched roof
over the hutments is also a false roofing as the cottages are air-conditioned and
the thatched roof is only a camouflage. The rooms visible in the photographs are
actually pucca constructions. The structures are made of cement and concrete. The
accommodation is according to the Administration advertised for a price ranging
between Rs.6000-12000/- per day.
14.
We
have referred copiously to the pleadings of the parties only to draw the
contours of the controversy before us. Broadly speaking only two questions
arise for our determination in the backdrop set out above. These are: 1)
Whether the High Court was in the facts and circumstances of the case correct
in allowing the interim prayer of the respondent and permitting him to run the
resort? and 2) If the answer to question No. 1 be in the negative, what is the
way forward? We shall deal with the questions ad-seriatim. Re. Question No. 1
15.
Appearing
for the appellant-UT Administration of Laskshdweep, Mr. H.P. Raval, learned
Additional Solicitor General of India contended that the High Court had without
adverting to the several aspects that arose for consideration permitted the
respondent to run the resort simply because the respondent is alleged to have
engaged 47 employees who were likely to be affected if the resort was shut
down. Mr. Raval submitted that permitting the respondent to run a resort which
was established in complete violation of the CRZ regulations and contrary to
the land use diversion certificate granted in its favour was tantamount to
placing a premium on an illegality committed by the said respondent.
16.
Mr.
Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand
argued that the Administration was adopting double standards inasmuch as they
were permitting certain resorts to operate while the resort which had secured
the requisite permissions, was being prevented from doing its legitimate
business. It was contended that in the absence of a policy forbidding ‘home stay’
arrangement for tourists visiting the Islands the refusal of the Administration
to permit the resort for being used even as ‘home stay’ was arbitrary. It was also
contended that while there were allegations of breach of the conditions, subject
to which the authorities had granted clearances, such allegations were levelled
only after the respondent had approached the High Court for redress.
17.
The
High Court has not indeed done justice to the issues raised by the parties,
whether the same relate to the alleged violations committed by the
respondent-entrepreneur in setting up of a resort or the Administration permitting
similar resorts to operate in the garb of ‘home stay’ arrangement while
preventing the respondent from doing so. The High Court has not even referred
to the Notification dated 6th January, 2011 issued by the Government under
Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or the effect thereof on
the establishment of the project that does not so far have a final clearance and
completion certificate from the competent authority and is being accused of serious
violations.
The High Court’s order
proceeds entirely on humanitarian and equitable considerations, in the process
neglecting equally, if not more, important questions that have an impact on the
future development and management of the Lakshadweep Islands. We are not,
therefore, satisfied with the manner in which the High Court has proceeded in
the matter. The High Court obviously failed to appreciate that equitable considerations
were wholly misplaced in a situation where the very erection of the building to
be used as a resort violated the CRZ requirements or the conditions of land use
diversion.
No one could in the
teeth of those requirements claim equity or present the administration with a
fait accompli. The resort could not be commissioned under a judicial order in
disregard of serious objections that were raised by the Administration, which objections
had to be answered before any direction could issue from a writ Court. We have,
therefore, no hesitation in holding that the order passed by the High Court is legally
unsustainable. Question No. 1 is accordingly answered in the negative, and the
impugned order set aside. Re. Question No. 2
18.
Lakshadweep
or Laccadive is a cluster of islands situate at a distance ranging from two
hundred to four hundred and forty kms. from the main land known for their natural
beauty but fragile, ecological and environmental balance. Most of the islands are
not inhabited, the total population living on the islands including Agatti,
which is the largest in size, being just about sixty thousand. The island is of
great attraction for tourists both domestic and international who approach this
unique destination by sea as also by air. The islands are centrally administered
and have been the concern of the Administrators as much as the environmentalists.
All the same there has
not been much development activity in the area largely because of absence of
any vision plan as to the manner and extent and the kind of development that
would suit the area keeping in view its locational advantages and disadvantages.
Progress in this direction is so slow that it is often overtaken by the
pressure of the up market forces that push tourism inflow in these areas to higher
levels with every passing year.
While entrepreneurs
may be keen to invest and develop facilities for tourists and infrastructure
for locals living on the islands, the question is whether such pressure ought to
disturb the Administration’s resolve to permit only a planned development and management
of these islands on a basis that is both ecologically and economically
sustainable.
19.
Given
the fact that no vision or master plan for the development of the islands has
been prepared so far, developments made over the past few decades, may be haphazard.
Mr. Raval, however, submitted that the Government of India was conscious of the
importance of the region and had in terms of Notification dated 6th January,
2011 directed the preparation of an integrated management plan for the islands.
While broad guidelines
were available in the said Notification, the details have to be worked out by
experts not only in science, environment and the like but also town- planners
who will have a major role to play in how the islands should develop. Having
said that Mr. Raval fairly conceded that the draft IIMPs for two of the islands
received from the CESS have not been evaluated by the U.T. Administration nor
does the Administration have the assistance of any expert body that can look into
the draft IIMPs and suggest modifications, improvements or alterations in the same.
That being so neither
the Lakshadweep Administration nor the Government of India were according to
Mr. Raval averse to the constitution of an expert Committee that could assist
the Lakshadweep Administration in finalising the IIMPs so that the same is
submitted to the Government of India for approval at the earliest.
20.
Mr.
Giri, learned counsel for the respondents too had no objection to the
appointment of a committee of experts to do the needful. He however urged that
since the committee could be requested to examine other aspects of the
controversy also the same could be headed by a former Judge of this Court.
21.
Notification
dated 6th January, 2011 issued by the Government of India under Section 3 of
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, inter alia, provides for the preparation
of Integrated Islands Management Plans for each of the islands in Lakshadweep. These
IIMPs have to specify all the existing and proposed developments, conservation and
preservation schemes, dwelling units including dwelling infrastructure projects
such as, schools, markets, hospitals, public facilities and the like.
The notification
further provides that development activities in the island shall be included in
the IIMPs in accordance with the rules and regulations and building bye-laws of
local town and country planning for the time being in force in the islands and
that all activities in the islands including the aquatic area shall be regulated
by the Lakshadweep Islands Administration on the basis of the IIMPs. Notification
also gives certain guidelines which have to be kept in view while preparing the
IIMPs. It makes the UT Coastal Zone Management Authority responsible for enforcing
and monitoring the notification and assisting in the task of constituting District
Level Committees under the Chairmanship of District Magistrate concerned with
at least three representatives of local traditional coastal communities.
Notification also
enumerates the activities that shall be prohibited on the islands including
destruction of corals, mining of sand in and around coral areas, construction
of shore protection works, disposal of untreated sewage or effluents, and
disposal of solid wastes including fly ash, industrial waste, medical waste
etc. It also permits setting up of new industries and expansion of existing
industries except those directly related to waterfront or directly needing
offshore facilities. Suffice it to say that the Notification draws the contours
of the IIMPs envisaged thereunder, but leaves the details to be worked out by the
Lakshadweep Administration if necessary with the help of experts in the relevant
fields.
22.
The
issue of the Notification, in our view, is a step forward in the direction of
providing an integrated sustainable development of the islands along planned
and scientific lines, taking into consideration all the relevant factors. As
noticed in the earlier part of this order draft IIMPs for two islands, one of
which happens to be Agatti, have already been submitted which are yet to be
finalised by the Lakshadweep Administration.
23.
In
the light of the above we have no difficulty in directing the constitution of
an Expert Committee with a request to it to look into the matters set out in
the terms of reference which we are setting out herein below. The Lakshadweep
Administration has proposed that the Committee could comprise of four expert
members from different fields named in the memo filed by the Administration under
the chairmanship of Justice R.V. Raveendran, former Judge of Supreme Court of India.
Mr. Giri has no objection to the composition of the Committee being as proposed.
We are also inclined
to accept the proposal submitted in this regard. We are hopeful that the
setting up of the Committee will not only provide expert assistance to the
Lakshadweep Administration and eventually the Government of India in the
preparation and approval of the IIMPs for the islands in question but also
expedite the entire process for the general benefit of the people living on the
islands as also for those visiting the place as tourists.
Once the IIMPs are in
place, all development activities will have to be regulated in accordance with
the said plans which will make it so much easy for the Administration to grant approvals
and clearances for activities that are permissible under such plans for the
areas reserved for the same. It will also provide for a broad framework for the
future development of the islands without disturbing the ecological or environmental
balance and affecting the beauty of the area.
24.
That
brings us to yet another aspect which has been debated at some length by
learned counsel for the parties before us concerning the alleged violation of
CRZ and the land use diversion certificate by the respondent. It is not
possible for us to express any opinion on any one of those aspects for the same
would require inspection and verification of facts on the spot apart from
examination of the relevant record concerning the issue of the permission and
the alleged violation of the conditions subject to which they were issued.
That exercise can, in
our opinion, be more effectively undertaken by the Expert Committee not only in
relation to the respondent but also in relation to all other resorts and commercial
establishments being run on the islands. So also the question, whether the Administration
committed any violation of the CRZ Regulations by granting permission to any
resort in the name of ‘home stay’ or committed any other irregularity or
adopted any unfair or discriminatory approach towards any one or more resorts
or commercial establishments is a matter that can be looked into by the
Committee.
25.
Suffice
it to say that allegations and counter-allegations made by the parties against
each other in regard to the violation of the CRZ and other irregularities in the
matter of establishment and/or running of resorts and ‘home stay’ and grant of permits
to tourists visiting the islands can also be examined by the Expert Committee and
action, if any, considered appropriate by it recommended in the Report to be submitted
to this Court. While doing so, the Committee shall also examine whether any official
of the Lakshadweep Administration has wilfully or otherwise neglected the
discharge of his duties whether the same related to violation of CRZ norms or
any other act of omission or commission. The Committee may examine whether
there is any criminal element in any such neglect or act of omission or commission
on the part of any of the officials in the Lakshadweep Administration.
26.
We
are told that CBI had been at one stage asked to look into certain violations
alleged in relation to the affairs of the islands. The Committee may examine the
said report also and recommend, if necessary, any investigation to be conducted
by the CBI into the alleged blameworthy conduct of the officers if there be any
need for such investigation.
27.
In
the result, we appoint the following Committee of experts:
|
Justice
R.V. Raveendran, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India
|
Chairman
|
|
Dr.
M. Baba, Executive Director, Advance Training Centre for Earth System
Sciences and Climate, Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM), Pune
|
Member
|
|
Mr.
B.R. Subramaniam, Project Director Integrated Coastal and Marine Area Management
(ICMAM) Project under Ministry of Earth Sciences, Govt. of India
|
Member
|
|
Prof.
M.M. Kamath Chief Engineer (Civil) (retd.) Vice-Chairman, Expert Appraisal
Committee on CRZ/Infrastructure Projects Constituted by Ministry of
Environment and Forests
|
Member
|
|
Prof.
E.F.N. Ribeiro School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi
|
Member
|
28.
Director,
Science and Technology, Lakshadweep Administration, shall be the nodal officer,
responsible for organising and providing the necessary administrative,
secretarial and logistic support required by the Committee. The Committee shall
endeavour to work on the following broad terms of reference:
I.
The
Committee shall use its expertise for evaluation of the draft IIMPs received
from CESS or others that may be received in due course, and make such additions
or alterations in the same as it may consider proper having regard, inter alia,
to the following:
a. The development already
in existence and the future developments, conservation and preservation of the entire
area keeping in view the statutory Notification dated 6th January, 2011 issued
by the Government of India under the provisions of the Environment Protection
Act, 1986.
b. The impact of the
proposed development on the livelihood of indigenous population and the various
vulnerability issues.
c. Reservation/identification
of suitable locations and areas for creation of public and semi-public
facilities for development of tourism in the islands.
d. Redevelopment/sustainable
development of inhabited and/or uninhabited areas of each island as independent
and self contained units or as part of a larger development plan along scientific
lines.
I.
II.
The
Committee may consider and recommend incorporation in the IIMP, Development
Control Regulations governing the developmental activity in accordance with the
final proposals on the IIMP for the purpose of islanders’ seeking clearances
for permissible development activities on the islands. Such regulations may also
include setting up of an appellate authority for the grievance redressal of the
islanders with respect to such clearances. The Committee may suggest an outer time
frame within which the Authority may have to respond to the applications of the
islanders seeking permission for development activities.
III.
The
Committee may examine the desirability and the feasibility of running ‘home
stays’ for tourism purpose in the islands and may suggest the same to be
incorporated in the IIMPs. The Committee may examine and suggest necessary
guidelines keeping in mind environmental, economic and security considerations
for running of such Home stays including norms/rules for such ‘home stays’ and
the number of ‘home stays’ to be permitted, the number of permits to be granted,
the norms for identification of houses for homestays, and the facilities to be offered
etc.
IV.
The
Committee may in its wisdom and discretion make suggestions on any other issue
concerning the islands which it may deem fit.
29.
The
Committee shall examine allegations regarding violation of the CRZ and other irregularities
committed by the respondent or by other individuals/entities in relation to establishment
and/or running resorts and ‘home stays’ in the islands. Allegations regarding irregularities
in the matter of grant of permits to the tourists visiting the islands as also in
regard to permissions granted to the resort owners/home stays to operate on the
islands shall also be examined by the Committee. So, also the Committee shall
be free to examine whether any official of the Lakshadweep Administration has
been guilty of any act of omission or commission in the discharge of his
official duties and if considered necessary recommend action against such
officials.
30.
The
remuneration payable to the Chairman and the members of the Committee is not
being determined by us. We deem it fit to leave that matter to be decided by
the Committee keeping in view the nature of work to be undertaken by it and the
time required to accomplish the same.
31.
The
Chairman of the Committee may, in his discretion co-opt or associate with the Committee,
any other expert member from any field considered relevant by it or take the assistance
of any scientific or expert body considered necessary for completion of the
assignment.
32.
The
Committee shall evolve its own procedure including the place and time of the meetings,
division of work, powers, duties and responsibilities of members etc.
33.
The
Lakshadweep Administration shall provide to the Committee the requisite
information, documents, material, infrastructure or any other requirement for
the successful implementation of the objectives of the Committee.
34.
The
expenses incurred directly or indirectly for the functioning/management of the Committee
shall be borne by the Administration.
35.
The
Committee is requested to submit a preliminary report about the steps taken by
it as far as possible within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order.
36.
The
matter shall be posted for orders before the Court after the receipt of the
preliminary report.
……………………….……..……J.
(T.S. THAKUR)
………………………….…..……J.
(GYAN SUDHA MISRA)
New
Delhi
May
11, 2012
Back
