KAPICO KERALA RESORTS PVT. LTD. versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 909 · Decided: 10-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
909
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 909
909
KAPICO KERALA RESORTS PVT. LTD.
v.
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 184-186 of 2020)
JANUARY 10, 2020
[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Environment – Lake and Backwater Islands – Protection of –
The High Court, in a batch of cases, was concerned about the
development of resorts in two backwater islands, by name Vettila
Thuruthu namely, Vaamika and Nediyathuruthu, located in
Vembanad lake – The High Court, first in a batch of writ petitions
and then in a batch of review petitions, prohibited projects
proponents from carrying on the activity of development of resorts
on basis of Kerala Coastal Zone Management Plan and the
Regulation Zone Notifications – Also, the Supreme Court had
dismissed the two special leave petitions filed by the Vaamika island
arising from the batch of said writ petitions regarding the
construction of the resort in the Vettila Thuruthu island reported as
Vaamika island v. Union of India by a reasoned judgment – Insofar,
as Nediyathuruthu island is concerned, the appellant filed four
special leave petitions arising out of disposal of the writ petitions
and a review petition by the High Court – The appellants contended
that the decision of the Supreme Court in Vaamika island was confined
only to the facts relating to Vettila Thuruthu island and that since
Vettila Thuruthu island and Nediyathuruthu island have different
features, the correctness of the order of the High Court in relation
to Nediyathuruthu island required to be gone independently – Held:
The appellants cannot escape the findings recorded by the Supreme
Court in Vaamika island on the common issues – Even according to
the appellants, some those common issues, such as salinity, filtration
ponds, cadastral maps, CVCA, etc. are dealt with by the Supreme
Court in the said reported decision – The contention that these
common issues are dealt with in passing, in the said judgment and
that, therefore, they are entitled to be re-agitated, cannot be accepted
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
910
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
– If detailed reasons given by the High Court or a Subordinate
Court, find acceptance by the Supreme Court, in specific terms, the
question of scrutinizing them for finding out whether they were in
the passing or in detailed focus, does not arise – Such an exercise
would tantamount to reviewing the decision – The distinction sought
to be made by the appellants between their case and the case relating
to Vettila Thuruthu was that the building permit issued to Vaamika
was post 2011 notification – But this distinction will not go to the
rescue of the appellants, in view of the fact that the categorization
under CRZ-I under the 1991 notification was upheld by the Supreme
Court and this why it was found the constructions made even in
Vettila Thuruthu as violative of both the notifications, namely 1999
and 2011– Furthermore, in Vaamika island, Vembanad lake has been
indicated as an ecologically sensitive area and that considering
the socio-economic importance of this water body, it was scheduled
under ‘vulnerable wetlands to be protected’ and declared as CVCA
– This finding cannot alone be applicable to Vettila Thuruthu island
– Thus, distinctions sought to be made by the appellants not
substantial and consequently, the appeals are dismissed.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellants cannot also escape the findings
recorded by this Court, on the common issues. Even according
to the appellants, some of those common issues, such as salinity,
filtration ponds, cadastral maps, CVCA, etc. are dealt with by
this Court in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the reported decision,
Vaamika island v. Union of India. The contention that these
common issues are dealt with in passing, in the judgment of this
Court and that therefore, they are entitled to be re-agitated,
cannot be accepted. [Para 25][926-B]
2. If detailed reasons given by the High Court or a
subordinate Court, find acceptance by this Court, in specific
terms, the question of scrutinising them for finding out whether
they were in the passing or in detailed focus, does not arise. Such
an exercise would tantamount to reviewing the decision. [Para
26][926-C]
3. Each and every particular issue dealt with by the High
Court as common to both the islands, was considered by this
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
911
Court in Vaamika Island and a finding recorded. In particular –
Map Number 32A of CZMP as well as the tech

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.