Common Order: (V.V.S. Rao, J.) Introduction 1. This group of twelve writ petitions is being disposed of by this common order, as the subject matter is common to all. The controversy is with regard to the authority, jurisdiction and power of Hon’ble the Lok Ayukta (HTL, for brevity) in issuing directions to appoint certain persons in Gangavaram Port Limited (GPL) as part of Rehabilitation & Resettlement Package (RR Package). The controversy also centers round the method and manner adopted by Visakhapatnam District Administration in preparing the list of eligible candidates. Both these issues also involve the right of traditional fishermen to livelihood and the constitutional duty of this Court to protect such people from deprivation and infringement of their right to livelihood in the name of economic development. Right to livelihood 2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) not only recognizes inalienable right to life and liberty (Article 3) and security of persons but also emphasizes right of every person to social security (Article 22), equal opportunity (Article 7) and right to work (Article 23). International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights, by Article 6 recognises right to work, which includes right of every one to opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts and calls upon the State Parties to achieve the full realisation of this right by taking necessary economic, political and social measures. 3. In Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545 = AIR 1986 SC 180 , the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court laid down that deprivation of livelihood amounts to deprivation of right to life and that a person cannot be deprived of livelihood without due process of law. The relevant placitum from the reported judgment reads as under. The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far-reaching. It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of the death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because; no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because; no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. And yet, such deprivation would not have to be in accordance with the procedure established by law, if the right to livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right to life. That, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life livable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life. Deprive a person of his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life. (emphasis supplied) 4. In Narendra Kumar Chandla v State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 460 = AIR 1995 SC 519 , the Supreme Court reiterated that Article 21 of Constitution of India protects right to livelihood as an integral facet of right to life. In State of H.P. v Raja Mahendra Pal (1999) 4 SCC 43 = AIR 1999 SC 1786 = 1999 (3) ALT 5.4 (DNSC), the content of right to livelihood was explained by the Supreme Court thus. It is true that Article 21 of the Constitution is of the utmost importance, violation of which, as and when found, directly or indirectly, or even remotely, has to be looked upon with disfavour. The violation of the right to livelihood is required to be remedied. But the right to livelihood as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be so widely construed which may result in defeating the purpose sought to be achieved by the aforesaid article. The violation of the right to livelihood is required to be remedied. But the right to livelihood as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be so widely construed which may result in defeating the purpose sought to be achieved by the aforesaid article. It is also true that the right to livelihood would include all attributes of life but the same cannot be extended to the extent that it may embrace or take within its ambit all sorts of claims relating to the legal or contractual rights of the parties completely ignoring the person approaching the court and the alleged violation of the said right. 5. Social justice is a Constitutional promise. Directive Principles of State policy in Articles 38 and 39 of Constitution require the State to promote welfare of the people and direct its policy to secure that ownership and control of the material resources of the community are distributed so as to subserve common good and operate an economic system, which does not result in concentration of wealth. Making effective provision for securing the right to work, ensuring a living wage, ensuring public health and promoting educational and economic interests for downtrodden people are some of the goals set by the Constitution. Therefore, right to livelihood cannot be easily interfered with nor can be compensated adequately by distributing free land, money and facilities, which would be user-friendly. Background Facts (i) Development of Gangavaram Port 6. Government of Andhra Pradesh issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.130, TR&B (Ports) Department Transport, Roads and Buildings (Ports Department) dated 06.9.2000 communicating their decision to develop Gangavaram Port under public private sector participation (PPP mode) to improve infrastructure in the State and cater to present and future needs of the region. M/s. L&T Rambole, were retained as project consultants. By a process of international competitive bidding, a consortium led by M/s. DVS Raju & New Wave Securities and Industrial Ltd was selected as preferred bidder and orders were issued accordingly vide G.O.Ms.No.112, TR&B (Ports) Dept., dated 17.7.2002. The bidder was incorporated as Special Purpose Company (SPC) namely, Gangavaram Port Limited (GPL). The documentation process of new port involved Department of Ports and bidder entering into State support agreement, Shareholders agreement and Concession agreement as contemplated in the letter of intent. The bidder was incorporated as Special Purpose Company (SPC) namely, Gangavaram Port Limited (GPL). The documentation process of new port involved Department of Ports and bidder entering into State support agreement, Shareholders agreement and Concession agreement as contemplated in the letter of intent. In that connection, five issues were raised with regard to valuation of the land given to developer, concession period, equity investments, right of lenders and performance parameters and penalties. A Cabinet sub-committee went into these issues and advised the Government on the modalities and contents of the agreements to be entered into with developer. It was agreed that on termination of the concession period, escalation of the land at 6.5% compounded annually would be shared by stakeholders on prorata basis. Be it noted that the Government allowed Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (Vizag steel plant) to part with Acs.1,400.00 of their land for Port at a cost of Rs.2,86,000/-per acre and another extent of Acs.400.00 of Government land to the developer at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. 7. The construction of Gangavaram Port is by GPL. They selected a site at Dibbapalem village on the shores of Bay of Bengal, as an ideal one for development of deep water, all weather, multi purpose port. In addition, GPL also required, asked for and got huge extent of land for construction of port infrastructure like godowns, platforms, workshops, ship repairing bay etc. (ii) The plight of fishermen communities 8. Dibbapalem was situated on the seashore. All the fishermen of the village and fishermen of Gangavaram, Jalaripallepalem, Pallepalem, Chinapallepalem and Pedapallepalem (hereafter called, Gangavaram) also had their sea front to go for fishing in Dibbapalem village. If Dibbapalem village is removed to give place to port not only its fishermen but the people of Gangavaram and its four hamlets would have no convenient sea shore to launch their fishing boats. 9. The imminent reality of losing seafront to go for fishing into sea and thereby losing livelihood led to spontaneous (as some of the counsel say) agitation by all fishermen. All of them opposed establishment of port as they would lose their livelihood and the right to carry on their profession of fishing. Law and order regulations were made, unlawful assemblies were prohibited, arrests were made, cases were filed in criminal courts and in the police firing many persons were injured and one fisherman killed. All of them opposed establishment of port as they would lose their livelihood and the right to carry on their profession of fishing. Law and order regulations were made, unlawful assemblies were prohibited, arrests were made, cases were filed in criminal courts and in the police firing many persons were injured and one fisherman killed. Visualising opposition to establishment of port and stumbling block justifiably created by the local fishermen, the District Collector and GPL reached an agreement with villagers of Dibbapalem for providing RR package, which included employment to the villagers in Gangavaram port. The same was not the case with other villages. Some time in October 2005, District Collector reported that Gangavaram fishermen have not yet come to an understanding for signing an agreement and that he suggested to follow RR policy guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.68, Irrigation &CAD (Project Wing) Department, dated 08.4.2005.Accordingly Government issued G.O.Ms.No.236, TR&B (P1) Dept., dated 08.4.2005 appointing Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, as administrator and Secretary to the Government in TR&B Department as commissioner for implementing RR package to Gangavaram port project. (iii) Agreements with fishermen of Gangavaram and Dibbapalem (a) Even before Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.236, dated 08.11.2005, Villagers of Dibbapalem, District Collector and officials of GPL in the presence of Pendurthi MLA entered into RR agreement on 04.8.2005. The villagers agreed to cooperate with construction of port, accept RR package announced by the District Collector and discontinue fishing operations after the commencement of construction of port. GPL agreed to provide employment to 250–300 eligible persons in addition to providing opportunities to work with port contractors. (b) On 17.10.2005, District Collector, Joint Collector, Director of Ports, President of GPL and local MLA convened the meeting of Dibbapalem fishermen at fish landing centre. There was another agreement, which while reiterating the commitment of GPL to provide employment as per agreement dated 04.8.2005, it was agreed to construct a road from Gangavaram to Yarada, which would be developed as fish landing centre. (c) On 04.9.2006, there was yet another agreement among Dibbapalem villagers, District Collector, representatives of GPL and local MLAs. This was treated as a supplemental agreement to earlier ones. Dibbapalem residents agreed to vacate village within six months and accept house sites with permanent pattas at Srinagar Colony and Dayal Nagar Colony. The agreement also provided for payment of cash for rehabilitation purposes. This was treated as a supplemental agreement to earlier ones. Dibbapalem residents agreed to vacate village within six months and accept house sites with permanent pattas at Srinagar Colony and Dayal Nagar Colony. The agreement also provided for payment of cash for rehabilitation purposes. (d) As can be seen, the earlier three agreements were with villagers and residents of Dibbapalem. Probably for this reason, on 05.5.2006, no less than Hon’ble Minister for Commercial Tax and Law convened the meeting with fishermen and village elders of Gangavaram, Sampradaya Matsyakarula Seva Sangham (petitioner in W.P.No.17150 of 2009).The participants in the meeting reached an agreement. It was agreed to provide a lump sum amount of Rs.25,000/- to owner of each boat (109 boat owners), Rs.15,000/- each for shifting the boat, Rs.3,000/- per month towards livelihood till completion of construction of Jetti at Yarada,Rs.3,000/- per month towards boat maintenance charges till completion of Jetty. Insofar as 664 kalasi fishermen working on the boats are concerned, it was agreed to provide lump sum amount of Rs.25,000/- for each family and Rs.3,000/- each per month towards livelihood till the completion of Jetty and Rs.2,000/- per month to each fisherman’s family engaged in sale and drying of fishes, in addition to Rs.20,000/- as lump sum compensation. Importantly, it was agreed that GPL would provide jobs to 300 persons after giving practical training as part of RR package. (e) The last one of the agreements was arrived in a meeting held in the chambers of Hon’ble Minister for Infrastructure, Investments, Airports and Natural gas, Sri Mopidevi Venkataramana Rao, on 25.3.2008.Besides officials of Government, GPL, President and Secretary of Gangavaram Fishermen Welfare Society and a few village elders were present in the meeting. While reiterating RR package earlier agreed to, Government agreed to withdraw of police cases instituted against the villagers. 10. As can be seen from these five agreements, the first three agreements were in relation to RR policy to the fishermen, residents of Dibbapalem village. The agreements dated 05.5.2006 and 25.3.2008 came into existence in the presence of Hon’ble Ministers of the State and they related to villagers and fishermen of Gangavaram. There is no dispute that RR package has been implemented insofar as Dibbapalem village is concerned, although there are few complaints in relation thereto. The dispute in these cases is with regard to RR package especially providing employment by GPL insofar as Gangavaram is concerned. There is no dispute that RR package has been implemented insofar as Dibbapalem village is concerned, although there are few complaints in relation thereto. The dispute in these cases is with regard to RR package especially providing employment by GPL insofar as Gangavaram is concerned. (iv) The complaint to Hon’ble the Lokayukta 11. On 19.7.2007, Chodipalli Raju, Executive Secretary of North Andhra Fishermen Youth Welfare Association (petitioner in W.P.No.20618 of 2009) filed a complaint before HTL alleging inaction on the part of the District Collector and Special Officer, Gangavaram port, in not taking steps for appointment of 300 fishermen in GPL. While alleging that their memorandum dated 05.2.2007 along with list of 300 fishermen, who lost livelihood, was not considered, complainant prayed for appropriate orders from HTL.A report of the District Collector was called for. By his letter dated 01.8.2007, District Collector submitted as under. A survey was conducted by the Assistant Director of Fisheries and AD, Fisheries furnished a list of 429 active fishermen in Gangavaram village whose livelihood is likely to be substantially affected due to construction of Gangavaram Port. After the incident of firing on 27.3.2006 several rounds of discussions were held to arrive an amicable solution. After several rounds of negotiations, a list of 2826 fishermen was considered for extending package. The details are as follows: a) No. of boat owners : 115 b) Fishermen working on the boats : 1100 c) Others who depend on fishing activity: 1611 It is further submitted that at the time of negotiations, it was also promised to the fishermen of Gangavaram that employment would also be provided in the Port as per requirement and suitability upto maximum of 300 jobs after construction of Gangavaram Port, which was agreed by the fishermen. Accordingly, an agreement was also entered by the Hon’ble Minister for Commercial Taxes with Sampradaya Matsyakarula Seva Sangham on 05.5.2006. It is also submitted that the Committee was directed to construct grama sabha in the village for the villages of Gangavaram, Jalaripallipalem, Pallipalem, China Pallipalem, Pedapallipalem for identifying the actual fishermen whose livelihood is substantially affected due to construction of Gangavaram Port.The list furnished by the petitioner would also be read in the grama sabha for identification of genuine fishermen for imparting training and to provide jobs in Gangavaram Port after commencement of port operations. (emphasis supplied) 12. (emphasis supplied) 12. HTL came to the conclusion that identification of eligible persons for employment upto maximum of 300 had not been completed and accordingly called further report. During the enquiry/preliminary verification by HTL, District Collector and Special Officer of Gangavaram port submitted reports and the enquiry went on for a period of about four years. During the course of the enquiry, on 31.10.2008, HTL directed Special Officer to enquire into first list of 300 persons prepared by North Andhra Society. Thereafter a list was prepared by Special Officer, which was placed before HTL on 02.2.2009. Final order was passed on that day directing GPL to provide employment to identified 317 eligible persons on priority basis in accordance with seniority without any deviation. Be it noted that HTL heard North Andhra Society, Fishermen Development Association as well as other representatives, before passing orders on that day. (v) Challenge before this Court (i) The batch of twelve writ petitions can be divided into four categories. Andhra Pradesh State Fishermen Development Association (referred to in this order as, Fishermen Association), Gangavaram Sampradaya Matsyakarula Seva Sangham (referred to in this order as, Sampradaya Sangham) and eight individuals filed W.P.Nos.15220, 17150 and 17442 of 2009 respectively, assailing impugned order dated 02.2.2009. (ii) North Andhra Fishermen Youth Welfare Association (referred to in this order as, North Andhra Association) filed W.P.No.20618 of 2009, in effect, for implementation of the order of HTL. (iii) The following writ petitions are filed by individuals assailing their non-inclusion in the list prepared by Special Officer and for directions to consider their cases for appointment in GPL as per the RR package. In a few cases, the removal of their names from the list of eligible persons is challenged. These are: W.P.Nos.3936, 16525, 17955, 18451 and 20767 of 2009. (iv) W.P.No.18902 of 2008 is filed by Fishermen Association, W.P.No.22105 of 2009 is filed by 50 individuals and W.P.No.20757 of 2009 is filed by 24 individuals seeking a direction to provide benefits including employment as per the proceedings dated 18.6.2007 of the Special Officer and as per the agreement dated 05.5.2006. Submissions and Issues 13. For petitioners, M/s. P.V. Krishnaiah, Vedula Srinivas, K.S. Murthy, V. Raghunath and P. Krishna Prasad made submissions and other counsel appearing for petitioners adopted them. Learned Government Pleader for Irrigation, Mr. Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned Counsel for GPL and learned Standing Counsel for HTL, Mr. Submissions and Issues 13. For petitioners, M/s. P.V. Krishnaiah, Vedula Srinivas, K.S. Murthy, V. Raghunath and P. Krishna Prasad made submissions and other counsel appearing for petitioners adopted them. Learned Government Pleader for Irrigation, Mr. Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned Counsel for GPL and learned Standing Counsel for HTL, Mr. Ravindra, made submissions. It is to the credit of all these counsel that, to the extent possible, all of them avoided traditional adversary litigation approach and placed before us the position of their clients with regard to valuable right to life and livelihood of fishermen. 14. The submissions made by petitioners’ counsel centered round the power of HTL under Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983 (the Act, for brevity) to pass the impugned order. They contend that the complaint filed by North Andhra Association is not maintainable as it does not contain “allegation” and, therefore, the impugned order suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction. A reference is made to Institution of A.P. Lokayukta/ Upa-Lokayukta v T. Rama Subba Reddy 1992 (3) ALT 224 (DB), The Lokayukta for Andhra Pradesh v Dr. B. Seshadri 1996(4) ALT 1072 (DB) and S. Jagadeswar v The Lok Ayukta of Andhra Pradesh (1997) 9 SCC 42 . The counsel appearing in other writ petitions highlight lack of transparency, absence of rational criteria for identifying eligible persons and arbitrariness in preparation of list of eligible persons for employment. Learned Counsel appearing for North Andhra Association submits that the order of HTL is sustainable and that the draft list was prepared after elaborate procedure and giving notice to all. Learned Government Pleader, learned Counsel for GPL and learned Standing Counsel for HTL reiterate their position as elucidated in the counters filed on behalf of their clients. 15. The background of these cases and rival submissions give rise to two issues with regard to jurisdiction and power of HTL to entertain the complaint filed by North Andhra Association and the validity of list of eligible persons prepared by Special Officer and approved by HTL. Jurisdiction of HTL 16. The Act is a legislation providing for appointment and functioning of Lokayukta for investigation of ‘administrative action’ taken by or on behalf of Government of Andhra Pradesh including any omission or commission in connection with or arising out of such action. Jurisdiction of HTL 16. The Act is a legislation providing for appointment and functioning of Lokayukta for investigation of ‘administrative action’ taken by or on behalf of Government of Andhra Pradesh including any omission or commission in connection with or arising out of such action. Under Section 7, HTL or Hon’ble Upa Lokayukta are empowered to investigate any action taken by, or with the approval or at the behest of, inter alia, any public servant or public servants. Placing reliance on Section 7 of the Act and the definition of ‘allegation’, Counsel would submit that representation submitted by North Andhra Association on 19.7.2007 is not a complaint containing an “action” or an “allegation” and, therefore, the same cannot be subjected to preliminary verification. The attention of this Court is invited to Rules 2(ii) and 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta (Investigation) Rules, 1984 (the Rules, for brevity). It is emphasized that no allegation was made against the District Collector or Special Officer and, therefore, preliminary verification is not warranted. 17. Learned Standing Counsel for HTL would urge that Section 7 read with Section 2(a) of the Act confers jurisdiction on HTL to conduct verification and pass orders and that the complaint in question falls under Section 2(a) read with Section 2(b)(i) of the Act and hence action can be taken under Section 7(1)(iv) of the Act. He supports his argument by making reference to Section 8 of the Act, which enumerates matters not subject to investigation by HTL. 18. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by petitioners. History of legislation in question, the purpose and object for which institution of HTL was established and purposive interpretation, which ought to govern the construction of the statute compel us to reject the petitioners’ plea. In our considered opinion, even when a representation cannot be treated as a complaint containing an allegation but complaining an action, inaction or omission by or at the best of public servant, HTL is bound to conduct preliminary verification if he is of opinion that such preliminary verification is necessary in the interest of accountability, purity and transparency of administration. We are also convinced that preliminary verification into all complaints need not lead to investigation and report under Section 12 of the Act warranting disciplinary action against the erring public servant. We are also convinced that preliminary verification into all complaints need not lead to investigation and report under Section 12 of the Act warranting disciplinary action against the erring public servant. In his discretion, HTL can at the stage of preliminary verification itself set right the action as well as actors so as to reduce effects of mal administration. In every complaint, there need not be charges of corruption or corrupt motive and even in such cases, it is competent for HTL to summon the public servants alleged of inaction, action and of commission and can express displeasure so that a strong message goes out that there is omnipresent HTL to oversee administrative excesses. The reasons for this conclusion are as follows. 19. The jurisdiction of HTL is initiated by complaint made by any person relating to any allegation in respect of an action. Section 9(1) of the Act speaks of such “complaint”, “allegation” and “action”. These are defined in the Rules and the Act as under. As per Rule 2(ii) of the Rules “complaint” means a statement made in writing to the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta by a complainant containing an allegation against a public servant in respect of an action taken by such public servant. “Action” is defined in Section 2(a) of the Act as follows. 2(a) ‘action’ means an administrative action taken by a public servant by way of decision, recommendation or finding or in any other manner, and includes any omission and commission and failure to act in connection with or arising out of such action; and all other expressions connecting action shall be construed accordingly. 20. A plain reading of the definition of “action” means “administrative action” taken by public servant by way of a decision, recommendation or finding or in any other manner and includes any omission and failure to act in connection with or arising out of such action. “Allegation” is defined in Section 2(b) of the Act, which reads as follows. 20. A plain reading of the definition of “action” means “administrative action” taken by public servant by way of a decision, recommendation or finding or in any other manner and includes any omission and failure to act in connection with or arising out of such action. “Allegation” is defined in Section 2(b) of the Act, which reads as follows. 2(b) ‘allegation’ in relation to a public servant means any affirmation that such public servant – (i) Has abused his position as such, to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person, or to cause under harm or hardship to any other person; (ii)Was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public servant by improper or corrupt motive and thereby caused loss to the State or any member or section of the public; or (iii) Is guilty of corruption, or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant. 21. In relation to public servant any affirmation that he has abused his position as such to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person, or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person, a statement that public servant was actuated by improper or corrupt motive and thereby cause loss to the State or any member of the public or such public servant is guilty of corruption, lack of integrity in his capacity as public servant, it is said that an allegation is made. On conjoint reading of definitions of “complaint”, “action” and “allegation”, it would be incorrect to understand that there should necessarily be an allegation in respect of an action so as to constitute a complaint. A complaint may not contain the allegations as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. But an averment in complaint that the inaction or omission or commission resulted in hardship to complaint would be sufficient to attract the jurisdiction of HTL. 22. In S.Jagadeshwar (supra), this Court laid down as under. A reading of the definition makes it further clear that the allegation has to be about some particular act which may be either a commission or omission but never a vague submission or a generalized one. 22. In S.Jagadeshwar (supra), this Court laid down as under. A reading of the definition makes it further clear that the allegation has to be about some particular act which may be either a commission or omission but never a vague submission or a generalized one. Section 9 of the Act prescribes the manner in which the complaints are made saying that every complaint shall be made in such form and shall be accompanied by such affidavits as may be prescribed. The complaint has to release, under the section, to an allegation in respect of any action. The procedure as outline in Section 10 of the Act stipulates a preliminary investigation by the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta to arrive at the conclusion of the necessity to conduct an investigation under the Act. Section 10(2)(a) of the Act provides that the preliminary verification is to be conducted in private and that particularly the identity of the complainant and the public servant to be affected by the preliminary verification is not to be disclosed. After making the preliminary verification if the complaint is accepted for investigation, the procedure for making the investigation is to be followed by forwarding a copy of the complaint, or when there is no complaint and it is a suo motu action, a statement of the grounds for initiation of the action to the public servant concerned for his comments. Section 11 of the Act also vests in the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta the power, inter alia, to record evidence in connection with the investigation. 23. Learned Counsel placed strong reliance on the above observations of Division Bench of this Court in support of his plea. It may be noticed that by A.P. Act No.I of 2007, legislature substituted the definition “action” extracted herein-above. In our opinion this makes difference and any complaint regarding action or inaction, which causes undue harm or hardship to any person would amount to a complaint with allegation. 24. It may be noticed that HTL can investigate any action, which is taken by or at the behest of inter alia any public servant which in his opinion of HTL is subject of an allegation. Hence discretion is vested in HTL to arrive at opinion as to whether an allegation is in respect of an action taken by public servant. It may be noticed that HTL can investigate any action, which is taken by or at the behest of inter alia any public servant which in his opinion of HTL is subject of an allegation. Hence discretion is vested in HTL to arrive at opinion as to whether an allegation is in respect of an action taken by public servant. As investigation has to be made only after preliminary verification and at the stage of examining the complaint, it is subjective opinion of HTL which ought to trigger a preliminary enquiry. After conducting preliminary verification under Rule 5 of the Rules and with reference to the statement of defence submitted by public servant if a conclusion is reached that the complaint does not contain any allegations or such allegations are frivolous and if HTL is satisfied that prima facie case is not made out for conducting investigation, the complaint may be closed. 25. Though the institution of Lokayukta is established for the investigation of administrative action and though the report submitted by HTL under Section 12 of the Act is final and becomes basis for removal of a corrupt public servant, HTL cannot be equated to Chief Vigilance Commissioner of Anti Corruption Bureau. To say that HTL should take up complaints, conduct preliminary verification and final investigation only in respect of those complaints containing allegations of corruption or corrupt motive, would be ignoring the very object of legislation. 26. In Britain and Europe, Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration provides important non-legal remedies and is intended to control vast bureaucratic machinery which inevitably causes many grievances and complaints. Explaining purpose of having such Parliamentary Commissioner, HWR Wade and CF Forsyth in Administrative Law (Eighth Edition) comment as follows. If something illegal is done, administrative law can supply a remedy, though the procedure of the courts is too formal and expensive to suit many complaints. But justified grievances may equally well arise from action which is legal, or at any rate not clearly illegal, when a government department has acted inconsiderately or unfairly or where it has misled the complainant or delayed his case excessively or treated him badly. Sometimes a statutory tribunal will be able to help him both cheaply and informally. But there is a large residue of grievances which fit into none of the regular legal moulds, but are none the less real. Sometimes a statutory tribunal will be able to help him both cheaply and informally. But there is a large residue of grievances which fit into none of the regular legal moulds, but are none the less real. A humane system of government must provide some way of assuaging them, both for the sake of justice and because accumulating discontent is a serious clog on administrative efficiency in a democratic country. 27. The efficacy of enquiry by Parliamentary Commissioner in the words of learned authors is as follows. Ombudsman is a Sandinavian word meaning officer or commissioner. In its special sense it means a commissioner who has the duty of investigating and reporting to Parliament on citizens’ complaints against the government. An ombudsman requires no legal powers except powers of inquiry. In particular, he is in no sense a court of appeal and he cannot alter or reverse any government decision. His effectiveness derives entirely from his power to focus public and parliamentary attention upon citizens’ grievances. But publicity based on impartial inquiry is a powerful lever. Where a complaint is found to be justified, an ombudsman can often persuade a government department to modify a decision or pay compensation in cases where the complainant unaided would get no satisfaction. For the department knows that a public report will be made and that it will be unable to conceal the facts from Parliament and the press.….. The essence of the ombudsman’s technique is to receive the complaint informally, to enter the government department, to speak to the officials and read the files, and to find out exactly who did what and why. No formal procedure is involved at any state, nor is any legal sanction in question. (emphasis supplied) 28. In Institution of A.P., v T. Rama Subba Reddy (1997) 9 SCC 42 , Supreme Court considered the question as to whether the employees working in A.P.S.R.T.C., and A.P. State Cooperative Union could be covered by the sweep of A.P. Lokayukta Act. While holding that these categories of employees would not fall within the definition of “public servant” as defined in Section 2(k)(iii) read with Section 2(i), their Lordships pointed out the legislative intent behind A.P. Lokayukta Act in the following words. While holding that these categories of employees would not fall within the definition of “public servant” as defined in Section 2(k)(iii) read with Section 2(i), their Lordships pointed out the legislative intent behind A.P. Lokayukta Act in the following words. It may be necessary to note that the legislative intent behind the enactment is to see that the public servants covered by the sweep of the Act should be answerable for their actions as such to the Lokayukta who is to be a Judge or a retired Chief Justice of the High Court and in appropriate cases to the Upa-Lokayukta who is a District Judge of Grade-I as recommended by the Chief Justice of the High Court, is that these statutory authorities can work as real ombudsmen for ensuring that peoples faith in the working of these public servants is not shaken. These statutory authorities are meant to cater to the need of public at large with a view to seeing that public confidence in the working of public bodies remains intact. When such authorities consist of high judicial dignitaries it would be obvious that such authorities should be armed with appropriate powers and sanctions so that their orders and opinions do not become mere paper directions. The decisions of Lokayukta and Upa-lokayukta, therefore, must be capable of being fully implemented. These authorities should not he reduced to mere paper tigers but must be armed with proper teeth and claws so that the efforts put in by them are not wasted and their reports are not shelved by the concerned disciplinary authorities. When we turn to Section 12, Sub-section (3) of the Act, we find that once report is forwarded by the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta recommending the imposition of penalty of removal from the office of a public servants, all that is provided is that it should be lawful for the Government without any further inquiry to take action on the basis of the said recommendation for the removal of such public servant from his office and for making him ineligible for being elected to any office etc. Even if it may be lawful for the Government to act on such recommendation, it is nowhere provided that the Government will be bound to comply with the recommendation of the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta. (emphasis supplied) 29. Even if it may be lawful for the Government to act on such recommendation, it is nowhere provided that the Government will be bound to comply with the recommendation of the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta. (emphasis supplied) 29. A reading of various provisions of A.P. Act would lend support to our view that HTL can conduct preliminary verification to know whether there are allegations against public servants and also to know whether everything is going on well in the administration. If something is amiss nothing prevents HTL to pull up the erring public servant in their own interest as well as in the interest of public and redress the persistent and minor grievances of citizens like not getting pensions, not getting rectification of revenue records, not getting admission in the school/college and the like. We are not suggesting that HTL should consider each and every complaint. Rule 4 of the Rules speaks of in limine rejection, if a complaint is frivolous and vexatious or not in good faith. Section 8 of the Act bars any investigation into an allegation to complaint made after expiry of six years or investigation in respect of which public enquiry has been ordered. As directed, learned Standing Counsel for HTL has placed before this Court, the Twenty Second Consolidated Report of the Institution of Andhra Pradesh Lok Ayukta and Upa-Lok Ayukta submitted to Hon’ble the Governor of Andhra Pradesh as required under Section 12(5) of the Act. We find that during report period though as many as 1515 complaints (pertaining to 35 departments) were received, 13 ended up in final investigation.363 complaints were rejected in limine and 718 complaints were closed after preliminary verification. In as many as 195 cases grievances were redressed and complaints were closed. 30. We have perused complaint No.711/2007/B1 submitted by North Andhra Association and its Executive Secretary, Chodipalli Raju. In the said complaint, inaction on the part of District Collector and Special Officer in finalizing the list of 300 fishermen for being appointed in GPL is highlighted. It is also stated that due to such inaction fishermen’s right to life and right to livelihood is seriously affected. These affirmations in the complaint certainly fall within definition of Sections 2(a) and 2(b)(i) of the Act. The complaint was made to HTL on 19.7.2005 and it was closed by HTL by order dated 02.2.2009. It is also stated that due to such inaction fishermen’s right to life and right to livelihood is seriously affected. These affirmations in the complaint certainly fall within definition of Sections 2(a) and 2(b)(i) of the Act. The complaint was made to HTL on 19.7.2005 and it was closed by HTL by order dated 02.2.2009. On the basis of this, Sri Vedula Srinivas, would urge that the order contravenes Section 10(2)(b) of the Act. The submission cannot be accepted for two reasons. Section 10(2)(b) of the Act as it existed is to the effect that every investigation shall be completed within a period of six months and in any case not exceeding one year but by A.P. Act No.I of 2007, Section 10(2)(b) of the Act is substituted and new provision reads as under. 10. Procedure in respect of investigations (2)(b) The Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta as the case may be shall make an endeavour to complete the investigation within a period of one year from the date of issue of notice in Form No.VII as prescribed in the rules to the public servants; and where it is unable so to do he shall record his reasons for such inability. 31. It is now well settled that any provision prescribing time schedule for completing an exercise is directory. The provision only says that HTL shall make an endeavour to complete investigation and it is not such a binding rule to vitiate any order, secondly the time of one year is for completion of investigation from the date of issue of form No. VII which means that after completing preliminary verification so as to conduct investigation the notice is issued. In the case on hand HTL passed orders only at the stage of preliminary verification and, therefore, Section 10(2)(b) of the Act is not attracted. Therefore, we hold that the impugned order does not suffer from any error on account of inherent lack of jurisdiction. Validity of list of eligible persons 32. These cases were heard on 27.11.2009 and 01.12.2009 to 05.12.2009.On 2.12.2009, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation requested to adjourn the matter on the ground that he has been requested by Principal Secretary to instruct the Advocate General. As the matters are taken up on priority, we declined. Though the matter was being heard on three days, learned AG did not appear. As the matters are taken up on priority, we declined. Though the matter was being heard on three days, learned AG did not appear. The arguments were heard and the matter was reserved on 05.12.2009. On 17.12.2009, learned Advocate General circulated a brief note for our consideration. A perusal of the same would show that nothing much new has been brought out in the said note and it is almost similar to counter affidavits filed in various cases. Be that as it is, on the point under consideration, we will first deal with RR Policy of Government of A.P., as revealed in G.O.Ms.No.68, dated 08.5.2004. Though in the counter affidavit of the Special Officer filed in WP No.17442 of 2009, an allegation was made that said G.O. pertains only to irrigation projects and therefore has no application to present cases, the Government as seen from the note do not dispute its applicability. It is also admitted that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.236, naming the Commissioner and Administrator for implementing RR Policy. RR Policy 33. What happens when private land is acquired for implementation of development and infrastructure project? RR Policy recognizes cultural, social and psychological consequences of displacement of persons from their land, home and depriving the means of livelihood. So as to address such issues, the Government visualized to approach the problem with human touch and forethought in respect of socially and economically disadvantaged and vulnerable sections. The Government therefore constituted a committee vide G.O.Ms.No.70, dated 15.7.2004 for preparation of draft RR Policy. The recommendations were discussed at State level meeting of officials from departments of industries, energy, R&B, environment, forests, science and technology, tribal welfare, Law and Revenue. Thereafter in supersession of the earlier orders in G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation Department dated 15.4.1996 and G.O.Ms.No.64, Social Welfare Department, dated 18.4.1990, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.68, Irrigation Department, dated 08.5.2005, containing RR Policy guidelines. 34. The said Government order on RR speaks of appointment of administrator for implementation of RR package in addition to appointing the Secretary of TR&B Department as Commissioner. The guideline lays down the following methodology for implementing the policy. 1.3 The policy essentially addresses the need to provide succor to the asset less rural poor, support the rehabilitation efforts of the resource poor sections, namely, small and marginal farmers, SCs/STs and women who have been displaced. The guideline lays down the following methodology for implementing the policy. 1.3 The policy essentially addresses the need to provide succor to the asset less rural poor, support the rehabilitation efforts of the resource poor sections, namely, small and marginal farmers, SCs/STs and women who have been displaced. Besides, it seeks to provide a broad canvas for an effective dialogue between the Project Affected Families and Project Displaced Families and the Administration for Resettlement & Rehabilitation. Such a dialogue is expected to enable timely completion of projects with a sense of definiteness as regards costs and adequate attention to the needs of the displaced persons especially the resourceless poor sections. The intention is to impart greater flexibility for interaction and negotiation so that the resultant Package gains all-round acceptability in the shape of a workable instrument providing satisfaction to all stakeholders/Requiring Bodies. (emphasis supplied) 35. RR Policy classifies the persons affected by development projects, into two categories, namely, Project Affected Family (PAF) and Project Displaced Family (PDF).PAF means a family whose source of livelihood is substantially affected and has been residing continuously for not less than three years before the project is taken up in the affected zone, which means the area of village or locality which is directly or indirectly affected. PDF means any family who has been displaced by reason of acquisition of a dwelling house. Para 5 (chapter VI) of Government Order contains modalities for carrying out survey and preparing schemes for RR. Paragraph 6 (chapter VI) contains the RR benefits for PAFs. The said benefits shall have to be extended to all PAFs, PDFs whether they are Below Poverty Line (BPL) or non-BPL. The benefits are: free housesite for PDF, one-time financial grant to BPL families, allotment of agricultural land in lieu of acquired land in addition to financial assistance of Rs.10,000/- per hectare to PAFs, grant of cattle shed, grant for transporting material, minimum agricultural wages for a stipulated period. Para 6.9 envisages income generating scheme of grant of Rs.25,000/- for each rural artisan/small trader of PAFs. In addition to this, RR policy contemplates provision of basic amenities at resettlement centres. 36. Paragraph 7 (chapter VII) of G.O.Ms.No.68, contains Dispute Redressal Mechanism (DRM).Para 7.1 to para 7.4 contains the intra-state projects DRM. Para 6.9 envisages income generating scheme of grant of Rs.25,000/- for each rural artisan/small trader of PAFs. In addition to this, RR policy contemplates provision of basic amenities at resettlement centres. 36. Paragraph 7 (chapter VII) of G.O.Ms.No.68, contains Dispute Redressal Mechanism (DRM).Para 7.1 to para 7.4 contains the intra-state projects DRM. As per para 7.1, State Government shall constitute RR committee under the chairmanship of administrator to monitor and review the progress of implementation of the scheme of RR for PAFs. Such committee shall include (i) a representative of PAP (Project Affected Person) women; (ii) a representative of PAP SC/ST; (iii) a representative of voluntary organisation; (iv) a representative of lead Bank; (v) chairpersons of Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs) in the locality and (vi) MPs/MLAs of the area. This committee is entrusted with framing of regulatory procedure of its own. 37. Paragraph 7.2 stipulates that the State Government shall constitute Grievance Redressal Mechanism under the chairmanship of Commissioner for RR and shall also prescribe the powers and functions of such body. Any PAF if aggrieved for not being offered admissible RR benefits under the policy, can move appropriate petition for redressal. The GRM shall have power to consider and dispose of complaints relating to RR against the decision of administrator /RR committee at project level and issue directions as are deemed proper for such grievances. 38. How far and to what extent the District Collector, Special Officer and the Government followed RR Policy guidelines referred to herein above. The State has not placed before this Court any scheme/plan for RR prepared and published as per Chapter V of the policy. No material is placed before this Court to show that GRM is in place to hear and dispose of the petitions filed by PAFs, PDFs and PAPs. It is not clear whether it is ignorance of the officials or their negligence, which resulted in a situation where the binding policy guidelines of the Government are ignored. There is no dispute that the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.236 dated 08.11.2005.While directing to implement RR policy for Gangavaram Port Project, Government appointed Secretary to Government as Commissioner and Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam as administrator. It appears that this G.O. was forgotten and no role was played by these two officials in implementing RR package in respect of Gangavaram Project. There is no dispute that the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.236 dated 08.11.2005.While directing to implement RR policy for Gangavaram Port Project, Government appointed Secretary to Government as Commissioner and Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam as administrator. It appears that this G.O. was forgotten and no role was played by these two officials in implementing RR package in respect of Gangavaram Project. No material is placed before this Court as to what are the steps these officials have taken in implementing RR package for Gangavaram. 39. Though there is no such averment in any of the counters, in the note it is alleged that PAFs/PDFs of Dibbapalem and Gangavaram not being satisfied with RR package, entered into agreement on 05.5.2006 for providing 300 jobs in GPL. Be that as it is, as already referred to hereinabove, in respect of Dibbapalem village, there were three agreements on 04.8.2005, 17.10.2005 and 04.10.2006. In respect of Gangavaram and other villages there were two agreements on 05.5.2006 and 25.5.2006. None of these agreements, either in the preamble or in the body of the agreement, such an averment is made that the PAFs/PDFs were not satisfied with RR policy. Therefore, we have strong reasons to believe that the well intended RR policy contained in G.O.Ms.No.68 was totally ignored by the Government and the District Administration. 40. Curiously without there being any sanctity under the Constitution of India, the local MLAs, the Ministers and Government officials and promoters of societies went on negotiating and entering into agreements for providing various RR benefits as well as jobs. It is no doubt true that as per Para 7.1, Project level RR committee shall be constituted with different persons referred above including MLAs/MPs. But such committee is intended to implement the policy/plan prepared after detailed survey by the administrator and approved by the Government, after considering the objections with regard to draft scheme/plan. In respect of legality, validity and constitutionality of the agreements, we leave the matter there. Employment to Project Displaced Persons (i) Employment Rights 41. As already noticed, R&R benefits for PAFs/PAPs can even include income generating scheme grant. It is contended by the State and GPL that R&R policy does not confer any right on affected persons to seek employment in the project, on the ground that they have been deprived of their land, residences, avocation and livelihood. As already noticed, R&R benefits for PAFs/PAPs can even include income generating scheme grant. It is contended by the State and GPL that R&R policy does not confer any right on affected persons to seek employment in the project, on the ground that they have been deprived of their land, residences, avocation and livelihood. After giving due consideration to the policy in the light of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution as interpreted by Supreme Court in Olga Tellis (1 supra), Narendra Kumar Chandla (2 supra) and Raja Mahendra Pal (3 supra), we are convinced that what is provided in the policy is minimum benefit to be taken care of by the State and the promoters of the project. The policy of the Government does not bar PAPs/PAFs/PDFs making out a grievance with regard to the loss of livelihood and seek necessary redressal under the Constitution. 42. The interpretation of the Constitution especially fundamental rights has not been narrow and pedantic, when the technological innovations go on sweepingly alter cultural, social and economic aspects of human life, constitutional Court cannot be a mute spectator. It is Court’s duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens and ensure that the State, its players, its hybrids and its creations discharge public functions do not indirectly or dubiously trample the rights of the people making the preambular promise of the Constitution a mirage and empty promise. Thus, even if there is silence in the R&R Policy, it has to be read in accordance with the Constitution and State and project promoters cannot escape from their duty and liability to work out schemes to provide alternative employment as compensating alternatives. This also derives support from Doctrine of Public Trust. (ii) Public Trust 43. Doctrine of Public Trust is part of Constitutional law of sovereign control over the property of the people. It envisages that the Land surface water, ground water, navigable water and land beneath, forests, roads, tanks, tank beds, streets, lanes, sewage canals, drainage canals, hills, mountains, deserts, seashores, beaches, continental waters, territorial waters with land below belong to the sovereign. The title of the State in these is held in trust for the people of the State. When the sovereign holds these nature’s gifts in trust, and it is bound to put them to any use to subserve public interest. The title of the State in these is held in trust for the people of the State. When the sovereign holds these nature’s gifts in trust, and it is bound to put them to any use to subserve public interest. Any State action which subverts public interest either by denying the community rights or diluting human rights or infringing fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens, would be against such trust. 44. In Illinois Central Railroad Company v People of the State of Illinois 146 US 387 = 36 L Ed 1018 (1892), the Illinois Legislature made a substantial grant of submerged lands - a mile strip along the shores of Lake Michigan extending one mile out from the shoreline -to the Illinois Central Railroad. In 1873, the Legislature changed its mind and repealed the 1869 grant. The State of Illinois sued to quit title. The Court while accepting the stand of the State of Illinois held that the title of the State in the land in dispute was a title different in character from that which the State held in lands intended for sale. It was different from the title which the United States held in public lands which were open to pre-emption and sale. It was a title held in trust - for the people of the State that they may enjoy the navigation of the water, carry on commerce over them and have liberty of fishing therein free from obstruction or interference of private parties. The abdication of the general control of the State over lands in dispute was not consistent with the exercise of the trust which required the Government of the State to preserve such waters for the use of the public. It was held: That the state holds the title to the lands under the navigable waters of Lake Michigan, within its limits, in the same manner that the state holds title to soils under tide water, by the common law, we have already shown; and that title necessarily carries with it control over the waters above them, whenever the lands are subjected to use. But it is a title different in character from that which the state holds in lands intended for sale. It is different from the title which the United States hold in the public lands which are open to pre-emption and sale. But it is a title different in character from that which the state holds in lands intended for sale. It is different from the title which the United States hold in the public lands which are open to pre-emption and sale. It is a title held in trust for the people of the state, that they may enjoy the navigation of the waters, carry on commerce over them, and have liberty of fishing therein, freed from the obstruction or interference of private parties. The interest of the people in the navigation of the waters and in commerce over them may be improved in many instances by the erection of wharves, docks, and piers therein, for which purpose the state may grant parcels of the submerged lands; and, so long as their disposition is made for such purpose, no valid objections can be made to the grants. It is grants of parcels of lands under navigable waters that may afford foundation for wharves, piers, docks, and other structures in aid of commerce, and grants of parcels which, being occupied, do not substantially impair the public interest in the lands and waters remaining, that are chiefly considered and sustained in the adjudged cases as a valid exercise of legislative power consistently with the trust to the public upon which such lands are held by the state. But that is a very different doctrine from the one which would sanction the abdication of the general control of the state over lands under the navigable waters of an entire harbor or bay, or of a sea or lake. Such abdication is not consistent with the exercise of that trust which requires the government of the state to preserve such waters for the use of the public. The trust devolving upon the state for the public, and which can only be discharged by the management and control of property in which the public has an interest, cannot be relinquished by a transfer of the property. The control of the state for the purposes of the trust can never be lost, except as to such parcels as are used in promoting the interests of the public therein, or can be disposed of without any substantial impairment of the public interest in the lands and waters remaining. (emphasis supplied) 45. The control of the state for the purposes of the trust can never be lost, except as to such parcels as are used in promoting the interests of the public therein, or can be disposed of without any substantial impairment of the public interest in the lands and waters remaining. (emphasis supplied) 45. In M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388 , the Apex Court has quoted with approval an article entitled Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention of Joseph L. Sax, Professor of Law, University of Michigan which is in the following terms : The source of modem public trust law is found in a concept that received much attention in Roman and English law - the nature of property rights in rivers, the sea, and the seashore. That history has been given considerable attention in the legal literature, need not be repeated in detail here. But two points should be emphasized. First, certain interests, such as navigation and fishing, were sought to be preserved for the benefit of the public; accordingly, property used for those purposes was distinguished from general public property, which the sovereign could routinely grant to private owners. Second, while it was understood that in certain common properties - such as the seashore, highways, and running water - perpetual use was dedicated to the public, it has never been clear whether the public had an enforceable right to prevent infringement of those interests. Although the State apparently did protect public uses, no evidence is available that public rights could be legally asserted against a recalcitrant government. Yet again, Supreme Court held: The Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The said resources being a gift of nature, they should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. According to Professor Sax the Public Trust Doctrine imposes the following restrictions on governmental authority: 46. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. According to Professor Sax the Public Trust Doctrine imposes the following restrictions on governmental authority: 46. Supreme Court invoked and applied Doctrine of Public Trust in M.I. Builders v Radhey Shyam Sahu (1999) 6 SCC 464 = 1999 (6) ALT 4.3 (DNSC) and Intellectuals Forum v State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) 3 SCC 549 =2006 (2) ALT 67 (SC) = 2006 (2) SCJ 293 . In a recent Judgment in Fomento Resorts & Hotels Limited v Minguel Martins (2009) 3 SCC 571 , all possible aspects of doctrine have been adverted to by Supreme Court. It is apt to extract the relevant paragraphs in the Judgment (paras 52, 53, 54, 55 and 65 of SCC). The matter deserves to be considered from another angle. The public trust doctrine which has been invoked by Ms. Indira Jaising in support of her argument that the beach in question is a public beach and the appellants cannot privatize the same by blocking/obstructing traditional access available through survey No. 803 (new No. 246/2) is implicitly engrafted by the State Government in Clause 4(ix) of the agreement. … The public trust doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. This doctrine puts an implicit embargo on the right of the State to transfer public properties to private party if such transfer affects public interest, mandates affirmative State action for effective management of natural resources and empowers the citizens to question ineffective management thereof. … The heart of the public trust doctrine is that it imposes limits and obligations upon government agencies and their administrators on behalf of all the people and especially future generations. For example, renewable and non-renewable resources, associated uses, ecological values or objects in which the public has a special interest (i.e. public lands, waters, etc.) are held subject to the duty of the State not to impair such resources, uses or values, even if private interests are involved. The same obligations apply to managers of forests, monuments, parks, the public domain and other public assets. The same obligations apply to managers of forests, monuments, parks, the public domain and other public assets. Professor Joseph L. Sax in his classic article "The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resources Law: Effective Judicial Intervention" (1970), indicates that the Public Trust Doctrine, of all concepts known to law, constitutes the best practical and philosophical premise and legal tool for protecting public rights and for protecting and managing resources, ecological values or objects held in trust. … The Public Trust Doctrine is a tool for exerting long-established public rights over short-term public rights and private gain. Today, every person exercising his or her right to use the air, water, or land and associated natural ecosystems has the obligation to secure for the rest of us the right to live or otherwise use that same resource or property for the long term and enjoyment by future generations. To say it another way, a landowner or lessee and a water right holder has an obligation to use such resources in a manner as not to impair or diminish the peoples rights and the peoples long term interest in that property or resource, including down-slope lands, waters and resources. …We reiterate that natural resources including forests, water bodies, rivers, sea shores, etc. are held by the State as a trustee on behalf of the people and especially the future generations. These constitute common properties and people are entitled to uninterrupted use thereof. The State cannot transfer public trust properties to a private party, if such a transfer interferes with the right of the public and the Court can invoke the public trust doctrine and take affirmative action for protecting the right of people to have access to light, air and water and also for protecting rivers, sea, tanks, trees, forests and associated natural eco-systems. 47. Three types of restrictions on governmental authority are often thought to be imposed by the public trust: first, the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public; second, the property may not be sold, even for a fair cash equivalent; and third the property must be maintained for particular types of uses. Thus, if public trust is to be discharged properly, the State cannot part with land or water sources without retaining the control on the use of the property and right to resumption. The Government of A.P., allotted Acs.1800.00 of land to GPL at a cost of Rs.2.86 lakhs per acre for Acs.1400.00 and at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for Acs.400.00. The Government also contributed Rs.53.73 crores towards 10.39% equity, which was the total cost of the land allotted. In addition, the valuable seashore, fish landing areas, boat launching points forming part of the livelihood of fishermen have been lost. GPL also got other fiscal and non-fiscal concessions and grants from State. But State did not retain any control to project, sustain and maintain the right of the fishermen to launch their fishing boats into the sea from the place where they had been doing for over centuries. Obviously, for the reason that any fishing by traditional fishermen at or near Dibbapalem would cause hindrance for construction of the Port as well as movement of cargo/merchant ships in and out of the harbour, the fishermen were to be totally prohibited from using Dibbapalem shore for fishing operations. In that view of the matter, the State which used to indirectly control seashore has now abdicated such power in favour of GPL. When such valuable asset of the community over which State exercised control was lost, can it be said that provision of monetary compensation, development of an alternative boat launching seashore at a different place away from village and provision of house site, construction grant for house would be sufficient compensation? In our view, under the Constitution these all are benefits contemplated under the Government order or at best act as temporary balm to the unhealable wounds inflicted on fishermen. In the long run, the monetary compensation for deprivation of one’s right would never be an equal alternative as it is always better to have a goose which gives a golden egg than eating golden goose itself. In that view of the matter, we are convinced that in appropriate cases, it is a valid grievance for the affected people to seek remedy for employment in the project itself for the sake of which they had been forcibly made to alter their cultural, social and economic conditions and were left to the mercy of project promoters. (ii) Agreements’ Effect 48. (ii) Agreements’ Effect 48. Three agreements came into existence in which the fishermen, residents and others of Dibbapalem village were concerned. First agreement, dated 04.08.2005 does not contemplate provision of employment by GPL. The agreements dated 17.10.2005 and 04.09.2006 however speak of providing employment and there is no dispute that GPL has provided employment to 300 Dibbapalem PAPs. There are two agreements with regard to R&R benefits to persons belonging to Gangavaram and four other villages. All these agreements also speak of various benefits which were given to the villages. Here we may refer to information furnished by District Collector to the National General Secretary, Bharatiya Port & Shipyard, in response to the application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (this is filed by petitioners in W.P.No.17442 of 2009). 6. R&R Package details. For Boat Owners R&R Package Details of Gangavaram Village 1 to 5 omitted a. Spl. Package Amount … Rs.25,000/- each b. Boat Shifting Charges … Rs.15,000/- each c. Boat maintenance charges… Rs.3,000/-each per month d. Monthly wages … Rs.3,000/- each per month For Boat Workers a. Spl. Package amount … Rs.25,000/- each b. Monthly wages … Rs.3,000/- each per month For other Fishermen a. Spl. Package amount… Rs.20,000/- each b. Monthly wages … Rs.2,000/- each per month Assured Employment Number of jobs assured … 300 Nos. 49. As already pointed out, the R&R policy of the Government is silent on the question of providing employment to Project Displaced Persons. However, agitations by all the aggrieved led to negotiations and presumably in those meetings, GPL agreed to provide 300 jobs to PAPs of Dibbapalem, which was totally relocated to new place and 300 jobs to the people of Gangavaram, Pallipalem, Peddapallipalem, Chinapallipalem and Jalaripallipalem. This appears to be not enough. There are hundreds of people who lost their livelihood and providing only 300 jobs gave raise to another serious area of contest. How to identify the eligible persons for providing employment? On what basis only 300 persons out of the eligible list are to be provided the jobs? To appreciate these aspects, we may refer to various reports submitted by District collector and Special Officer to HTL and the orders passed thereon from time to time. (iii) Lokayukta Proceedings Complaint No.711/2007/B1 was initiated by the petitioners in W.P.No.21618 of 2009, who are also arrayed as respondents in W.P.No.15220 and 17150 of 2009. To appreciate these aspects, we may refer to various reports submitted by District collector and Special Officer to HTL and the orders passed thereon from time to time. (iii) Lokayukta Proceedings Complaint No.711/2007/B1 was initiated by the petitioners in W.P.No.21618 of 2009, who are also arrayed as respondents in W.P.No.15220 and 17150 of 2009. HTL called for report of District Collector on 16.10.2005. In response thereto, the latter sent a report vide letter, dated 01.08.2007 (extracted hereinabove). As per this letter, Assistant Director of Fisheries, after conducting survey furnished list of 429 active fishermen in Gangavaram village who lost their livelihood due to construction of Port. After negotiations, a list of 2,826 fishermen was prepared for extending R&R package. These included 115 boat owners, 1100 kalasis/workers and 1,611 engaged in fishing activity. The Collector also reported that GPL promised to provide 300 jobs and that the committee was directed to conduct Grama Sabha for identifying actual fishermen whose livelihood is affected. As the list of substantially affected people was not prepared, another report was called for. In response to which, the Collector reported that the committee has not furnished the list for providing permanent jobs as directed by HTL. It was not done immediately. By communications dated 29.04.2008 and 07.06.2008, the Special Officer sought time for finalizing the list of 300 persons for providing jobs. In the letter, Special Officer reported that in the Grama Sabha conducted on 06.06.2008, the presence of officials, villagers and members of various village committees, photographs were exhibited on the screens, and objections were called for and 300 applications were scrutinized. After considering the same, on 09.06.2008, HTL recorded the objections raised by Chodipalli Raju of North Andhra Association and directed Special Officer to file final report. On 09.07.2008, such report was submitted giving the following details of the lists received from various committees of four villages as well as final list prepared after considering the same in Grama Sabha on 06.06.2008 and 05.07.2008. Sl.No. List submitted No. of persons who No. of persons included by the Association submitted applications in eligible list 1. Gangavaram Sampradaya Matsyakarula Seva Sangham 304 240 2. North Andhra Fishermen Youth Welfare Association 300 273 3. Jalaripallipalem Village Committee 46 30 4. Kuntuvalala Committee 80 30 Total 730 588 51. When objections were raised, HTL directed Special Officer to appear and submit fresh report with proof. Gangavaram Sampradaya Matsyakarula Seva Sangham 304 240 2. North Andhra Fishermen Youth Welfare Association 300 273 3. Jalaripallipalem Village Committee 46 30 4. Kuntuvalala Committee 80 30 Total 730 588 51. When objections were raised, HTL directed Special Officer to appear and submit fresh report with proof. SO obeyed and on 15.09.2008, gave the details of finalized list of beneficiaries. The same is as below. (1) Applications received directly by the Special Officer from the villagers for employment: Applications received directly for employment in Port by the Special Officer 1119 Less: Applications not covered in the Survey data 545 Less: Applications verified with data and found ineligible 140 Eligible applications for reading out in Grama Sabha 434 List of beneficiaries identified in Grama Sabhas 282 (2) Lists/applications received from various committees of Gangavaram for R&R package: a) Gangavaram Sampradaya Matsyakarula Seva Sangham 38 b) North Andhra Fishermen Youth Welfare Association 140 c) Jalaripallipalem Village Committee 76 d) Pallipalem, Pedapallipalem, Chinapallipalem Villagers 250 e) Applications received directly 652 52. At that stage, HTL directed SO to invite objections and suggestions and evolve criteria and then based on the same, select the list of 300 eligible persons. The complainant was directed to prepare the first list of 300 persons, who should be considered for providing employment. In response thereto, as directed, SO convened meeting of various associations on 14.10.2008. Taking the suggestions given therein, he issued notice virtually inviting biodata sheets from 880 persons and specific objections keeping in view the following criteria. The applicant should be- a. Resident of the Gangavaram or its surrounding four villages. b. Age should be between 18 and 35 years. c. Belonging to affected fishermen community, and d. One person from one family and that major married sons living with their family separately should also be considered as separate family. On 30.01.2009, SO reported to the Registrar of Lokayukta as follows. In this connection, it is submitted that as per Hon’ble Lokayukta Orders, the Special Officer has conducted a grama sabha on 21.01.2009 at Office of the Tahsildar, Pedagantyada for enquiry into the objections received against 135 names out of the list of 317 fishermen notified in the village after duly informing petitioners and also the persons against whom the objections were leveled and the public of the village in general. The members of different Fishermen Committees of Gangavaram Village along with persons against whom objections were made have attended the Gramasabha. The objections were read out and the response of the villagers who have attended the Gramasabha was noted down. Therefore, as per the Hon’ble Lokayukta orders, the entire 771 list duly deleting the prima facie objections regarding age, police case etc., prepared in the order of preference as follows: I) Boat Owners, II) Boat Workers, III) Dragnet and IV) Fishing activity. In view of the above facts, I request the Hon’ble Lokayukta to kindly issue necessary directions in the matter. 53. Considering the same, HTL passed impugned order directing the GPL to provide employment to such number of people from out of the list in accordance with seniority without any deviation and further observed that if there is any agreement or if there is any direction by the Government to provide employment to more number of people than were originally agreed. From the proceedings that took place before HTL as enumerated hereinabove, it is very clear that until a direction was issued to evolve a criteria vide common order dated 17.09.2008 passed by HTL, no criteria whatsoever was evolved either for identifying the eligible PAPs or for shortlisting the candidates. Counsel appearing for various petitions expressed doubt even with regard to the identification of eligible PAPs, especially with regard to the persons who were allegedly to be non-residents of villages, belonging to non-fishermen categories and ineligible persons. Be that as it is, only after HTL issued directions, a list of eligible persons was prepared by laying down criteria as noticed hereinabove. The list so prepared was further pruned by taking up the factors like whether selectee is a boat owner or boat worker or dragged it or engaged in fishing activity. 54. Boat owners were given priority in preference to others and those engaged in direct/indirect fishing activity found place in the last. There was some criticism about this procedure also before us which would be adverted to little while later. All those persons who fall under categories of PAFs/PDFs/PAPs in one way belong to one class. They are fishermen, they depended on fishing for livelihood and came from similar socio-cultural background though economic aspects may slightly vary – the boat owner who engages kalasis/workers a little richer than others. All those persons who fall under categories of PAFs/PDFs/PAPs in one way belong to one class. They are fishermen, they depended on fishing for livelihood and came from similar socio-cultural background though economic aspects may slightly vary – the boat owner who engages kalasis/workers a little richer than others. When it comes to the question whether they are affected by Gangavaram Project, vis-à-vis loss of livelihood, all of them stand on the same footing. But when we have few jobs to whom they should go. This necessarily requires classification of these affected persons into one category who are most affected and second category who are not so much affected. 55. It is needless to mention that Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits class legislation but does not bar classification for the purpose of conferring benefits on identified group of persons. While resorting to such classification, there is no necessity to insist upon scientifically perfect or logically complete division, nor there is need for precise intelligible differentia. It is not clear on what basis the boat owners were given priority in procurement of jobs and it is not clear on what basis kalasis who are paid daily wages by the boat owners in second priority. If the criteria evolved is not reasonable or rationale, the classification cannot be sustained. In Indra Sawhney v Union of India 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 = AIR 1993 SC 477 , the importance of evolving correct criteria for identification of disadvantaged has been explained by Supreme Court as follows (paras 529 and 530 of SCC) So long as correct criterion for the identification of the backward classes is applied, the result arrived at cannot be questioned on the ground that other valid criteria were also available for such identification. It is possible that the result so arrived at may be defective marginally or in marginal number of cases. That does not invalidate the exercise itself. No method is perfect particularly when sociological findings are in issue. Hence, marginal defects when found may be cured in individual cases but the entire finding is not rendered invalid on that account. It is possible that the result so arrived at may be defective marginally or in marginal number of cases. That does not invalidate the exercise itself. No method is perfect particularly when sociological findings are in issue. Hence, marginal defects when found may be cured in individual cases but the entire finding is not rendered invalid on that account. … The corollary of the above is that when the criterion applied for identifying the backward classes is either perverse of per se defective or unrelated to such identification in that it is not calculated to give the result or is calculated to give, by the very nature of the criterion, a contrary or unintended result, the criterion is open for judicial examination. 56. Therefore, this Court is required to apply the classical principle of judicial review as to whether the decision making process by HTL is valid. We have no manner of doubt that HTL passed impugned order after calling for various reports from the District Collector and Special Officer and after hearing the objections of the complainants as well as those who appeared in the proceedings. Indeed, it is the HTL, who first pointed out the lack of criteria and directed the SO to prepare the list applying the criteria which was directed to be evolved after convening the meetings of the committees in the villages. Therefore, we do not find any error in the impugned order insofar as the decision making process is concerned. We may also add that ultimate directions were issued by HTL based on material placed before him. Ordinarily judicial review must stop here. But having regard to the fact that the very valuable right to livelihood has been taken away by the State action and having regard to the fact that the GPL as agreed and is willing to provide only 300 jobs, we are inclined to set aside the ultimate order issued by HTL directing appointment of 300 persons found included in the final list submitted by Special Officer. 57. The reasons for the above view are these. Firstly, either in preparing R&R Scheme/plan or identifying the beneficiaries for conferring the benefits under R&R package, the orders in G.O.Ms.No.68 were followed more in breach and the Commissioner and Administrator appointed in G.O.Ms.No.236, dated 08.11.2005, abdicated their powers. Secondly, though GPL was not a party, HTL gave directions to them. 57. The reasons for the above view are these. Firstly, either in preparing R&R Scheme/plan or identifying the beneficiaries for conferring the benefits under R&R package, the orders in G.O.Ms.No.68 were followed more in breach and the Commissioner and Administrator appointed in G.O.Ms.No.236, dated 08.11.2005, abdicated their powers. Secondly, though GPL was not a party, HTL gave directions to them. Thirdly, District Collector and Special Officer did not place entire material before HTL. Fourthly, though R&R policy vide paragraph 7.1 envisages inclusion of various representatives and elected persons in the R&R committee, no such committee was constituted nor any criteria was evolved for identifying PAPs though initially after survey 2,826 fishermen were identified for extending the package. Fifthly, many of the persons who are initially included in the list of beneficiaries were excluded in the list of job eligible persons and many persons who are excluded initially are included in such list and lastly, no criteria was evolved at the stage of preparation of lists for providing jobs. The criteria was evolved only at the time of final selection and this, as rightly contended by some of the counsel, denied the right of project affected persons from being considered for the jobs. (iii) Exclusion of certain persons 58. W.P.No.18451 of 2009 is filed by twenty three (23) fishermen of Gangavaram village. They were initially included in the list of eligible persons. However, their names were deleted on the ground that there are criminal cases registered against them. In the counter affidavit filed by SO, it is admitted that petitioner Nos.4, 6, 12 and 16 are found included in the final list, that petitioner Nos.2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, 22 and 23 are included in the list of 771 persons and that the remaining petitioners 1, 3, 7 and 9 are involved in criminal cases registered under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Inclusion of petitioner Nos.13, 15, 19, 20 and 21 in the list is denied. 59. The attention of this Court is invited to clause 3 of the agreement, dated 05.05.2006 and clause 3 of agreement dated 25.03.2008. These two clauses are to the effect that all the criminal cases filed against fishermen will be withdrawn after law and order is maintained in the villages and after waiting for six months to watch the conduct of the accused persons. These two clauses are to the effect that all the criminal cases filed against fishermen will be withdrawn after law and order is maintained in the villages and after waiting for six months to watch the conduct of the accused persons. GPL is also a signatory to the agreements. This only suggests that all the cases were filed against some of the petitioners in this writ petition in connection with the agitations and strikes conducted by them protesting loss of livelihood. Of late, it is more often than not that the Government negotiates with persons resorting to democratic protest and agrees to withdraw all the cases filed against such persons. Probably same must have weighed when the Hon’ble Ministers and other officials inked the agreements with representatives of fishermen. Therefore, it is for the Government to consider and pass necessary orders for withdrawal of the cases. Nonetheless, for the reason that criminal cases are pending, those petitioners whose names are included in the eligible lists, cannot be denied the job in GPL. Even according to Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, unless and until a person is convicted, he cannot be denied employment. Therefore, mere pendency of criminal cases does not bar a citizen seeking employment for the public/private sector. 59. We will now consider the relief in four groups of writ petitions. Writ petition Nos.15220, 17150 and 17442 of 2009 are partly allowed. The order of HTL insofar as the same directs GPL to appoint 300 persons from the list furnished by the Special Officer is set aside. We direct the District Collector and Special Officer to evolve eligibility criteria and consider all 771 persons including those against whom criminal cases are pending with reference to criteria. Needless to mention while evolving such criteria, the Government or the District Collector, as the case may be, shall also keep in mind the question whether a person is lost livelihood totally or such person is provided with alternatives to carry on the same avocation for livelihood, in addition to the benefits already conferred on such persons. The District Collector and Special Officer shall also consider all persons belonging to Gangavaram, Pallipalem, Peddapallipalem, Chinapallipalem and Jalaripallipalem before finalizing the list. For that purpose, they may publish a notice in the villages inviting applications and also announce by tom-tom stipulating a particular day before which applications should be submitted. The District Collector and Special Officer shall also consider all persons belonging to Gangavaram, Pallipalem, Peddapallipalem, Chinapallipalem and Jalaripallipalem before finalizing the list. For that purpose, they may publish a notice in the villages inviting applications and also announce by tom-tom stipulating a particular day before which applications should be submitted. It shall be open to conduct enquiry into such applications with reference to evidence produced and then finalise the list. As and when the list is finalized, the District Collector shall convene a meeting of officials of GPL and all the Presidents and Secretaries of various fishermen societies/associations before finalizing the list of eligible persons. In this regard, keeping in view our observations supra, we also direct the Government of Andhra Pradesh to explore possibilities of providing more number of jobs either in Gangavaram Port or related ancillary units. Writ petition No.20618 of 2009 are concerned which are filed seeking a direction to provide the jobs as per the final list prepared by the second respondent, stand dismissed. Writ petition Nos.3936, 16525, 17955, 18451 and 20767 of 2009 and writ petition Nos. 18902 of 2008, 20757 and 22105 of 2009 are disposed of in terms of the orders passed in first group of writ petitions. 60. All the writ petitions shall stand disposed/dismissed in terms of the orders as above. There shall be no order as to costs.