JUDGMENT : SHAJI P. CHALY, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by a minor represented by his mother, who is a native of Union Territory of Lakshadweep, seeking to quash Exts.P1 and P2 orders issued by the Lakshadweep Administration dated 19.06.2014 and 15.09.2014 respectively, emphasising certain regulatory measures to enter the Island, among others, to the family members also who are residents of mainland and for other related reliefs. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows. 2. Petitioner's mother is a member of Scheduled Tribe community in Lakshadweep, and is a native of one of the islands therein, viz. Kiltan Island, and she is married to a mainlander. According to the petitioner, Exts.P1 and P2 orders are illegal and arbitrary, which prescribe procedures to issue, reject, renew, endorse and cancel the Entry Permit to various categories to the Union Territory. It is also pointed out that, Exts.P1 and P2 orders contravene and replace certain provisions of the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands (Restrictions on Entry and Residence) Rules, 1967 [hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1967]. The Rules were made by the Administrator in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec.9 of the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands (Laws) Regulations, 1965 [hereinafter referred to as the Regulations, 1965] with the previous sanction of the Central Government. The Rules which were in vogue for around 50 years, enabled the family of a native of the Islands including his or her spouse, children, grandchildren, brothers, sisters, parents of his or her spouse, son-in-laws and daughter-in-laws who hail from the mainland; to visit any of the Islands of Union Territory without a permit. 3. However, now Exts.P1 and P2 orders are passed by the Administrator without any legislative competence, since Sec. 9 of the Regulations, 1965, only enables the Administrator of the Islands to make rules with the sanction of the Central Government for the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe by imposing reasonable restrictions on the right of any person who is not a native of the Islands to visit or reside in the islands. However, the orders have been issued by a delegate to the Administrator. However, the orders have been issued by a delegate to the Administrator. Therefore, the executive orders so issued are bad in law, as it contravene the provisions of the Rules which were duly notified in the Official Gazette and had acquired the force of law. 4. It is also the case of the petitioner that, like the petitioner, thousands of similarly placed persons have been subjected to considerable hardships by the orders which curtail the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India, to move freely throughout the territory of India. It is also submitted, petitioner is entitled to manage the properties that he would inherit from his mother and also to take the usufructs there-from, and any restriction which would compel him to seek a permit every instance he has to visit the islands would hamper the seamless exercise of his right. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the new classification made under Exts.P1 and P2 thrusting upon the petitioner requirement of securing entry permit is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as the restrictions contained thereunder are interfering with the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens under Articles 14 and 19(1)(d), (e) and (g) of the Constitution of India. Exts.P1 and P2 also discriminate the Scheduled Tribe members of the Island working under the Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration, in so far as it precludes their family and relatives from visiting the Islands without an Entry Permit, and at the same time, allows the family and relatives of the mainlanders working under the Union Territory Administration to visit the Islands without a permit. It is also submitted that, the action is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, interfering with the life and liberty of the petitioner. 5. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed a detailed counter affidavit. Among other contentions, it is stated, there is a long pending demand from all stakeholders including political parties, elected members, general public etc. to simplify the procedure for issue of entry permit to various categories of persons/visitors. Accordingly, the Administrator, Lakshadweep, i.e. the 2nd respondent, constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of Collector and Development Commissioner, Lakshadweep and guidelines were issued as per the recommendations of the said committee. 6. to simplify the procedure for issue of entry permit to various categories of persons/visitors. Accordingly, the Administrator, Lakshadweep, i.e. the 2nd respondent, constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of Collector and Development Commissioner, Lakshadweep and guidelines were issued as per the recommendations of the said committee. 6. Rule 3 of the Rules, 1967 specified above stipulates that, after the commencement of the Rules, no persons who is not a native of the island shall enter or reside in or attempt to enter or reside in the islands except under and in accordance with permit issued by the competent authority. The proviso thereto stipulates that, no such permit shall be necessary in the case of persons who had taken up permanent residence in the island at any time before the commencement of the rules and members of the families of such persons. 7. In view of the above, the father of the petitioner who is not a native of the island cannot enter or reside in the islands without an entry permit. On 04.10.1985, the Administrator by virtue of the powers conferred under the Rules, 1967, issued notification authorizing the Secretary to the Administrator to function as the competent authority for issue and rejection of permits as contemplated in Rules 3, 4, 7 and 13 of the Rules, 1967. As far as permits to the persons mentioned in the Schedule to the notification are concerned, the power is vested with the Secretary to the Administrator, evident from Ext.R2(a) notification dated 04.10.1985. In Ext.R2(a), the first category is wife/husband, children and relatives of natives of the Lakshadweep married from mainland, and category No. 2 is relatives of Government employees/employees of Public Sector Undertakings and their family members. Therefore, it is not correct to contend that by Exts.P1 and P2, the categories were fixed by the 2nd respondent. 8. Exts.P1 and P2 were in fact issued just to simplify the procedure. As per Ext.P2, the wife/husband, children and their family members of natives of Lakshadweep married from mainland require entry permit only at the time of initial/first entry into Lakshadweep. But, no entry permit is required subsequently, provided they are able to establish proof of their residence in Lakshadweep. Any recognized identity proof including resident identity card can be used for establishing the proof of their residence in Lakshadweep. But, no entry permit is required subsequently, provided they are able to establish proof of their residence in Lakshadweep. Any recognized identity proof including resident identity card can be used for establishing the proof of their residence in Lakshadweep. In view of the above, no person except an 'island resident' can visit any of the islands of Lakshadweep without an entry permit at the time of initial/first entry into Lakshadweep islands. 9. But, as per Ext.R2(a) notification, the applicant category has to get entry permit on each and every occasion, whereas as per the new guidelines, they need entry permit only at the time of initial entry. So also, earlier police verification was necessary before issuing entry permit, whereas as per the new guidelines, prior police verification is not necessary. Therefore, to put it simply, the new guidelines are intended to simplify the procedure and to make it easier and comfortable for the specified category, but of course, maintaining the heritage, culture and tradition of the Lakshadweep Islands with emphasis on the point of security also. 10. It is also submitted that, so far as the persons who are having permanent residence before the commencement of the Rules, do not require any such permit. The family members who entered in Lakshadweep islands without entry permits were the families of mainland employees of the UTL Administration who were appointed during 1950s and 1960s, when the islanders were not available for Government Services. In view of the above, the father of the petitioner cannot enter or reside in or attempt to enter or reside in the islands without a valid entry permit issued by the competent authority at the time of initial/first entry into Lakshadweep Islands. 11. That apart, it is submitted that, compared to other parts of the country, due to their peculiar status, culture, relics and antiquities coupled with geographical and other conditions, remoteness etc. are entirely different in Lakshadweep Islands. That apart, it is stated, in the normal course of journey and visit, a person or family can pre-plan their visit to Lakshadweep islands based on the voyage schedules of ships for about eight months. In case of exigencies, the entry permit can be obtained within 3-4 days through follow up action. are entirely different in Lakshadweep Islands. That apart, it is stated, in the normal course of journey and visit, a person or family can pre-plan their visit to Lakshadweep islands based on the voyage schedules of ships for about eight months. In case of exigencies, the entry permit can be obtained within 3-4 days through follow up action. So also, heritage fee is collected from the tourists visiting these islands, visitors coming on permit for leisure availing LTC and those visiting friends and relatives for attending functions in the islands. This is done as part of protection of environment and fragile ecology and heritage of the Lakshadweep group of islands, and for the benefit of future generation of these islands, and heritage fee is utilised mainly for the purpose of cleaning the premises and to dispose of the waste including plastic materials and to preserve the serene and scenic beauty of the islands. 12. So also, Rule 8(3) of the Rules, 1967 stipulates that the holder of a permit shall, as soon as possible and in any case within twenty four hours after his arrival in any island, report with his permit to the nearest Registration Officer who shall enter in the permit the date and time of the arrival of the holder in the island. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention put forth by the respondents is that, Ext.P3 Rules can only be treated as reasonable restriction on the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India, for the valid purpose of maintaining the ethnic, culture, tradition and tranquillity to be maintained in the Union Territory. The restrictions are made to process the entry permit applications, and it cannot be treated as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that, Exts.P1 and P2 are only clarifying certain aspects, which are not guided by Ext.P3 Rules, and therefore, the contention advanced by the petitioner that Exts.P1 and P2 are not issued in accordance with the powers conferred under Sec.9 of the Regulations, 1965, cannot be sustained. 13. A reply affidavit is also filed by the petitioner, reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition. 14. I have heard Sri. Ajit G. Anjarlekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Manu S., learned Senior Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents, and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 13. A reply affidavit is also filed by the petitioner, reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition. 14. I have heard Sri. Ajit G. Anjarlekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Manu S., learned Senior Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents, and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 15. The respective counsel have addressed their arguments in accordance with the contentions put forth in the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit filed. Ext.P3 is the Rules issued in the year 1967, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec.9 of the Regulations, 1965, specified above, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, which is extended to the whole of the Union Territory of Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands, which came into force on and with effect from 01.10.1967. As per Rule 3 thereunder, there is a clear embargo created that no person who is not a native of the island shall enter or reside in or attempt to enter or reside in the islands except under and in accordance with a permit issued by the competent authority. 16. The proviso thereto stipulates that, no such permit shall be necessary in the case of various classes of persons recited to thereunder. Clause (a) is relevant to the context, which read thus: “Persons who had taken up permanent residence in the island at any time before the commencement of these rules, and members of the families of such persons”. Likewise, exemption is granted to members of Armed Forces of the Indian Union, persons serving in connection with the administration of the islands proceeding to the islands on official duty and members of their families, officials and non-officials sponsored by any of the Ministries or Departments of the Government of India or the Administrator, Indian Tourists permitted by the Administrator, and foreign nationals permitted by the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of India, in accordance with the stipulations specified by the Ministry, Department or the Administrator. 17. The Explanation thereto defines the family of a person, which includes his or her spouse and children and grandchildren, brothers, sisters, and parents of the person or his/her spouse and also includes son-in-laws and daughter-in-law of the persons serving in connection with the administration of the islands. 17. The Explanation thereto defines the family of a person, which includes his or her spouse and children and grandchildren, brothers, sisters, and parents of the person or his/her spouse and also includes son-in-laws and daughter-in-law of the persons serving in connection with the administration of the islands. Relying upon the Explanations made thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, so far as the petitioner is concerned, he is entitled to the protection provided under the Explanation, since the petitioner is a grandchild of a permanent resident of Lakshadweep Island, who has settled in the Island, much prior to the introduction of the Rules. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, Exts.P1 and P2 now issued are contrary to the protection provided under Explanation to Rule 3 of the Rules, 1967, discussed above. 18. Now, as per Ext.P1 dated 19.06.2014, the Administrator has issued an order prescribing procedure for issue/reject/renew/endorse and cancel the Entry permit to various categories of visitors mentioned in the said order. The procedure for issue of entry permit to Wife/Husband, Children and relatives of natives of Lakshadweep married to mainlander is prescribed thereunder, which read thus: “1. The duly filled in application for entry permit shall be submitted to the Deputy Collector/Sub Divisional Officers of the concerned island. 2. The Deputy Collector/Sub Divisional Officers of the concerned island shall verify the particulars and relationship of the visitors with the applicant and record his comment about the genuinity of the particulars furnished by the applicant. 3. The Deputy Collector/Sub Divisional Officers of the concerned island shall forward the application along with their comments as mentioned above to Addl. District Magistrate, Kavaratti or Administrative Officer, Lakshadweep Office, Kochi to whom the application is submitted. 4. The Addl. District Magistrate, Kavaratti or Administrative Officer, Lakshadweep Office, Kochi shall after examination of particulars and comments of the Deputy Collector/Sub Divisional Officers of the concerned island, issue entry permit or reject the application within 15 days of receipt of the application. In case of rejection, the reason should be recorded in writing and the same shall be communicated to the applicant along with the reason for such rejection. 5. In case of rejection, the applicant can file an appeal before the Appellate Authority/ Hon'ble Administrator as per the provisions of Entry Permit Rules. 6. The Addl. In case of rejection, the reason should be recorded in writing and the same shall be communicated to the applicant along with the reason for such rejection. 5. In case of rejection, the applicant can file an appeal before the Appellate Authority/ Hon'ble Administrator as per the provisions of Entry Permit Rules. 6. The Addl. District Magistrate, Kavaratti or Administrative Officer, Lakshadweep Office, Kochi shall forward a copy of the entry permit to Registration Officer of the concerned islands for which the entry permit is granted. 7. The permit holders shall as soon as possible and in any case within 24 hours after his/her arrival in any island report with his permit to the Registration Officer of the concerned island. 8. The Registration Officer after verifying the entry permit and other documents as he deems necessary shall recommend for Police verification of the antecedents of the permit holder (No police verification before the issue of entry permit is required).” 19. Therefore, it is submitted, such restrictions are intruding into the fundamental rights enjoyed by the petitioner under Article 19(1)(d) and (e). It is also submitted that, it is clearly interfering with the life and liberty provided to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and furthermore, the child is entitled as of right to reside with the mother and consequent to the introduction of Exts.P1 and P2, petitioner is put to various difficulties and serious prejudices. 20. On the other hand, learned CGC submitted that, in fact, Exts.P1 and P2 are issued, since in Ext.P3 Rules, 1967, the issue with respect to a child begotten in a marriage by and between a resident of Lakshadweep Islands and mainland was not undertaken, and the Explanation thereto protects the islanders and their families alone, who were permanent residents in the Islands at any time before the commencement of the Rules and members of the families of such persons. Therefore, the petitioner will not get the benefit of the protection granted under the proviso to Rule 3 and the Explanation thereto. However, as per Ext.P1, the situation is clarified, whereby a procedure is prescribed for issue of entry permit to wife/husband, children and relatives of natives of Lakshadweep, married to a mainlander. 21. Therefore, the petitioner will not get the benefit of the protection granted under the proviso to Rule 3 and the Explanation thereto. However, as per Ext.P1, the situation is clarified, whereby a procedure is prescribed for issue of entry permit to wife/husband, children and relatives of natives of Lakshadweep, married to a mainlander. 21. It is also submitted that, such family members are compelled to take permit only at the time of initial/first entry, and thereafter in accordance with the procedure contemplated thereunder, they are entitled to get necessary identity card so as to identify their entry and residence within the Island. The relevant portion of Ext.P2 read thus: “The Wife/Husband, Children and their family members of natives of Lakshadweep married from mainlander requires entry permit only at the time of initial/first entry into Lakshadweep. No entry permit is required subsequently provided they are able to establish the proof of their residence in Lakshadweep. Any recognized identity proof including resident identity card can be used for establishing the proof of their residence in Lakshadweep.” Therefore, as per Exts.P1 and P2, an easy procedure is made out and the restriction whatever contained thereunder is a reasonable restriction in terms of Article 19(5) of the Constitution of India, which stipulates that, nothing in sub-clauses (d) and (e) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub-clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe. 22. Learned CGC appearing for the respondents has invited my attention to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)(Union Territories) Order, 1951, and the Schedule thereto dealing with Lakshadweep Islands, which states that, throughout the Union Territory:- Inhabitants of the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands who and both of whose parents, were born in those Islands, and the proviso thereto stipulates that, the children who are born to inhabitants of Lakshadweep in any other place in the Mainland of India shall be deemed to be inhabitants born in the islands if such children settle permanently in the islands. Therefore, the contention advanced by learned CGC is that, there is no manner of arbitrariness, irrationality or other legal infirmities, interfering with the rights of the petitioner in Exts.P1 and P2 orders issued, and the same are only in terms of the powers conferred on the Administrator as per the Rules, 1967, and the Regulations, 1965. 23. On an appreciation of the rival contentions put forth by the parties, I am of the considered opinion that, going by the provisions of the Scheduled Areas (Part A States) Order, 1950, Order 1951 specified above, and other provisions of law discussed above, it can be seen that the restrictions imposed in Exts.P1 and P2 are only procedural in nature, which are not creating any complete or absolute embargo against the family members who are mainlanders to visit the Islands, and it is also not creating any prohibition in contravention of the Rules, 1967. So also, in the Rules, 1967, there is no procedure prescribed to facilitate the visits of the family members who are mainlanders. Therefore, in my considered view, Exts.P1 and P2 orders are only filling up the lacuna in Ext.P3 Rules, which has not taken care of the facilitation of entry to mainland family members and it can never be termed as any interference with the Rules, 1967. So much so, in the absence of the rules to facilitate such entry, the Administrator is vested with powers to issue executive orders which is well protected under Article 239(1) of the Constitution of India dealing with administration of Union Territories, which stipulates: “Save as otherwise provided by Parliament by law, every Union territory shall be administered by the President acting, to such extent as he thinks fit, through an administrator to be appointed by him with such designation as he may specify.” 24. Therefore, on a deeper analysis, it is explicit, Exts.P1 and P2 are not interfering at all with Rules, 1967, or any of the rights conferred on the petitioner under Part-III of the Constitution of India. To top up the above cluster of factual and legal circumstances, Regulation 33 of the Laccadive Islands and Minicoy Regulation, 1912, a Regulation to declare the Law applicable to the Laccadive Islands and Minicoy, would picturize the issue in a fine manner, which read thus: “33. To top up the above cluster of factual and legal circumstances, Regulation 33 of the Laccadive Islands and Minicoy Regulation, 1912, a Regulation to declare the Law applicable to the Laccadive Islands and Minicoy, would picturize the issue in a fine manner, which read thus: “33. The Governor in Council may by order prohibit persons residing on the mainland from visiting or taking up their residence in the islands, and may require persons ordinarily residing on the mainland who have taken up their residence in the islands to leave the islands and he may make such rules as he deems fit in pursuance of the above.” Therefore, it is clear the issues raised are also statutorily protected, which is not under challenge. I also find force in the contention advanced by learned CGC that, unlike the Government officials entering the Islands with their full identity, as per the documents available, if persons who are family members in the mainland are permitted without any entry permit, the Administration will not have their details in order to keep a clear track of persons visiting the Islands. 25. Of course, it is an admitted fact that, special status is given to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the orders issued thereunder, with the intention of protecting the ethnic culture, heritage and to maintain the serene and calm atmosphere in the said Islands, and not to interfere with their culture and habits unnecessarily by the mainlanders. Viewed in that manner, I do not think any interference is warranted to the procedures prescribed under Exts.P1 and P2 orders, which only enables a mainland family member to visit the Islands with appropriate details with respect to their person with the Administrator of the Union Territory. Therefore, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner cannot be sustained under law. I also do not find any arbitrariness or unconstitutionality in Exts.P1 and P2 orders, as contended by the petitioner. 26. However, I make it clear that, if and when the petitioner makes an application seeking permit, it shall be processed at the earliest possible time, bearing in mind that the child is entitled, as of right, to visit his mother and reside with her, and secure other consequential benefits in accordance with law. 27. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.