'Premature' : Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Lakshadweep Draft Regulations

The Kerala High Court on Thursday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the draft Lakshadweep Development Authority Regulation and other regulatory actions observing that they were still under active consideration by the Administrator,and hence the examination of their legality is completely premature.

The petitioner, K P Noushad Ali filed the petition challenged certain regulatory measures initiated by the Administrator, praying that these regulations be declared illegal and unconstitutional, and be quashed by a writ of certiorari, on the ground that these measures are violative of Articles 15, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The petition also sought a writ of mandamus to call back Lakshadweep Animal Preservation Regulation, 2020 and the Order to close all the dairy farms run by the department of animal husbandry including bulls, calves etc, and not to implement the said regulations until further objections are called for from the residents of the islands.

Adv. Anoop V Nair, while representing the petitioner, argued that the PIL was filed to protect the interests/rights of people of Lakshadweep from the ulterior motive of destroying the traditional life and culture of the inhabitants. The petitioner also contended that the draft regulations grant the Administrator the power to declare any area to be a planning are for the purpose of development.

The Division bench comprising Justice SV Bhatti and Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that the petitioner, a permanent resident of Malappuram and not Lakshadweep, never had any direct participation or concern with the people, affairs, or administration of Lakshadweep Island, thus failing to convince the Bench his standing on the affairs of the island to entertain the PIL.    

Moreover, one of the regulations being challenged was regarding the discontinuation of temporary staff engaged by the administration in a few facilities. The Court in this matter noted that championing service matter causes through a PIL was impermissible owing to a lack of locus standi to question the legality of the decision.

Furthermore, most of these regulations were draft and cannot be treated as regulations that have come into force. Each prayer was found to be premature and entertaining such prayers through PIL is not warranted, the Court held. Dismissing the PIL, the Division bench held thus, "Draft stipulation cannot be accepted for challenge in the Public Interest Litigation."

"This Court is of the view that examination oflegality of draft regulation which is in the active consideration ofrespondent, is completely premature", it observed in the order.