NIRMALA JOHNY vs STATE OF KERALA
- Court
- Kerala High Court
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 1 2026:KER:83112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 34157 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 NIRMALA JOHNY, AGED 49 YEARS,
D/O.AMBROSE, T/C 34/1623, PUTHUVAL
PURAYIDOM, VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM - 695
008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT NEAR FCI GODOWN,
KOCHUTHOP.
2 FATHIMA, AGED 64 YEARS,
D/O.ROLUDON TC 34/1096, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDOM,
VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM – 695 008.
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT PORT GODOWN,
VALIYATHURA.
3 MABLE JUSTIN, AGED 62 YEARS,
D/O. JOSEPH FERNANDEZ, TC 78/1433, CHEKKADI
VILAKOM HOUSE, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT SREECHITHRA NAGAR, VALLAKKADAVU
P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4 JESMAL VICTOR, AGED 74 YEARS,
D/O. ROLUDON, TC 78/1292, PUTHUVAL
PURAYIDOM, KOCHUTHOPE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM –
695 008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT PORT GODOWN,
VALIYATHURA.
5 SHERLY JUSTIN, AGED 45 YEARS,
D/O. NAZRETH, TC 78/1423, CHEKKADIVILAKOM,
KOCHUTHOPE, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 2 2026:KER:83112
RESIDING AT PORT GODOWN, VALIYATHURA.
6 MAGLIN IGNATIUS, AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O. AMBROSE, TC 34/106, CHEKKADIVILAKOM,
KOCHUTHOPE, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT PORT GODOWN, VALIYATHURA.
7 MEENA PETER, AGED 42 YEARS,
D/O. NELSON, T/C 34/1209, PUTHUVAL
PURAYIDOM, VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM
695008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT VARVILAKOM
PURAYIDOM, KOCHUTHOP, VALLAKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008.
8 ROBERT SILVA, AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O. MARKOSE TC 78/1150, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDOM,
VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM - 695 008;
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT T/C 33/821, PUTHUVAL
PURAYIDOM, VALLAKADAVU P.O,
TRIVANDRUM – 695 008.
9 BINDHU ALOSIOUS, AGED 38 YEARS,
W/O. ALOSIOUS, VARUVILAKOM PURAYIDOM,
VALLAKKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695
008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT GOVT. UPS
VALIYATHURA.
10 ALPHONSA, AGED 62 YEARS,
D/O.FRANCIS, TC 87/1295, VARUVILAKOM
PURAYIDOM, KOCHUTHOPE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM –
695 008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT NEAR FCI
GODOWN, KOCHUTHOP, VALLAKADAVU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008.
11 KOCHU THRESIA, AGED 41 YEARS,
D/O.LAWRENCE, TC 78/1204, PUTHUVAL
PURAYIDOM, KOCHUTHOPE, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT T/C 34/1523, KOCHUTHOP,
VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM - 695 008.
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 3 2026:KER:83112
12 STELLA, AGED 79 YEARS,
D/O.NICHOLAS, TC 34/1728, VARUVILAKOM
PURAYIDOM, KOCHUTHOPE, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT GOV UPS VALIYATHURA,
TRIVANDRUM - 695 008
13 REJINA BABU, AGED 50 YEARS,
D/O.MARKOSE, T/C 34/1676, VARVILAKOM
PURAYIDOM, VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM 695
008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT GOV: UPS,
VALIYATHURA, TRIVANDRUM - 695 008.
14 KUNJAMMA MANIYAN, AGED 68 YEARS,
D/O.SEBASTIAN ANTHONY TC 34/1677, PUTHUVAL
PURAYIDOM, VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM - 695
008 CURRENTLY RESIDING AT PUTHUVAL
PURAYIDOM, VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM 695
008.
15 MARY JOY, AGED 49 YEARS,
D/O.NAZRETH, T/C 34/1729, KOCHUTHOP,
VALLAKKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695
008, CURRENTLY RESIDING AT KOCHUTHOP,
VALLAKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695
008.
6 MARY MICHELE, AGED 75 YEARS,
D/O.VAREETH, T/C 87/1047 PUTHUVAL PURAYIDOM,
KOCHUTHOPE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008;
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT NEAR KOCHUTHOPE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008.
17 MARIYAM RAJU, AGED 56 YEARS,
D/O.FRANCIS ANTONY, TC 78/1076, PUTHUVAL
PURAYIDOM, KOCHUTHOPE, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT KANNANTHURA, BEACH P.O,
TRIVANDRUM.
18 GEORGINA, AGED 56 YEARS,
D/O.ROBERT, TC 34/1154, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDOM,
KOCHUTHOPE, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 4 2026:KER:83112
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT LISY ROAD, MARY HOUSE,
KOCHUTHOP, VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM - 695
008.
19 MARIYAMMA ANTONY, AGED 58 YEARS,
D/O.ANTONY, T/C 34/1682, VARVILAKOM
PURAYIDOM, VALLAKADAVU P.O., TRIVANDRUM –
695 008;
20 DENSON ADOLPHUS, AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O.ADOLPHUS TC 34/1034, VARVILAKOM
PURAYIDOM, VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM – 695
008. CURRENTLY RESIDING AT NADUTHURA,
POONTHURA P.O., TRIVANDRUM.
21 SISILY ANTONY, AGED 65 YEARS,
D/O. JOSEPH, T/C 34/1154, KOCHUTHOP,
VALLAKKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695
008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT T/C 34/1590,
KOCHUTHOP, VALLAKADAVU P.O.
22 YESUDAS SOLOMON, AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O.SOLOMON, T/C 34/1245 PUTHUVAL PURAYIDOM,
KOCHUTHOPE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008;
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT NEAR KOCHUTHOPE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
23 BABU AROGYAM, AGED 68 YEARS,
S/O.AROGYAM, TC 34/1242, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDOM,
KOCHUTHOPE, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT KOCHUTHOPE, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
24 LITTLE ANTONY, AGED 47 YEARS,
D/O. SOLOMON, TC 34/1215, PUTHUVAL
PURAYIDOM, KOCHUTHOPE, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT KOCHUTHOP, VALLAKADAVU P.O,
TRIVANDRUM,
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 5 2026:KER:83112
25 SUSAMMA ASKAR, AGED 48 YEARS,
D/O. BERNARD, T/C 87/1448, PUTHUVAL
PURAYIDOM, VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM, PIN
– 695008.
26 SILVESTER VICTOR, AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O. VICTOR FERNANDEZ TC 34/1223, PUTHUVAL
PURAYIDOM, VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM,
PIN – 695008.
27 MERRY LORENCE, AGED 60 YEARS,
D/O. KUNJAMMA, TC 87/1173, VARVILAKOM
PURAYIDOM VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695008.
28 SHINY SOLAMAN, AGED 40 YEARS,
D/O. JERMY, TC 87/1171, VARUVILAKOM
PURAYIDOM, KOCHUTHOPE, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695008.
29 PETRISHA PATHROSS, AGED 55 YEARS,
D/O. PHILOMINA, TC 87/1180, VARUVILAKOM
PURAYIDOM, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695008.
30 RENJU SHAIJU, AGED 33 YEARS,
S/O. THRESSY, TC 87/1174, VARVILAKOM
PURAYIDOM KOCHUTHOPE, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695008.
31 LEELA NELSON, AGED 70 YEARS,
W/O. NELSON, T/C 34/1208, PUTHUVAL
PURAYIDOM, VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM - 695
008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT KOCHUTHOP,
VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM.
32 CELINE BABU, AGED 45 YEARS,
D/O. SUNNY, TC 34/1292, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDOM,
VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM 695 008;
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT KOCHUTHOP, FISHERMAN
COLONY, VALLAKADAVU P.O., TRIVANDRUM.
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 6 2026:KER:83112
33 JESIOLDA, AGED 64 YEARS,
D/O. DEVADAS, TC 78/1106, CHEKKADI VILAKOM
HOUSE, VALLAKKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
– 695 008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT KOCHUTHOP,
VALLAKKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
34 AJITHA VARGHESE, AGED 43 YEARS,
D/O. AJITH, TC 78/1461, VARVILAKOM
PURAYIDOM, KOCHUTHOPE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM –
695 008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT KOCHUTHOP,
VALLAKKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
35 MINI JOSE, AGED 45 YEARS,
D/O. MANIYAN, TC 34/1674, VARUVILAKOM
PURAYIDOM, KOCHUTHOPE, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT KOCHUTHOP, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
36 VINCY BABU, AGED 36 YEARS,
D/O. VINCENT, TC 87/65, KOCHUTHOPE,
VALLAKKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695
008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT KOCHUTHOP,
VALLAKKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
37 SELVI, AGED 58 YEARS,
W/O. ALIAS, T/C 44/62, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDOM,
VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM – 695 008;
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT BUDS SCHOOL,
VALIYATHURA.
38 SARITHA, AGED 42 YEARS,
D/O. JOHN TC 87/19, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDOM,
VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM 695 008
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT KARUPPAYA ROAD,
VALIYATHURA, VALLAKADAVU P.O.
39 SEBASTIAN, AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O. SYRUS FERNANDEZ, TC 44/145,
VALLAKKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695
008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT BUDS SCHOOL,
VALIYATHURA.
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 7 2026:KER:83112
40 FRANCIS, AGED 69 YEARS,
S/O. MICHEL, TC 34/1305, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDOM,
KOCHUTHOPE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008;
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT PORT GODOWN,
VALIYATHURA.
41 JAYARANI WILFRED, AGED 25 YEARS,
D/O. WILFRED, TC 71/298, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDOM,
KUZHIVILAKOM, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT KUZHIVILAKOM, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
42 BRIJIT THOMAS, AGED 70 YEARS,
D/O CLEMENT, TC 44/33, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT UPS GOV SCHOOL VALIYATHURA.
43 BENEDICT MARY, AGED 52 YEARS,
W/O. MICHEL, T/C 71/406, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDOM,
VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM – 695 008;
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT PORT GODOWN,
VALIYATHURA.
44 PHILOMINA GEORGE, AGED 45 YEARS,
D/O. MARIYADAS TC 71/236, PUTHUVAL
PURAYIDOM, VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM – 695
008 CURRENTLY RESIDING AT GOV UPS,
VALIYATHURA.
45 MARGRET ALBERT, AGED 70 YEARS,
D/O. SIMON, TC 44/134, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT GOVT. UP SCHOOL, VALIYATHURA.
46 JESINTHA GEORGE, AGED 67 YEARS,
D/O. GEORGE, TC 87/130, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDOM,
VALLAKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008;
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT GOV UP SCHOOL,
VALIYATHURA.
47 STELLA EDWIN, AGED 59 YEARS,
D/O. VASTHIAN ANDREW, TC 44/112, PUTHUVAL
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 8 2026:KER:83112
PURAYIDOM, ALBY ROAD, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT PORT GODOWN, VALIYATHURA.
48 FREDY SINDHU, AGED 57 YEARS,
S/O. ANTONY, TC 78/1860, KOCHUTHOP,
VALLAKKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695
008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT PORT GODOWN,
VALIYATHURA.
49 STEPHEN, AGED 61 YEARS,
T/C 44/211, THUNDUVILAKOM PURAYIDOM,
VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM - 695 008;
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT GOV BUDS SCHOOL,
VALIYATHURA.
50 MARY PRINCY, AGED 50 YEARS,
W/O. MARIYA ANTHONY TC 87/106, FCI ROAD,
KOCHUTHOP, VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM - 695
008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT KARUPPAYI ROAD,
VALLAKADAVU P.O.
51 VASANTHA BENEDICT, AGED 50 YEARS,
D/O ATHINAS, TC 44/105, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT BUDS SCHOOL, VALIYATHURA.
52 SELVA RANI, AGED 43 YEARS,
D/O. AMBROSE, TC 77/279, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDOM,
VALLAKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008;
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT BUDS SCHOOL,
VALIYATHURA.
53 LIBORI, AGED 72 YEARS,
S/O. JOSEPH AGUSTIAN, TC 71/362,
VALLAKKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695
008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT PORT GODOWN,
VALIYATHURA.
54 GEORGE JOOSA, AGED 61 YEARS,
S/O. JOOSA, TC 44/135, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 9 2026:KER:83112
RESIDING AT GOV UPS, VALIYATHURA.
55 KUMARI, AGED 65 YEARS,
D/O.PRONY, T/C 87/180, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDOM,
VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM 695 008;
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT GOV BUDS SCHOOL,
VALIYATHURA.
56 JENOVA, AGED 70 YEARS,
D/O. LUSINJU TC 87/213, NEDUVILAKOM
PURAYIDOM, VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM - 695
008 CURRENTLY RESIDING AT BUDS SCHOOL,
VALIYATHURA.
57 JESSY JOSEPH, AGED 59 YEARS,
D/O. RAJU, TC 88/264, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT BUDS SCHOOL, VALIYATHURA.
58 REETA, AGED 63 YEARS,
D/O FRANCIS, TC 88/110, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDOM,
VALLAKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008;
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT BUDS SCHOOL,
VALIYATHURA.
59 MARY, AGED 78 YEARS,
D/O. JOOSA, TC 87/141, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT UPS GOV SCHOOL, VALIYATHURA.
60 JOSWIN, AGED 58 YEARS,
D/O. JOSEPH, TC 87/1847, KOCHUTHOP,
VALLAKKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695
008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT BUDS SCHOOL,
VALIYATHURA.
61 LEELA MARKOSE, AGED 66 YEARS,
D/O. MICHEL CHRISTIN, T/C 71/318, PUTHUVAL
PURAYIDOM, VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM – 695
008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT GOV BUDS SCHOOL,
VALIYATHURA.
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 10 2026:KER:83112
62 OUSEP, AGED 58 YEARS,
S/O. BERNARD TC 78/1661, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDOM,
VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM - 695 008
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT NEAR OUSHADI,
VALIYATHURA.
63 THRESI MARKOSE, AGED 65 YEARS,
D/O. MARKOSE, TC 78/1843, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING NEAR AIRPORT, VALIYATHURA.
64 CARMEL JEYA SESAYYA, AGED 50 YEARS,
D/O. JOOSA, TC 44/135, THUNDUVILAKOM
PURAYIDOM, VALLAKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM –
695 008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT GOV UP
SCHOOL, VALIYATHURA.
65 LILLY MANIYAN, AGED 47 YEARS,
D/O. BENNY ABRAHAM, TC 87/258,
THUNDUVILAKAM, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT BUDS SCHOOL, VALIYATHURA.
66 NANCY, AGED 77 YEARS,
W/O. BERNARD, TC 87/1418, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT NEAR KUZHIVILAKOM, VALIYATHURA.
67 VARGHESE, AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O. OUSEPH, T/C 34/1303, KOCHUTHOP,
VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM - 695 008;
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT VALIYATHURA.
68 BEROMA EDWIN, AGED 40 YEARS,
W/O. EDWIN TC 44/103, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDOM,
VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM - 695 008
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT NEAR THOPP,
VALIYATHURA.
69 ISABEL, AGED 67 YEARS,
D/O. SEBASTIAN, TC 87/67, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT NEAR KARUPPAYA ROAD,
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 11 2026:KER:83112
VALIYATHURA.
70 JESSY, AGED 49 YEARS,
D/O. MOHANAN, TC 34/1218, PUTHUVAL
PURAYIDOM, KOCHUTHOP, VALLAKADAVU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT PORT GODOWN, VALIYATHURA.
71 REETHA, AGED 60 YEARS,
D/O. ANTONY, TC 51/495, THUNDUVILAKAM,
VALLAKKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695
008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT PORT GODOWN,
VALIYATHURA.
72 RABIL ARULAPPAN, AGED 53 YEARS,
W/O. ARULAPPAN, TC 87/165,, VALLAKKADAVU
P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT NEAR KARUPPAYA ROAD,
VALIYATHURA.
73 XAVIER M J., AGED 61 YEARS,
D/O. JOHN DORAS MORAIS, T/C 71/1200,
NEDUVILAKAM HOUSE VALLAKADAVU P.O,
VALIYATHURA, TRIVANDRUM - 695 008.
74 RAJI, AGED 41 YEARS,
D/O. MARIYADASAN M TC 44/142, VALIYATHURA,
VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM - 695 008.
75 ACHAMMA, AGED 52 YEARS,
D/O. MERRY TC 44/141, THUNDUVILAKAM
PURAYIDOM, VALIYATHURA VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695008.
76 JACOB ALEX, AGED 56 YEARS,
S/O. ALEX, TC 71/385, VALIYATHURA,
VALLAKKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695
008;
77 GELI, AGED 58 YEARS,
D/O. PANIYADIMA, TC 71/665, VALIYATHURA
PUTHUVAL PURAYIDOM, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 12 2026:KER:83112
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695008.
78 FLORY, AGED 66 YEARS,
D/O. KARUMAM, TC 71/700, VALIATHURA,
VALLAKKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN – 695008.
79 FRANCIS, AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O. LAWRENCE, T/C 78/1310, PUTHUVAL
PURAYIDOM, VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM 695
008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT PORT GODOWN,
VALIYATHURA.
80 JESINTHA, AGED 66 YEARS,
D/O. STANSILAS TC 44/245/5, VALLAKADAVU P.O,
TRIVANDRUM – 695 008 CURRENTLY RESIDING AT
GOV UP SCHOOL, VALIYATHURA.
81 GRACY, AGED 70 YEARS,
D/O. DEVASY, TC 45/19, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT PORT GODOWN, VALIYATHURA.
82 MICHEAL, AGED 65 YEARS,
S/O. ANTONY, TC 71/218, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDOM,
VALLAKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695008;
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT NEAR KUZHIVILAKOM,
VALIYATHURA.
83 ROSEMARY, AGED 67 YEARS,
D/O. ARULAPPAN, TC 71/695, VALIYATHURA,
VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008.
84 SAMSON, AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O. SHAMMICHAEL, TC 87/251/1, VALLAKKADAVU
P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT PORT GODOWN, VALIYATHURA.
85 GILBERT CARLOSE, AGED 62 YEARS,
S/O. CARLOSE, T/C 87/656, VALIYATHOP,
VALLAKADAVU P.O TRIVANDRUM – 695 008;
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 13 2026:KER:83112
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT OPPOSITE LENA ROAD,
VALIYATHOP, VALLAKADAVU P.O.
86 MAGLIN JERON, AGED 56 YEARS,
D/O. CARLOSE TC 87/790, VALIYATHOP,
VALLAKADAVU P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 695 008;
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT KARIKKAKAM,
TRIVANDRUM.
87 MARGERAT, AGED 57 YEARS,
D/O. ANTONY TC 34/1419, VALIYATHOP,
VALLAKADAVU P.O TRIVANDRUM - 695 008;
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT JOOSA ROAD,
VALIYATHOP, VALLAKADAVU P.O.
88 JOSEPH JOHNSON, AGED 46 YEARS,
S/O. JOHNSON, TC 34/899, VALIYATHOP,
VALLAKKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695
008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT NEAR CHURCH,
VALIYATHOP, TRIVANDRUM.
89 MERCY JULIAN, AGED 40 YEARS,
W/O. JULIAN, TC 34/1430, KOCHUTHOP,
VALLAKKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM –
695008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT LENA ROAD,
VALIYATHOP, VALLAKADAVU P.O.
90 BARBARA, AGED 75 YEARS,
D/O. ANTHONY, TC 87/780, KOCHUTHOP,
VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695
008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT JOOSA ROAD,
VALLAKADAVU P.O.
91 ACHAMMA, AGED 54 YEARS,
D/O. JOHN, T/C 87/692, VALIYATHOP,
VALLAKADAVU P.O TRIVANDRUM – 695 008,
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT LENA ROAD,
VALIYATHOPE.
92 PHILOMINA DUBICK, AGED 51 YEARS,
D/O. STANCILAS TC 34/728, VALIYATHOP,
VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM – 695 008;
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT SREE CHITHRA NAGAR
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 14 2026:KER:83112
KOCHUTHOPE VALLAKKADAVU P.O.,
TRIVANDRUM – 695 008.
93 SHALLET VIMAL, AGED 67 YEARS,
D/O. JOSEPH TC 78/901, LENA ROAD VALIYATHOPE
VALLAKKADAVU PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695
008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT LENA ROAD
VALIYATHOPE VALLAKKADAVU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
94 CARMEL JOMON, AGED 51 YEARS,
D/O. ALIAS, TC 78/1050, JUSA ROAD,
KOCHUTHOPE VALLAKKADAVU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT JUSA ROAD, KOCHUTHOPE
VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
95 ANNIE ANTONY, AGED 52 YEARS
D/O. EDWIN TC 78/902, VALIYATHOPE,
VALLAKKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695
008; CURRENTLY RESIDING LENA ROAD
VALIYATHOPE. VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
96 MARIYA GORETTY PANCRAS, AGED 64 YEARS,
D/O. RAJAPPAN, TC 78/906, KOCHUTHOPE,
VALLAKKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695
008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT JUSA ROAD
KOCHUTHOPE VALLAKKADAVU P.O.
97 PATRIC MICHEAL, AGED 46 YEARS,
S/O. R MICHEAL, T/C 34/881, JOOSA ROAD ,
KOCHUTHOP, VALLAKADAVU P.O TRIVANDRUM – 695
008; CURRENTLY RESIDING T/C 87/457, FERNNY
VILLA, USC ROAD, KOCHUTHOP, VALLAKADAVU P.O,
TRIVANDRUM.
98 JERSITA ROCKY, AGED 49 YEARS,
D/O. MARTIN JOHN, TC 34/1341, VALIYATHOP,
VALLAKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM 695008;
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT JOOSA ROAD,
KOCHUTHOPE, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., TRIVANDRUM.
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 15 2026:KER:83112
99 MINI ROCKY, AGED 36 YEARS
D/O. JOSEPH TC 34/787, THYVILAKOM PURAYIDOM,
VALIYATHOPE VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT JOOSA ROAD, KOCHUTHOPE
VALLAKKADAVU P.O., TRIVANDRUM.
100 BRIJIT GEORGE, AGED 58 YEARS,
D/O. ALPHONSE AROGYAM, TC 34/1501,
KOCHUTHOPE, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDOM VALLAKKADAVU
P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT JOOSA ROAD, KOCHUTHOP,
VALLAKADAVU P.O.
101 GERLI BASIL, AGED 68 YEARS,
D/O ALPHONSE AROGYAM, TC 87/773, KOCHUTHOPE,
VALLAKKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695
008; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT JOOSA ROAD,
KOCHUTHOPE. VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
102 SHEELA POLSON, AGED 50 YEARS,
D/O. AVARACHAN, TC 34/783, THYVILAKOM
PURAYIDOM, VALIYATHOPE, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008; CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT FATHIMA ROAD, VALIYATHURA
VALLAKKADAVU P.O.
103 CELINE VINCENT, AGED 75 YEARS,
W/O. VINCENT, T/C 80/847, PANANKAL
PURAYIDOM, TITANIUM P.O, TRIVANDRUM - 695
021. CURRENTLY RESIDING AT THYVILAKOM HOUSE,
VETTUCAUD, TITANIUM P.O, TRIVANDRUM, PIN –
695008.
104 SARA BABU, AGED 59 YEARS,
D/O. SYRIL, TC 80/200, MUKKOTTUPLAKAM,
SHANGUMUGOM P.O, TRIVANDRUM 695007;
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT NEAR MUKKOTTUPLAKAM,
SHANGUMUGOM P.O , TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695008.
105
ANITHA, AGED 39 YEARS,
D/O. OUSEPH TC 90/1097, TITANIUM P.O.,
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 16 2026:KER:83112
TRIVANDRUM – 695 021; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT
MINI CORTERS, T/C 80/921, TITANIUM P.O.,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695008.
106 ROCKY VAREETH, AGED 74 YEARS,
S/O. VAREETH, TC 80/916, TITANIUM P.O
TRIVANDRUM - 695 021; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT
THYVILAKOM HOUSE, T/C 80/916, TITANIUM P.O
TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695008.
107 PAULIN FRANCIS, AGED 63 YEARS
D/O. VAGHESE PREKORE, TC 33/668, SHANGUMUGOM
P.O, TRIVANDRUM 695007, CURRENTLY RESIDING
AT NEAR TITANIUM, TITANIUM P.O, TRIVANDRUM,
PIN – 695008.
108 OUSEP, AGED 67 YEARS,
S/O. ANTONY, TC 90/911, THYVILAKOM
PURAYIDOM, TITANIUM P.O TRIVANDRUM 695021;
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT MINI COTERS, TITANIUM
P.O, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695008.
109 PHILOMINA, AGED 85 YEARS
W/O. NICHOLAS, T 15659, VARVILAKOM HOUSE,
SHANGUMUGOM P.O, TRIVANDRUM - 695 007,
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT T/C 78/68, VARUVILAKOM
HOUSE, SHANGUMUGOM P.O, TRIVANDRUM.
110 TRESA BABY, AGED 50 YEARS,
D/O. VINCENT, TC 78/56, VARVILAKOM VEEDU,
SHANGUMUGOM P.O, TRIVANDRUM 695007;
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT T/C 33/293(2) NEAR
VETTUCAUD CHURCH, TITANIUM P.O, TRIVANDRUM,
PIN – 695012.
111 HELEN KUMARI, AGED 52 YEARS,
D/O. RAJAN TC 80/1216, SHANGUMUGOM P.O,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695007.
112 FLORENCE MARY, AGED 33 YEARS,
D/O. VINCENT, TC 90/412, TITANIUM P.O
TRIVANDRUM 695021; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 17 2026:KER:83112
MARIYA HOUSE, TITANIUM P.O TRIVANDRUM.
113 SUSAN MARY, AGED 90 YEARS,
W/O. MARIYADASAN, TC 90/2855, PANANGAL
PURAYIDOM, TITANIUM P.O, TRIVANDRUM – 695
021, CURRENTLY RESIDING AT T/C 90/2855,
TITANIUM P.O., TRIVANDRUM.
114 MARY STELLA, AGED 39 YEARS,
D/O. MARIYADASAN, TC 90/2754, PANANKAL
PURAYIDOM, TITANIUM P.O, TRIVANDRUM – 695
021; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT TC 90/2855,
PANANGAL PURAYIDOM, TITANIUM P.O,
TRIVANDRUM.
115 SUNNY, AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O. CLEMENT, T/C 80/1213, MUKKONI VILKAM,
VETTUCAUD P.O TRIVANDRUM – 695 007,
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT VADAKKEI VILKAM
MUDUMBIL VEEDU TC-31/255 CHAKKA ITI.
116 FABIYOLA ERNESTA, AGED 68 YEARS,
D/O. SIMON, TC 80/1287, LIYA HOUSE
THYIVILKOM VETTUCAUD, SHANGUMUGHOM P.O,
TRIVANDRUM - 695 007; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT
JOSE VILLA HOUSE, TC-33/634 THYIVILKOM
VETTUCAUD, SHANGUMUGHOM P.O., TRIVANDRUM.
117 JENOVA MARY, AGED 52 YEARS,
D/O. ANTONY TC 80/1290, THYIVILKOM
VETTUCAUD, SHANGUMUGHOM P.O, TRIVANDRUM,
PIN – 695007.
118 JESPIN BERNARD, AGED 54 YEARS,
D/O. VARGHESE, TC 80/1288, THYIVILKOM
VETTUCAUD, SHANGUMUGHOM P.O, TRIVANDRUM,
PIN – 695007.
119 MILIKIYAS, AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O. STANCILAS, TC 90/3008, THYIVILKOM
VETTUCAUD TITANIUM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN – 695021.
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 18 2026:KER:83112
120 VINEETHA, AGED 32 YEARS,
D/O GERALD, TC 89/204, THYIVILKOM VETTUCAUD,
SHANGUMUGHOM P.O, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695007.
121 PAULIN STEPHEN, AGED 57 YEARS,
W/O STEPHEN, T/C 33/236, MUKKUNPLAKOM,
VETTUCAUD, SHANGUMUGOM P.O, TRIVANDRUM 695
007, CURRENTLY RESIDING AT T/C 27/786,
PALAYAM, KUNNUKUZHI.
122 ROSA STELLUS, AGED 58 YEARS,
D/O MANUEL FERNANDEZ, TC 80/166, THYIVILKOM
VETTUCAUD, SHANGUMUGHOM P.O., TRIVANDRUM –
695 007; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT KANNANTHURA,
SHANGUMUGHOM P.O., TRIVANDRUM.
123 VINCENT, AGED 65 YEARS,
S/O VAREETH TC 80/879, THYIVILKOM,
VETTUCAUD, SHANGUMUGHOM P.O, TRIVANDRUM -
695 007. CURRENTLY RESIDING AT BALANAGAR,
VETTUCAUD, TITANIUM P.O., PIN – 695021.
124 STEPHEN MARTIN, AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O MARTIN, TC 89/213, MUKKODUVILKOM
VETTUCAUD, SHANGUMUGHOM P.O, TRIVANDRUM,
PIN – 695007.
125 MARYKUTTY ROBIN, AGED 46 YEARS,
D/O AMALAS, TC 90/1002, PUTHUVILKOM
VETTUCAUD TITANIUM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM –
695 021; CURRENTLY RESIDING AT PUTHUVILKOM
VETTUCAUD TITANIUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
126 HILDA, AGED 62 YEARS,
D/O M THOMAS, TC 90/993, PUTHUVILKOM
VETTUCAUD, TITANIUM P.O, TRIVANDRUM,
PIN – 695021.
127 MIHAD, AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O MAJID, TC 45/421, NEDUVILAKOM PURAYIDOM,
BEEMAPALLI, VALLAKADAVU P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695008.
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 19 2026:KER:83112
128 NABEESA, AGED 63 YEARS,
W/O MUBARAK, TC 70/3200, VALIYAVILAKOM
PURAYIDOM, BEEMAPALLI, VALLAKADAVU P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695008.
BY ADVS.
SRI.AJIT JOY
SMT.SAYUJYA RADHAKRISHNAN
SRI.ANEESH JAMES
SRI.PRASHANT BHUSHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
PORTS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, PIN – 695001.
2 UNION OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS,
PARYAVARAN BHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PIN – 110003.
3 KERALA STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
PIN – 695001.
4 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION ROAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695043.
5 KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY,
4TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX,
THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY
ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, PIN – 695001.
6 VIZHINJAM INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT LIMITED (VISL)
9TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX,
THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PIN – 695001.
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 20 2026:KER:83112
7 ADANI VIZHINJAM PORT PVT. LTD. (AVPL),
ADANI CORPORATE HOUSE, SHANTIGRAM, NEAR
VAISHNO DEVI CIRCLE, S.G.HIGHWAY, KHODIYAR,
AHMEDABAD, PIN – 382 421. WITH OFFICE AT
VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY
ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, DIRECTOR,
PIN – 695521.
THE VICTIM RIGHTS CENTRE UNDER KELSA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CO-ORDINATOR
ADDL.
R8
[ADDL.R8 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 15/12/2022 IN WP(C)NO.34157/2022]
BY ADVS.
SRI.VIPIN.P.VARGHESE, SC, VIZHINJAM
INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT LIMITED
SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER
SHRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY
SHRI.K.R.RANJITH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER WITH
STATE ATTORNEY
SHRI.ADARSH MATHEW
SHRI.KEVIN MATHEW GEORGE
SMT.MEERA ELSA GEORGE
SMT.MERLINE MATHEW
SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS
SHRI.HARIMOHAN
SRI.VIPIN P.VARGHESE
SRI.V.J.MATHEW (SR.)
SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN
SRI.ANOOP V.NAIR, STATE ATTORNEY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.10.2026, THE COURT ON 30.10.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 21 2026:KER:83112
“C.R.”
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition has been instituted by the petitioners,
stated to be residents of fishing villages located within 20 kms
North of Vizhinjam, where the International Deepwater
Multipurpose Seaport is being implemented. The petitioners
contend that on account of the construction of the Seaport as
th th
above by the 6 and 7 respondents, substantial erosion of the
coast has taken place on the Northern side of the Seaport
construction - more particularly the breakwater construction and
accretion on the Southern side of the Seaport. They would invite
the attention of this Court to the Expert Committee constituted by
st
the 1 respondent - State pursuant to Ext.P11 Government Order
dated 06.10.2022, and state that the said report is to be ignored,
since the Committee members were tainted with conflict of
interest due to personal reasons. Therefore, they also seek setting
up of an independent Committee by this Court with reference to
Ext.P11 and the terms fixed therein.
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 22 2026:KER:83112
2. Ext.P11 Government Order has been issued also with
reference to certain directions issued by the National Green
Tribunal (NGT), produced along with this writ petition as Ext.P9.
For convenience, the operative portion of Ext.P11 is extracted as
under:-
“4. However, certain sections representing the people residing in
the coastal region have submitted that the construction of the
Vizhinjam International Multipurpose Seaport project has caused
coastal erosion around the port. The request was also raised
before the Cabinet Sub Committee by the representatives of the
local people during discussions.
5. In the circumstances, Government are pleased to constitute an
Expert Committee to examine whether there has been any such
coastal erosion consequent to the work done for constructing the
port at Vizhinjam and to identify specific measures to address the
coastal erosion if any, observed in the zone of influence of
construction. The committee shall hear the views of the
representatives of the local population before finalising the report.
The committee shall have the following members.
1 Shri. M.D.Kudale, Former Additional Director,
Chairman
Central Water and Power Research Station
(CWPRS), Pune (B-303, Panchavati Housing
Society, Chavan Nagar, Dhankawadi, Pune
411043, Maharashtra)
2 Dr. Riji John, Vice Chancellor, Kerala University of
Member
Fisheries and Ocean Studies, Kochi.
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 23 2026:KER:83112
3 Dr. Tejal Kanitkar, Associate Professor, School of
Member
Natural Sciences & Engineering, National
Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS), Indian
Institute of Science, Bangalore
4 Dr. P K Chandramohan, Former Chief Engineer,
Member
Kandla Port Trust. (Gowri Sadan, Azad Road,
Kaloor, Kochi, 682 017
6. The Terms of Reference for the Expert Committee will be
issued separately.”
3. The petitioners, as noticed earlier, contend that the
members of the Committee constituted pursuant to Ext.P11 are
having conflict of interest as alleged in the writ petition. Therefore,
the petitioners contend that an independent Committee requires
to be constituted, as noticed earlier.
4. However, noticing that pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment of
the NGT, another Committee has already been constituted for
monitoring the “shoreline changes”, the reports of the afore
Committee constituted by the NGT were directed to be placed
before this Court pursuant to the order dated 30.03.2026.
5. As directed, the reports of the afore Committee
constituted pursuant to the judgment of the NGT are also placed
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 24 2026:KER:83112
on record. Therefore, as of now, following sets of reports are
available;
i. Prepared by the Committee constituted by Ext.P11.
ii. Prepared by the Committee constituted by the NGT.
6. Sri.Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the
petitioners, would submit that:
i. The petitioners, residents of fishing villages located within 20
kilometers to the North of Vizhinjam, have either lost their
houses or the same has been heavily damaged on account of
coastal erosion pursuant to the construction of the Seaport.
In other words, the petitioners are stated to be facing an
existential crisis.
ii. Report of the Committee constituted as per Ext.P11 cannot be
acted upon since the members of the Committee were having
conflict of interest. In this regard, he sought to rely on the
following grounds raised in the writ petition:
“U. The Expert Committee members are tainted by
conflict of interest due to their personal interest and
th
involvement in the project, and connections to the 6
th
and the 7 respondent. The Chairman of the
Committee, Mr.MD Kudale, has been working as an
expert member of ‘Technical Sub-committee for the
Development of Vizhinjam Seaport Limited since 2012’
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 25 2026:KER:83112
as seen in the ER Sheet (Employee Register) data
entry form of Central Water and Power Research
Station CWPRS, Pune from where he retired in 2017.
Expert member Dr. PV Chandramohan, served as Chief
Engineer of Kandla Port, Gujarat. However, from 2006
and till now he has been working as the President-
Technical, Navayuga Engineering Company Ltd,
Hyderabad. Navayaga Engineering Company Limited
and Adani Enterprises incorporated a new company
called Vijayawada Bypass Project. Another member,
Dr Riji K John, though when his name was announced
as a member of the committee was the Vice-
Chancellor of KUFOS, this Hon’ble Court had quashed
th
his appointment as VC. The 6 respondent VISL, the
implementing agency of Vizhinjam Port, was officiating
as secretary to the Committee for a majority of its
duration.
V. The Chairman of the Committee Sri. MD Kudale, has
taken in the report a dramatically opposite view to his
findings in the paper on “Impact of port development
on the coastline and the need for protection” published
in Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences in December
2010.”
iii. Without prejudice to the above, he would contend that,
Sri.M.D.Kudale, the Chairman of the Committee, had,
pursuant to Ext.P5(a), opined more or less in tune with the
contentions raised in the writ petition . However, Sri.
Bhushan would point out that the view expressed in the
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 26 2026:KER:83112
report submitted pursuant to Ext.P11 Government Order
was just the contrary. He also sought to rely on the Google
pictures at Ext.P6 series in this regard.
iv. The Kudale Committee had visited the site on one day alone
- 23.05.2023, which itself is a pointer to show that no
authoritative studies were conducted.
v. Ext.P12 report by the “Janakeeya Padana Samithi” points to
coastal erosion after the construction, dredging and
reclamation in connection with the Seaport commenced.
vi. As regards the report submitted pursuant to the judgment
of the NGT, he would submit that those were prepared by
th
the 7 respondent concessionaire, as is clear from a reading
of the covering letter. He also relied on the various parts of
the afore report to contend that the report has been
th
prepared by the 7 respondent concessionaire, and that it
is forwarded only for the purpose of vetting; therefore, he
would state that there is a requirement for constituting a
new Committee.
vii. The Committee constituted pursuant to the NGT directions,
though it carries out a field visit once in six months, only
vets reports prepared by National Institute of Ocean
Technology (NIOT) and such other private agencies hired
th th
and paid by 6 /7 respondent. Even the cell constituted
within Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority (CZMA)
is a dummy for shoreline monitoring and acts only as a post
th
box for forwarding reports prepared by the 7 respondent.
In other words, right from the directions issued by the NGT,
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 27 2026:KER:83112
th
it is the 7 respondent who is carrying out the monitoring,
and the Committee is only endorsing the same.
viii. The Government themselves were aware about the
inadequacies of the study by the Committee constituted by
the NGT, as is clear from the constitution of another
Committee pursuant to Ext.P11 Government Order.
ix. Therefore, he concludes the submissions, by pointing out
that a new Committee of independent members requires to
be appointed also proposing five members along with their
brief profiles attached as Annexure I to a reply affidavit
dated 30.05.2026 filed by the petitioners .
7. Per contra , Sri.Anoop V. Nair, the learned State
Attorney, would contend that:
i. The Vizhinjam Seaport is located on a beach between two
rocky promontories, on account of which there is only
minimal longshore sediment transport.
ii. The erosion occurred as a result of high wave activities,
cyclones (western coast), as has been reported by the
Committee pursuant to Ext.P11 Government Order. In this
regard, he sought to rely on Ext.P7 report of NIOT, which
pointed out that the erosion, etc., are on account of the
cyclone.
iii. There is no requirement for constituting a fresh Committee
under any circumstances.
iv. The NGT had specifically directed the Committee constituted
pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment to monitor whether the
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 28 2026:KER:83112
conditions in the EC/CRZ clearance are being honored, for
which periodic reports were directed to be filed. According
to him, if the reports are not acceptable, it is for the parties
to approach the NGT.
v. The Government had provided various schemes for
rehabilitation of those affected by the construction of the
Seaport as seen from Ext.R1(a) to Ext.R1(e) and most of
the petitioners have received the benefits pursuant to such
schemes. Therefore, according to him, the petitioners
ought not have approached this Court.
th
8. Smt.Merline Mathew, the learned counsel for the 6
respondent, would contend that:
i. The project in question being a project having strategic
national importance and having obtained all valid
approvals, the writ petition is not to be entertained.
ii. EC/CRZ clearance has already been upheld by the NGT
pursuant to Ext.P9. However, the judgment of the NGT
has not been challenged by anyone. It is further pointed
out that most of the issues raised in this writ petition were
already considered and rejected by the NGT.
iii. The writ petition, complaining about the existential crisis
from 2016 onwards, is presented after a delay of six years
in 2022 and hence there is delay and laches. She relied
on Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and
Others [(2000) 10 SCC 664] in this regard.
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 29 2026:KER:83112
iv. There is no evidence in support of the contentions or even
suggesting that the construction of the Seaport in
question is the sole contributing factor for the erosion on
the Northern side.
v. Ext.P5(a) Article presented by Sri.Kudale only contains a
general opinion, whereas the report subsequently
presented pursuant to Ext.P11 Government Order is a
specific one, in relation to the Seaport in question. Hence,
Ext.P5(a), by itself, cannot be a ground for discrediting
the subsequent report.
vi. The Vizhinjam project has been undertaken and executed
after extensive studies by experts on shoreline
monitoring etc., and such monitoring continues as on
date. The opinion expressed by an expert is not to be
interfered with, as held by the Apex Court in University
of Mysore v. C.D.Govinda [AIR 1965 SC 491] .
vii. The allegation of bias against the report of the Kudale
Committee is raised on hyper-technical reasons without
any basis.
th
9. Sri.Roshen D. Alexander, the learned counsel for the 7
respondent, would contend that:
i. The NGT in Ext.P9 judgment has considered the issue in
extenso, with specific reference to the grant of EC/CRZ
clearance. Paragraph 36 of the judgment refers to as many
as 17 studies that were taken into account while preparing the
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 30 2026:KER:83112
Comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment Report,
which was considered by the Expert Appraisal Committee
before granting EC/CRZ clearance.
ii. Since the NGT has considered the question with reference to
grant of EC/CRZ clearance in extenso , and the same having
attained finality, the writ jurisdiction of this Court is not to be
exercised.
10. I have considered the rival contentions as well as the
connected records.
11. The first issue arising for consideration is with respect to
the alleged delay and laches in institution of this writ petition,
noticed earlier. According to the respondents, the crisis arose and
is being experienced from 2016 onwards, and the writ petition is
presented only in 2022, and hence the writ petition is highly
belated. True, the petitioners contend that they have been facing
an existential crisis from the beginning of the project. At the same
time, it also requires to be noticed that the Government issued
Ext.P11 order dated 06.10.2022 providing for the constitution of
the Committee for addressing the alleged coastal erosion pursuant
to the Seaport construction. It is with reference to the constitution
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 31 2026:KER:83112
of the Committee as above that the petitioners have instituted the
captioned writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
“i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
st
appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1
respondent to permit any further construction at
Vizhinjam International Seaport only after
consideration of the detailed report/findings by the
st
Expert Committee constituted by the 1 respondent
through Ext.P11 Govt. Order;
ii. Call for the records leading to the Final Report of the
Expert Committee, pursuant to Exhibit P-11 G.O. dated
06.10.2022 by issue of a Writ of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, and set up an
independent committee under the aegis of this Hon'ble
Court to report on the terms fixed by Exhibit P-11.
iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
nd th
appropriate writ, order or direction to the 2 and 5
respondents to study through the expert committee
appointed by the Hon'ble NGT in OA 74 of 2014 whether
the constructions pursuant to Ext.P1 clearance, has
aggravated coastal erosion leading to negation of the
object of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification of
2011 and 2019 to, "ensure livelihood security to the
fisher communities and other local communities, living
in the coastal areas, to conserve and protect coastal
stretches, its unique environment ...".
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 32 2026:KER:83112
iv. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
rd th
appropriate writ, order or direction to the 3 and 4
respondent to comply with the provisions of Disaster
Management Act, 2005 and carry out immediate
assessment of the Vizhinjam International Seaport
Project from the point of view of the State and District
Disaster Management Plan.
vi. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
st th
appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1 and 4
respondents to ensure that the petitioners are provided
suitable alternate housing in the seacoast with
compensation assessed and paid for loss of livelihood
from the time of loss of their houses;
vii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
st
appropriate Writ, order or direction to the 1 respondent
to ensure for Fishers among the petitioners and others
who lost their livelihood as a result of sea erosion
especially Shore seine fishermen and net owners, Mollusc
collectors and women fish vendors-adequate financial
compensation including compensation for loss of
occupation during the period of 2016 to 2022.;
vii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
st
appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1
respondent to undertake a project for restoration of the
eroded beaches of national importance like Kovalam
and Sanghamugam and other beaches of Pannathura,
Poonthura, Beemapalli, Kochu thopu, Valiathura and
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 33 2026:KER:83112
Vettukad through regular sand bypassing and beach
nourishment process.
viii. To dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular
documents;.
ix. To award to the petitioners the costs of these
proceedings;”
12. Reading of Ext.P11 shows that even pursuant to the NGT
decision, the affected parties were before the Government:
seeking its indulgence in the matter, and the Government has also
responded positively by constituting the Committee. This Court is
of the opinion that in the light of the Government Order at Ext.P11
issued as above, the allegation of delay and laches raised by the
respondents is only to be repelled.
13. Before proceeding to consider the various contentions
raised in this writ petition, the principles laid down by the Apex
Court in Union of India v. Kushala Shetty [(2011) 12 SCC
69] require to be referred as under:
“28. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a
professionally managed statutory body having expertise
in the field of development and maintenance of national
highways. The projects involving construction of new
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 34 2026:KER:83112
highways and widening and development of the existing
highways, which are vital for the development of
infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in
the field of highways. It comprises of persons having vast
knowledge and expertise in the field of highway
development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and
implements projects relating to development and
maintenance of national highways after thorough study by
experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are
prepared keeping in view the relative factors including
intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public
interest. The courts are not at all equipped to decide upon
the viability and feasibility of the particular project and
whether the particular alignment would subserve the
larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of
judicial review is very limited. The court can nullity the
acquisition of land and, in the rarest of rare cases, the
particular project, if it is found to be ex facie contrary to
the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides. In the
case in hand, neither any violation of mandate of the 1956
Act has been established nor has the charge of malice in
fact has been proved. Therefore, the order under
challenge cannot be sustained.”
Again, in National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited v.
Montecarlo Limited and Another [(2022) 6 SCC 401] , the
Apex Court held as under:
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 35 2026:KER:83112
“48. Even while entertaining the writ petition and/or
granting the stay which ultimately may delay the
execution of the Mega projects, it must be remembered
that it may seriously impede the execution of the projects
of public importance and disables the State and/or its
agencies/instrumentalities from discharging the
constitutional and legal obligation towards the citizens.
Therefore, the High Courts should be extremely careful
and circumspect in exercise of its discretion while
entertaining such petitions and/or while granting stay in
such matters. Even in a case where the High Court is of
the prima facie opinion that the decision is as such
perverse and/or arbitrary and/or suffers from mala fides
and/or favouritism, while entertaining such writ petition
and/or pass any appropriate interim order. High Court
may put to the writ petitioner's notice that in case the
petitioner loses and there is a delay in execution of the
project due to such proceedings initiated by him/it,
he/they may be saddled with the damages caused for
delay in execution of such projects, which may be due to
such frivolous litigations initiated by him/it. With these
words of caution and advice, we rest the matter there and
leave it to the wisdom of the Court(s) concerned, which
ultimately may look to the larger public interest and the
national interest involved.”
Thus, the scope of judicial review in this writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. At the same time,
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 36 2026:KER:83112
this Court notices that the project in question has proceeded
ahead and the second phase is currently going on. The petitioners
have also stated before this Court that they are not seeking any
stay of the proceedings with respect to the implementation of the
project and this has been recorded also on 22.07.2026.
Therefore, this Court is called upon to consider only the challenge
against the constitution of the Committee pursuant to Ext.P11
Government Order and the ultimate report presented by the said
Committee.
14. The main contention raised by the petitioners is as
regards the constitution of the Committee pursuant to Ext.P11
Government Order and the reports stated to have been filed by
the Committee. The challenge in this regard is twofold. The first
ground of challenge is against the constitution of the members of
the Committee noticed as above, which, according to the
petitioners, were illegal insofar as the members of the
Committee were having conflict of interest due to personal
reasons/involvement in the project. The second ground of
challenge is with respect to the conclusions of the Committee in
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 37 2026:KER:83112
its report, which, according to the petitioners, are highly
th
influenced by the 7 respondent. They contend that the report
has been prepared not pursuant to an independent evaluation, but
th
only pursuant to a preconceived opinion prepared by the 7
respondent and portrayed through the Committee.
15. As regards the conflict of interest of the members of the
Committee, it is pointed out that:
i. Sri.Kudale was working as an expert member of the
“Technical Sub-committee” for the development of Vizhinjam
Seaport Limited since 2012, as seen in the employee register,
data entry form of the Central Water and Power Research
Station, Pune, from where he retired in 2017.
ii. Dr.P.V.Chandramohan, another member of the Committee,
served as a Chief Engineer of Kandla Port, Gujarat, and from
2006 onwards he has been the President – Technical,
Navayuga Engineering Company Limited, Hyderabad, which
company, along with M/s.Adani Enterprises, had incorporated
a new company for the Vijayawada Bypass Project.
iii. Dr.Riji K.John, who was the Vice Chancellor of KUFOS, has
been unceremoniously sent out when his appointment as a
Vice Chancellor was quashed by this Court.
iv. With respect to Sri.Kudale, it is further contended that the final
report of the Expert Committee constituted pursuant to
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 38 2026:KER:83112
Ext.P11 runs diametrically opposite to the findings contained
in the paper published by Sri.Kudale during 2010.
16. I have considered the contentions raised by the
petitioners as above.
17. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 6,
there are averments refuting the alleged conflict of interest. It is
stated in the afore affidavits that academicians and professionals
being engaged in various projects by the Government institutions
may also be members of different sub-committees of various
projects. It is stated that this itself cannot be taken as a case of
personal interest on the part of members of the Committee. The
affidavits also contend that the professional involvement of
Sri.Kudale in the project would have definitely helped him while
functioning as the chairman of the Committee constituted
pursuant to Ext.P11 Government order. With respect to
Dr.Chandramohan, the afore affidavits, virtually admits that he
was working in the company that incorporated a new company
along with Adani Enterprises.
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 39 2026:KER:83112
18. In this regard, the principles laid down by the Apex
Court in N.K. Bajpai v. Union of India and Another [(2012)
4 SCC 653] requires to be taken note. The Apex Court was
considering the constitutionality of the provisions of Section
129(6) of the Customs Act, 1962, which stipulated that on
demitting office as a member of the Customs, Excise and Service
Tax Appellate Tribunal, that person was not entitled to appear
before the Tribunal. The Apex Court found as under:-
“42. The next contention raised on behalf of the appellants
before us is that the entire restriction is based on an illogical
presumption of likelihood of bias. The presumption of legal
bias being without any basis and ill-founded, the amendment
itself is liable to be declared ultra vires. This contention,
again, does not carry any weight. This argument is
misconceived on facts and law, both. It is not only the
mischief of likelihood of bias which is sought to be prevented
by the amendment but the amendment has a definite purpose
and object to achieve which is in the larger public interest.
Such legislative attempt, not only to adhere to but to enhance
the values and dignity of the legal profession, would add to
the confidence of the common litigant in the administration
of justice and the performance of duties by the Tribunal.
………
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 40 2026:KER:83112
45. Having regard to the prevalent values and conditions of
the profession, most of the legal practitioners would not stoop
to unhealthy practices or tactics but the legislature, in its
wisdom, has considered it desirable to eliminate any
possibility of conflict between the interest and duty and aimed
at achieving this object or purpose by prescribing the
requisite restrictions. With the development of law, the courts
are expected to consider, in contradistinction to private and
public interests, the institutional interest and expectations of
the public at large from an institution. These are the balancing
tests which are applied by the courts even in the process of
interpretation or examining of the constitutional validity of a
provision.
46. Under the English law, the genesis of bias has been
described as the perception that the court is free from bias,
that it is objectively impartial stems from the overworked
aphorism of Lord Hewart, C.J. in R. v. Sussex JJ., ex p
McCarthy [(1924) 1 KB 256] , KB at p. 259 wherein he said:
‘… it is not merely of some importance but is of
fundamental importance that justice should not only be
done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to
be done.’
However, later the courts there felt that too heavy a reliance
upon the Hewart aphorism in instances of alleged bias
produces the danger that the appearance of bias or injustice
becomes more important than the absence of actual bias, the
doing of justice itself. It is, therefore, of importance that
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 41 2026:KER:83112
perceived bias is not too readily inferred, such as to negate
the doing of justice.
47. In Porter v. Magill [(2002) 2 AC 357 : (2002) 2 WLR 37 :
(2002) 1 All ER 465 (HL)] , the House of Lords finally decided
the proper test for finding perceived or apparent bias, after
judicial debate for over two decades, which displayed the
welcome interplay of judicial pronouncements within the
jurisdictions of the English common law, Scotland and
Strasbourg jurisprudence. The test is now whether the fair-
minded observer, having considered the facts, would consider
that there was a reasonable possibility that the tribunal was
biased. ( See Sir Louis Blom, Q.C., “Bias, Malfunction in
Judicial Decision-Making” [2009 Public Law 199] .)
48. Bias must be shown to be present. Probability of bias,
possibility of bias and reasonable suspicion that bias might
have affected the decision are terms of different
connotations. They broadly fall under two categories i.e.
suspicion of bias and likelihood of bias. Likelihood of bias
would be the possibility of bias and bias which can be shown
to be present, while suspicion of bias would be the probability
or reasonable suspicion of bias. The former lead to vitiation
of action, while the latter could hardly be the foundation for
further examination of action with reference to the facts and
circumstances of a given case. The correct test would be to
examine whether there appears to be a real danger of bias or
whether there is only a probability or even a preponderance
of probability of such bias, in the circumstances of a given
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 42 2026:KER:83112
case. If it falls in the prior category, the decision would attract
judicial chastisement but if it falls in the latter, it would hardly
affect the decision, much less adversely.
………
50. The element of bias by itself may not always necessarily
vitiate an action. The court would have to examine the facts
of a given case. Reverting to the facts of the present case,
despite their absence from the object and reasons for the
amendment of Section 129(6) of the Customs Act it cannot
be held that the element of bias was presumptuous or without
any basis or object. It may be one of the relevant factors
which probably would have weighed in the mind of the
legislature. When you have been a member of a tribunal over
a long period, and other members have been your co-
members whether judicial or technical, it is difficult to hold
that there would be no possibility of bias or no real danger of
bias. Even if we rule out this possibility, still, it will always be
better advised and in the institutional interest that restrictions
are enforced. Then alone will the mind of the litigant be free
from a lurking doubt of likelihood of bias and this would
enhance the image of the tribunal. The restriction, as already
discussed, leaves the entire field of legal profession wide open
for the appellants and all persons situated alike except to
practise before CESTAT.
51. Besides the possibility of bias, there is a legitimate
expectation on the part of a litigant before the Tribunal that
there shall not be any possibility of justice being denied or
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 43 2026:KER:83112
being not done fairly. These are the concepts which are very
difficult to be defined and demarcated with precision. Some
element of uncertainty would be prevalent. There can be
removal of doubts to the facts of a given case that would help
in determining matters with somewhat greater uncertainty.
The contention of the petitioners that there has to be
empirical data to suggest their practise before the Tribunal
resulted in instances of misdemeanour which would have
propelled the respondents to insert such a provision in the
enactment, has rightly been rejected by the High Court. It
may not even be proper to introduce such amendments with
reference to any data. Suffice it to note that these
amendments are primarily based upon public perception and
normal behaviour of an ordinary human being. It is difficult
to define cases where element of bias would affect the
decision and where it would not by a precise line of
distinction. Even in a group, a person possessing a special
knowledge may be in a position to influence the group and
his bias may operate in a subtle manner.
52. The general principles of bias are equally applicable to our
administrative and civil jurisprudence. The members of the
tribunals called upon to try issues in judicial or quasi-judicial
proceedings should act judicially. Reasonable apprehension is
equatable to possible apprehension and, therefore, the test is
whether the litigant reasonably apprehends that bias is
attributable to a member of the tribunal.”
(Underlining supplied)
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 44 2026:KER:83112
Thus, the Apex Court held that the very apprehension regarding
likelihood of bias requires judicial chastisement, which requires to
be examined with the facts of the given case. It is further held by
the Apex Court that it is better to impose restriction in such
instances, in which circumstance alone “will the mind of the
litigant be free from a lurking doubt of likelihood of bias”.
19. The observations made by the Apex Court in
A.K.Kraipak and Others v. Union of India and Others
[(1969) 2 SCC 262] , though with reference to the alleged bias
which prevailed in the selection process carried out also require to
be noted:-
“15. ………..It is against all canons of justice to make a man
judge in his own cause. It is true that he did not participate
in the deliberations of the committee when his name was
considered. But then the very fact that he was a member of
the selection board must have had its own impact on the
decision of the selection board. Further admittedly he
participated in the deliberations of the selection board when
the claims of his rivals particularly that of Basu was
considered. He was also party to the preparation of the list
of selected candidates in order of preference. At every stage
of his participation in the deliberations of the selection board
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 45 2026:KER:83112
there was a conflict between his interest and duty. Under
those circumstances it is difficult to believe that he could
have been impartial. The real question is not whether he was
biased. It is difficult to prove the state of mind of a person.
Therefore what we have to see is whether there is
reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have
been biased. We agree with the learned Attorney General
that a mere suspicion of bias is not sufficient. There must be
a reasonable likelihood of bias. In deciding the question of
bias we have to take into consideration human probabilities
and ordinary course of human conduct……”
(Underlining supplied)
20. It is in the light of the afore, the contentions raised in
the writ petition as regards the constitution of the Committee
requires to be taken into account. As already noticed, Sri.Kudale
is stated to have been working as an expert member of the sub-
committee constituted for the development of Vizhinjam Seaport.
If, as a matter of fact, he was so engaged, this Court is of the
opinion that inclusion of Sri.Kudale in the Committee constituted
pursuant to Ext.P11 Government Order ought to have been
avoided. As already noticed, the earlier involvement of Sri.Kudale
is not disputed by any of the respondents. They even go to the
extent of stating that such involvement would have helped him,
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 46 2026:KER:83112
when he functioned as the Chairman of the new Committee.
Similarly, as regards Dr.Chandramohan also, there is an allegation
that he has been working as the President-Technical of the
th
Company, which has connection with the 7 respondent herein.
The afore allegation is also not seen denied by respondents 6 and
th
7. The 6 respondent has only tried to explain the position with
details. At the same time, this Court is not inclined to accept the
challenge to the inclusion of Dr.Riji K. John in the Committee
merely on the ground that his appointment as Vice-Chancellor of
KUFOS was quashed by this Court, especially since there is no
challenge as regards his qualification for inclusion in the
Committee.
21. This Court is also of the opinion that the contention
raised by the petitioners with respect to the study conducted by
Sri.Kudale, as evident from Ext.P5(a), requires to be taken note
of in the light of the uncontroverted allegations regarding the
conflict of interest raised in the writ petition. In Ext.P5(a), an
article titled “Impact of port development on the coastline and the
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 47 2026:KER:83112
need for protection” by Sri.Kudale published in the Indian Journal
of Geo-Marine Sciences, he has opined as under:
“The construction of breakwaters and dredging of navigation
channels for port development interfere with the longshore
Littoral drift. The main impact of the port development is
accumulation on the updrift side of the longshore drift and
erosion of the downdrift side. The impact is prominent on
the coastline having high rate of longshore sediment
transport.”
It is in stark contrast of the afore opinion, that the report of the
Committee constituted pursuant to Ext.P11 Government Order
has stated otherwise. Though this Court is not called upon to
consider the acceptability or otherwise of the findings contained in
the ultimate report of the Committee constituted pursuant to
Ext.P11, this Court has made reference to the opinion of
Sri.Kudale as above, contained in Ext.P5(a) only in the light of the
uncontroverted allegation of conflict of interest raised by the
petitioners herein.
22. In the light of the above discussions, this Court is of
the opinion that the challenge against the constitution of the
Committee pursuant to Ext.P11 Government Order and the
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 48 2026:KER:83112
opinion of the Committee, raised by the petitioners is only to be
accepted.
23. This is all the more so, since a perusal of the final report
submitted by the Committee, as approved by the Government
pursuant to its order dated 02.08.2024, shows that the Committee
has carried out an inspection/meeting at Vizhinjam only on one
occasion, 23.05.2023. After the said inspection, the Committee
held meetings with the inhabitants of the locality on 24.05.2023,
and later came up with the final report.
24. It is true that the NGT has constituted another
Committee which is submitting periodical reports. The State has
also contended that, in view of the said reports, there is no
requirement for making reference to the report submitted by the
Committee constituted pursuant to Ext.P11. However, the
Government itself, having constituted the Committee pursuant to
nd
Ext.P11, cannot turn around and say that the 2 Committee
report may be ignored, in view of the Committee constituted by
the NGT.
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 49 2026:KER:83112
25. The next issue to be considered would be as regards the
reconstitution of the Committee. The petitioners have sought to
provide a list of proposed members who could be included in the
Committee. However, the Government has not provided any such
list of proposed members who could be included in the Committee.
Therefore, this Court is not in a position to order reconstitution of
the Committee. It will be for the Government to form a fresh
Committee after taking into account the observations made as
above and the views of the stakeholders in the matter.
26. On the whole, this Court is of the opinion that the
challenge against the constitution of the Committee pursuant to
Ext.P11 Government Order requires to be upheld.
Therefore, this writ petition would stand ordered as under:
i. It is declared that the constitution of the Committee
pursuant to Ext.P11 Government Order was flawed for
the reasons noticed above.
ii. The final report of the Committee so constituted is not to
be acted upon.
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 50 2026:KER:83112
iii. The Government is to constitute an independent
Committee for carrying out the studies as stipulated in
Ext.P11, ensuring that there is no conflict of interest as
regards the proposed members.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
ln
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 51 2026:KER:83112
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO.34157 OF 2022
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
CLEARANCE ORDER F.NO.11-122/0211-IA-III
DT.03.01.2014, ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE RELEVANT Q & A
NAMELY STARRED QUESTION NO.1553 DATED
04.07.2022.
EXHIBIT P2(B) THE PROGRESS OF THE PROJECT SO FAR HAS
BEEN ANSWERED THROUGH STARRED QUESTION
NO.1552 DATED 04.07.2022.
EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN OF THE SEAPORT
CONSTRUCTION AND THE DAMAGES ON THE
SURROUNDING COAST.
EXHIBIT P4 THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE MANUAL FOR
PORTS AND HARBOUR (2010).
EXHIBIT P5(A) AN ARTICLE TITLED 'IMPACT OF PORT
DEVELOPMENT ON THE COASTLINE AND THE NEED
FOR PROTECTION' BY M.D. KUDALE IN THE
INDIAN JOURNAL OF GEO-MARINE SCIENCES
39(4):597-604.
EXHIBIT P5(B) ANOTHER ARTICLE BY V. K. TSOUKALA ET AL,
TITLED 'BEACH EROSION AND CONSEQUENTIAL
IMPACTS DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF HARBOURS
IN SANDY BEACHES IN GREECE AND CYPRUS,'
PUBLISHED ONLINE DATED 01.08.2015
EXHIBIT P6 THE GOOGLE EARTH PICTURES FOR PERIODS
FROM THE TIME OF THE BEGINNING OF THE
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 52 2026:KER:83112
SEAPORT PROJECT FROM THE END OF 2015 TILL
2022 FOR THE LOCATIONS OF SHANGHUMUGAM
AND VALIATHURA.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF
THE ANNUAL SHORELINE CHANGE ANALYSIS OF
VIZHINJAM COAST OCTOBER 2020 TO SEPTEMBER
2021 AVAILABLE AT ANNUAL SHORELINE CHANGE
REPORT OCTOBER, 2020 TO SEPTEMBER, 2021
NIOT.PDF.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWS ARTICLE
DT.18.05.2016 BY NEW INDIAN EXPRESS.
EXHIBIT P8(A) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWS ARTICLE
DT.08.06.2017 BY DECCAN CHRONICLE.
EXHIBIT P8(B) A TRUE COPY OF NEWS WAS PUBLISHED IN TIMES
OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM EDITION
DT.19.04.2018.
EXHIBIT P8(C) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF DECCAN CHRONICLE
NEWSPAPER DT.23.07.2019.
EXHIBIT P8(D) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPORTED IN INDIAN
EXPRESS DT.22.04.2020.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT
DT.02.09.2016 OF THE NATIONAL GREEN
TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WAS ADDRESSED
BY THE ARCHBISHOP ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONERS AND OTHERS. MOST OF THE
PETITIONERS BELONG TO PARISHES OF THE
ST
LATIN CATHOLIC CHURCH. TO THIS THE 1
RESPONDENT HAS REPLIED ON 04.08.2021.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.06.10.2022.
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 53 2026:KER:83112
EXHIBIT P12 REPORT OF THE JANAKEEYA PADANA SAMITHI
TITLED 'IMPACT OF THE VIZHINJAM
INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT ON THE BEACHES,
COASTAL SEA, BIODIVERSITY, AND THE
LIVELIHOODS OF FISHING COMMUNITIES IN
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
EXHIBIT P13 SATELLITE IMAGES OF THE TRIVANDRUM COAST
NORTH OF VIZHINJAM.
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1 EXPERT COMMITTEE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
GOVERNMENT PLEADER.
EXHIBIT R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.1009/2019/F
AND PD DATED 26.12.2019.
EXHIBIT R1(B) A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.4132/2022/RD
DATED 12.10.2022.
EXHIBIT R1(C) A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.7/2022/DMD
DATED 01.09.2022.
EXHIBIT R1(D) A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.8/2022/DMD
DATED 05.09.2022.
EXHIBIT R1(E) A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.665/2022/DMD
DATED 03.09.2022.
EXHIBIT R1(F) A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.631/2022/F AND
PD DATED 06.10.2022.
EXHIBIT R1(G) A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.29/2023/F AND
PD DATED 07.01.2023.
EXHIBIT R1(H) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
G.O.(RT) NO. 48/2024 F AND P DATED
23.01.2024.
EXHIBIT R1(I) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE LONG-TERM SHORELINE
MONITORING PROGRAM NOVEMBER 2014.
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 54 2026:KER:83112
EXHIBIT R6-A THE TRUE COPY OF THE HALF YEARLY
COMPLIANCE REPORT TO THE NGT DIRECTION IN
ORDER DATED 02.09.2016 FOR THE PERIOD
APRIL 2023 TO SEPTEMBER 2023.
EXHIBIT R6-B TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
HALF YEARLY COMPLIANCE REPORT (HYCR) ON
CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN ENVIRONMENTAL
AND CRZ CLEARANCE DATED 03.01.2014 FOR
THE PERIOD APRIL 2023 TO SEPTEMBER 2023,
EXHIBIT R6-C TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
NIOT ANNUAL-SHORELINE-CHANGE-ANALYSIS-
REPORT OCTOBER-2021-TO-SEPTEMBER 2022
EXHIBIT R6 D TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE LONG-TERM SHORELINE
MONITORING PROGRAM NOVEMBER 2014.
EXHIBIT R7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
DTD. 21.01.2015 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
7884-7885/2014.
EXHIBIT R7(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
DTD. 03.02.2016 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
8550-8551/2014.
EXHIBIT R7(C) TRUE COPY OF THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
DTD. 03.07.2017 IN CIVIL APPEALS NOS.
8550-8551/2014.
EXHIBIT R7(D) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 12.12.2022
IN W.P (C) NO. 27571/2022 AND W.P (C) NO.
27593/2022.
EXHIBIT R6(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER/FILE NO
10/56/2023-IA.III DATED 10TH MARCH 2025
ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST
AND CLIMATIC CHANGES EVIDENCING
ENVIRONMENTAL AND CRZ CLEARANCE.
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 55 2026:KER:83112
EXHIBIT R6(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF PROJECT
AFFECTED PERSONS (PAF) AND LIVELIHOOD
COMPENSATION IDENTIFIED BY GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA UP TO DATE 16.10.2025.
EXHIBIT R6(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
DFTVM/3176/2022-S2PIU ISSUED BY DIRECTOR
OF FISHERIES TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF
6TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ANNEXED
DOCUMENTS CONTAINING DETAILS OF FLATS
ALLOTTED TO PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R6(d) A TRUE COPY OF ARTICLE TITLED 'COASTAL
SEDIMENT CELL A GUIDE FOR COASTAL
MANAGERS' PUBLISHED BY DIRECTOR NCSCM,
MOEF IN MAY 2013.
EXHIBIT R6(e) A TRUE COPY OF ARTICLE TITLED 'SUSPENDED
SEDIMENTS CONCENTRATION ON SHORELINE
CHANGE USING SATELLITE IMAGES FOR
SOUTHERN KERALA COAST' PUBLISHED IN THE
JOURNAL OF EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE IN
OCTOBER 2021.
EXHIBIT R6(f) TRUE COPY OF THE GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE OF
THE VIZHINJAM PORT PROJECT AREA AND ITS
NEARBY LOCATIONS.
EXHIBIT R6(g) A TRUE COPY OF THE GOOGLE EARTH IMAGES
SHOWING THE GROYNES AND OTHER SHORE
PROTECTION MEASURES UNDERTAKEN BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA AT VALIYATHURA AND
POONTHURA REGION.
EXHIBIT R6(h) TRUE COPY OF THE CMFRI REPORT DATED JULY
2022.
REPORT 1 NGT COMPLIANCE REPORT FOR THE PERIOD
OCTOBER 2023 TO MARCH 2024.
COVERING LETTER 1 COVERING LETTER NO.
NO.5134/AL/2017/KCZMA DATED 27.11.2024
CNR : KLHC010728892022
W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2022 56 2026:KER:83112
COVERING LETTER 2 COVERING LETTER NO. 5134/AL/2017/KCZMA
DATED 27.10.2025
REPORT 2 NGT COMPLIANCE REPORT FOR THE PERIOD
APRIL 2024 TO SEPTEMBER 2024.
COVERING LETTER 3 COVERING LETTER NO.5134/AL/2017/KCZMA
DATED 27.10.2025
REPORT 3 NGT COMPLIANCE REPORT FOR THE PERIOD
OCTOBER 2024 TO MARCH 2025.
REPORT 4 NGT COMPLIANCE REPORT FOR THE PERIOD
APRIL 2025 TO SEPTEMBER 2025