HC dismisses PIL challenging Lakshadweep draft rules

Examination of legality completely premature, says court

June 17, 2021 01:48 pm | Updated 01:48 pm IST - Kochi

An aeriel view of an island in Lakshadweep.

An aeriel view of an island in Lakshadweep.

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on Thursday dismissed a writ petition challenging the draft Lakshadweep Development Authority Regulation 2021 which proposes to develop towns on inhabited Lakshadweep islands.

The petition was filed by K.P. Noushad Ali, secretary of the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee. According to him, the draft regulation grants the administrator the power to “declare any area to be a planning area” on the islands, for the purpose of development.

Petitioner’s contention

The petitioner contended that the draft Bill gave sweeping powers to the administration and all its bodies to directly interfere with an islander’s right to possess and retain property. The draft regulation was widely opposed as it vested the Administrator with powers to remove or usurp smallholdings of property owned by islanders.

The petitioner also challenged the procedure to be followed for auctioning livestock on the islands and the decision to discontinue the service of the temporary staff engaged by the administration in certain sectors.

‘Not through a PIL’

Dismissing the petition, the Bench comprising Justice S.V.Bhatti and Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that examination of the legality of the draft regulation which was under the active consideration of the administration was completely premature. The draft stipulation could not be challenged through a public interest litigation (PIL).

The court also noted that it was well settled that championing the cause concerning service matters by way of a PIL was impermissible on the ground that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to question the legality of the decision.

Besides, the petitioner had not convinced the court about his standing vis-à-vis the affairs of Lakshadweep to entertain the PIL. The petitioner, in the name of the PIL, could not expand the consideration with inchoate knowledge about the inhabitants of the island, the court added.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.