Flood Control Measures Must Account For Ecological Impact: Kerala High Court Disposes Pleas On Thottappally Spillway Sand Removal
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. disposed of two connected writ petitions, directing the State’s Chief Secretary to constitute, within two months, a multi-departmental committee headed by the Alappuzha District Collector to assess, determine and monitor sand and soil removal at the Thottappally Spillway, with any further removal to be undertaken only after obtaining the committee’s inputs. The petitions challenged a disaster-management order permitting large-scale desilting and clearing of vegetation at the spillway to improve flood discharge for the Kuttanad region, alleging that repeated extraction was being carried out without ecological assessment in a sensitive coastal area used by marine turtles for nesting.
The writ petitions arose from a challenge to an order issued by the District Collector, Alappuzha, acting as Chairman of the District Disaster Management Authority, invoking powers under Section 30 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The order proposed flood mitigation measures in the Kuttanad region, including removal of sand and soil from the Thottappally Spillway, cutting of casuarina trees, and desilting activities to ensure unobstructed flow of floodwaters into the Arabian Sea.
The petitioners contended that the sand removal was not a limited disaster management exercise but facilitated continuous extraction of mineral-rich sand without ecological assessment. They alleged large-scale environmental degradation, including destruction of turtle nesting grounds protected under coastal regulations and wildlife law. It was asserted that competent coastal and environmental authorities were neither consulted nor involved.
The State authorities maintained that the measures were essential for flood control, that sand accumulation and vegetation were man-made, and that removal activities were regulated and monitored. Mineral sand extraction was stated to be entrusted to a public sector undertaking. Various affidavits, joint inspection reports, and expert inputs were placed before the Court, including reports stating ecological disturbance, coastal erosion, and risks to endangered marine species.
The Court recorded that “the annual sand mining activity conducted at the Thottappally Spillway is more of an engineering-driven exercise with a sole focus on flood control.” It noted that “it is not carried out after an ecological impact study” and that “no ecology expert is involved or participating in the process.”
Referring to materials placed on record, the Bench observed that “the monitoring that exists is predominantly regarding the quantities removed and no assessment of the ecological impact is carried out.” It took note of the position stated by the forest authorities that “damage to the sea turtle nesting grounds due to sand mining at Thottappally Spillway is a clear and present danger.”
The Court acknowledged that the authority of the District Collector under the Disaster Management Act had already been upheld and stated that “the power of the District Collector to issue Ext.P5 order as the Chairman of the District Disaster Management Authority… is no longer res integra.” However, it clarified that “the modality of implementing such directions… in a manner that is ecologically prudent and sustainable is the key issue.”
While examining Ext.P5, the Bench recorded that “the necessity of protecting the ecology though not totally lost sight of… the modalities and means of achieving the said object… are lacking.” It further stated that “the absence of an ecological expert in the committee makes the process of sand removal… a mere regulatory permission.”
The Court observed that “flood-control needs envisioned… need to be balanced by including an ecological impact monitoring mechanism that ensures compliance with environmental safeguards.” It concluded that a structured, expert-backed mechanism was necessary to prevent flood mitigation measures from becoming routine mining activity.
The Court directed that “the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, [shall] constitute a committee headed by the District Collector, Alappuzha.” The committee “should include the senior level officers/experts of the following bodies: (a) Irrigation/Water Resources Department, (b) Forest and Wildlife Department, State of Kerala, (c) Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, (d) Purakkad and Thakazhy Grama Panchayats, and (e) Representative of an NGO, with local presence and expertise, as identified by the District Collector, Alappuzha.”
“The said committee shall be competent to suggest, determine and monitor all aspects of sand/soil mining/removal from the Thottappally Spillway after due assessment of its ecological and environmental impact.” It was mandated that “removal of soil/sand from the Thottappally Spillway/ sand bar shall hereinafter be carried out only after obtaining relevant inputs from the committee constituted as above.”
“The said committee shall be constituted within a period of two months from the date of this judgment” and “let such compliance be reported to this Court.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Thomas M. Jacob, Advocate; Mr. Akhil K. Madhav, Advocate; Mr. V. Prasanth, Advocate; Ms. V. Mangala, Advocate; Mr. Liju V. Stephen, Advocate; Ms. Indu Susan Jacob, Advocate; Mr. Taj K. Tom, Advocate; Mr. Abhijith U., Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. P. Narayanan, Senior Government Pleader; Mr. P. G. Pramod, Senior Government Pleader; Mr. Nagaraj Narayanan, Special Government Pleader; Mr. M. P. Prakash, Standing Counsel; Mr. M. P. Sreekrishnan, Advocate; Mr. C. Dinesh, Central Government Counsel; Mr. N. Manoj Kumar, State Attorney
Case Title: Green Roots Nature Conservation Forum v. Government of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:97338
Case Numbers: WP(C) No.16281 of 2019 & WP(PIL) No.28 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar, Justice Syam Kumar V.M.
