Summary
The Court dismissed challenges by the developer of a resort on Nediyathuruthu island to orders enforcing coastal regulation restrictions and removing unauthorised construction. Substantial common issues concerning the two Vembanad backwater islands had already been determined in Vaamika Island; the suggested factual distinctions and alternative reliance on later notifications did not justify a different result.
Issues
- Whether Vaamika Island could be distinguished in relation to Nediyathuruthu island.
- Whether refusal of special leave by a reasoned order attracts merger or binding legal consequences.
- Whether the 2017 environmental clearance or 2019 coastal notification afforded relief.
Held
- Refusal of special leave, whether reasoned or unreasoned, does not attract merger. A declaration of law in a reasoned refusal attracts Article 141, while other findings bind the parties. Vaamika Island had specifically considered and approved the substantial common issues concerning the islands. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)
- The pre-2011 date of the developer’s permit did not avoid the 1991 coastal restrictions. The asserted differences between the islands were insufficient to reopen the common issues settled in Vaamika Island, including classification, salinity, filtration ponds and the coastal management plan. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29, 30, 33)
- The notification of 14 March 2017 concerns violations involving absence of prior environmental clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006, rather than violations of coastal regulation notifications. The Court made no determination on the developer’s application under it, which lay outside the present dispute. (¶¶ 34, 35)
- Reliance on a 20-metre coastal restriction in the 2019 notification did not assist the developer. That notification restricts activities within the zone and directly treats Vembanad lake as a critically vulnerable coastal area, to be managed with coastal community involvement. (¶¶ 36, 37, 38, 39)
Result
All appeals dismissed without an order as to costs. The challenges to the High Court’s orders concerning the resort development, unauthorised construction and encroachment proceedings failed.