UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP & ORS.versusSEASHELLS BEACH RESORT & ORS.

                         [2012] 5 S.C.R. 1108


A        UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP & ORS.
                                   v.
              SEASHELLS BEACH RESORT & ORS.
               (Civil Appeal Nos.4625-4626 of 2012)

                            MAY 11, 2012
B
         [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.
                                                                    B
    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
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
                                                                    E
     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               F
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    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 thereby violated the CRZ norms. The respondent has,
D   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
E   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
F   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
G   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
H   area and to promote development through a sustainable
 UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP & ORS. v. 1111
      SEASHELLS BEACH RESORT & ORS.

integrated management plan based on scientific principles,           A
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
                                                                     8
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         C
            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      0
            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         E
            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                 F
            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              G
            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.                     H
    1112           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A        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
                    (llMP) for Agatti Island in pursuance of the
B
                    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
c                   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.

D          (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
E                   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
F                   basis of an Integrated Island Management Plan
                    (llMP) 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,
G                   prepare the llMPs, 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
H                   like. The Administration may, if it considers
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP & ORS. v. 1113
     SEASHELLS BEACH RESORT & ORS.

          · necessary, take the help of research institutions        A
            having experience and specialisation in Coastal
            Resource Management in the preparation of II MPs,
            taking into account the guidelines specified in the
            notification.
                                                                     B
   (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 (llMP) for which
           lot of scientific inputs are required, Centre for Earth
           Science Studies (CESS), Trivandrum was
                                                                     c
           approached for preparing the llMPs 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           D
           resource management and has extensive scientific
           database on Lakshadweep.

   (v)     The CESS informed the Administration that llMP will
           be prepared within a period of one year. Work             E
           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          F
           Administration on 2nd January, 2012 and the study
           of remaining islands viz. Kavaratti, Andrott, Minicoy,
           Kalpeni, Kiltan, Kadmat, Amini and Sitra have
           already started and are in progress.

   (vi)    The Administration has initiated action for giving        G
           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     H
    1114         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2012] 5 S.C.R.


A                  island. On receipt of the comments/suggestions,
                   the Island Administration shall make necessary
                   changes/modification in the draft plan if required
                   and final llMP shall be submitted to the Ministry of
                   Environment and Forests, Government of India.
B
           (vii)   It is expected that the llMP 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,
c                  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 llMPs for Lakshadweep has started, the draft plan
D 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
E 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
F 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
G                  Panchayat;

           (c)     Clearance from Lakshadweep Pollution Control
                   Committee;

         (d)       Clearance from Coastal Zone Management
H                  Authority.
 UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP & ORS. v. 1115
      SEASHELLS BEACH RESORT & ORS.

      7. Despite reminders issued to the applicants, none of            A
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        B
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         c
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             D
50 meters from High Tide Line from both sides, western and
easternJ 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        E
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.             F
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        G
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         H
    1116     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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
c 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
D 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
E argument as set up by the Administrator in his affidavit
    especially as regards the finalisation of llMPs 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
F . 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.

G        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,
H one of the partners of respondent No.1. In this affidavit, the
 UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP & ORS. v. 1117
      SEASHELLS BEACH RESORT & ORS.

respondent clearly emphasises that although the width of the          A
'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            B
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       c
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         D
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,                E
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             F
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          G
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        H
    1118         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A leased out in the year 1996 by the Administration to one T.
  Muth ukoya. It also refers to mu lti-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
B 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.
c      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
D 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
E 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.
F
         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:
G          (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

H
 UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP & ORS. v. 1119
      SEASHELLS BEACH RESORT & ORS.

      (2)   If the answer to question No. 1 be in the negative,      A
            what is the way forward?

     We shall deal with the questions ad-seriatim.

Re. Question No. 1
                                                                     B
    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        c
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    0
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                  E
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   F
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           G
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          H
    1120     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 5 S.C.K.


A  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
B (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
c 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
0
  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
E 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
F in the negative, and the impugned order set aside.

    Re. Question No. 2

        18. Lakshadweep or Laccadive is a cluster of islands
G 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 to"tal 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
H
 UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP & ORS. v. 1121
      SEASHELLS BEACH RESORT & ORS.

both domestic and international who approach this unique             A
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           B
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. \Nhile entrepreneurs may      c
be keen to invest and develop facilities for tourists artd
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
                                                                     0
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         E
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,    F
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 llMPs for two
of the islands received from the CESS have not been evaluated
by the U .T. Administration nor does the Administration have the     G
assistance of any expert body that can look into the draft llMPs
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         H
    1122      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A   assist the Lakshadweep Administration in finalising the llMPs
    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
B 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
C   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 llMPs have to
D   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
E   be included in the llMPs 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
F   basis of the llMPs. Notification also gives certain guidelines
    which have to be kept in view while preparing the llMPs. 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
G   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,
H
 UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP & ORS. v. 1123
      SEASHELLS BEACH RESORT & ORS.

and disposal of solid wastes including fly ash, industrial waste,        A
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 llMPs
envisaged thereunder, but leaves the details to be worked out            B
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          C
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 II MPs for two islands, one of
which happens to be Agatti, have already been submitted which
are yet to be finalised by the Lakshadweep Administration.
                                                                         D
      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            E
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                 F
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 II MPs for the islands
in question but also expedite the entire process for the general         G
benefit of the people living on the islands as also for those
visiting the place as tourists. Once the llMPs 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             H
    1124     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A   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
8
  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
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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,
G 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
H
 UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP & ORS. v. 1125
      SEASHELLS BEACH RESORT & ORS.

may examine whether there is any criminal element in any such        A
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
                                                                     B
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         c
experts:
     Justice R.V. Raveendran,                          Chairman
     Former Judge, Supreme Court of India

     Dr. M. Baba,                                      Member        D
     Executive Director, Advance Training
     Centre for Earth System Sciences and
     Climate, Indian Institute of Tropical
     Meteorology (llTM), Pune

    Mr. B.R. Subramaniam,                              Member        E
    Project Director
    Integrated Coastal and Marine Area
    Management (ICMAM)
    Project under Ministry of Earth
    Sciences, Govt. of India                                         F

    Prof. M.M. Karnath                                 Member
    Chief Engineer (Civil) (retd.)
    Vice-Chairman, Expert Appraisal
    Committee on CRZ/lnfrastructure
                                                                     G
    Projects Constituted by Ministry of
    Environment and Forests

    Prof. E.F.N. Ribeiro                               Member
    School of Planning and Architecture,
    New Delhi                                                        H
    1126          SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A       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
s   terms of reference:

           (I)     The Committee shall use its expertise for evaluation
                   of the draft llMPs received from CESS or others
                   that may be received in due course, and make such
                   additions or alterations in the same as it may
c                  consider proper having regard, inter alia, to the
                   following:

                    (a)   The development already in existence and
                          the future developments, conservation and
D                         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.
E                   (b)   The impact of the proposed development on
                          the livelihood of indigenous population and
                          the various vulnerability issues.

                    (c)   Reservation/identification of suitable
F                         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
G
                          island as independent and self contained
                          units or as part of a larger development plan
                          along scientific lines.a

           (II)    The Committee may consider and recommend
H                  incorporation in the llMP, Development Control
 UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP & ORS. v. 1127
      SEASHELLS BEACH RESORT & ORS.

              Regulations governing the developmental activity in      A
              accordance with the final proposals on the llMP 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       B
              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.
                                                                       c
      (Ill)   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 llMPs. The Committee
              may examine and suggest necessary guidelines             D
              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           E
              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
                                                                       F
              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           G
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             H
    1128     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A 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
8   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.

c       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.
D
         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
E 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
F   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
G order.

         36. The matter shall be posted for orders before the Court
    after the receipt of the preliminary report.

H B.B.B.                                          Matter pending ..