UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP & ORS. versus SEASHELLS BEACH RESORT & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 5 S.C.R. 1108 · Decided: 11-05-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR, GYAN SUDHA MISRA

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 1108 
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP & ORS. 
v. 
SEASHELLS BEACH RESORT & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.4625-4626 of 2012) 
MAY 11, 2012 
[T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Environment - Lakshadweep islands - Tourist resorts -
Order of High Court in writ petition directing the appellants to 
C process the applications made by 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 and further directing the appellants 
to issue travel permits and entry passes required by tourists 
D making use of the accommodation in the said resort -
Challenge to - Held: The High Court's order.proceeds entirely 
on humanitarian and equitable considerations, in the process 
neglecting equally, if not more, important questions having 
impact on future development and management of the 
E Lakshadweep Islands - The High Court 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 - The resort could not be commissioned 
F 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 -
Direction given by Supreme Court for constitution of an Expert 
Committee - Committee to examine a/legations regarding 
G 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 - A/legations regarding irregularities in the matter of 
grant of permits to tourists visiting the islands as also in 
H 
1108 
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP & ORS. v. 1109 
SEASHELLS BEACH RESORT & ORS. 
regard to permissions granted to resort owners/home stays to 
A 
operate on the islands also to be examined by the Committee 
- Committee to submit preliminary report about the steps 
taken by it - Matter be posted for orders before the Court after 
receipt of the preliminary report. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
4625-4626 of 2012. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 16.01.2012 of the High 
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.P. No. 34398 of 2011 and 
B 
Writ Appeal No. 68 of 2011. 
C 
H.P. Rawal, ASG, Ashok Bhan, V. Giri, D.S. Mahra, S.S. 
Rawat, Harsh N. Parekh, Dayan Krishnan, Gautam Narayan, 
Tara Chandra Sharma, B. Krishna Prasad, P.B. Krishnan, 
Sreegesh M.K., P.B. Subramanyan, A. Venayagam Balan for 
D 
the appearing parties. 
The order for the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
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 
E 
F 
on the same, to permit the respondent to run the resort 
established by it at Agatti. The High Court has further directed 
G 
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 
H 
1110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 
A 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 
B 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 
c 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 th

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