← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/2081/2020dismissed

S.Chendurpandi v. The Union Of India

2020-03-04Honourable Mr Justice P. N. Prakash,Honourable Mr Justice B.Pugalendhi4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.03.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI W.P.(MD)No.2081 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.2922 and 2925 of 2020 S.Chendurpandi : Petitioner Vs.

1.The Union of India Rep. by the Secretary to Government of India, Department of Atomic Energy Anushakti Bhavan Chatrapathi Shivaji Maharaj Marg, Mumbai 400 001 Maharashtra 2.The Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Niyamak Bhavan, Anushaktinagar Mumbai - 400 094 Maharashtra.

3.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Public Works Department Fort St. George, Chennai.

4.The Chairman, The State level Environment Impact, Assessment Authority (SEIAA) 3rd Floor, Panagal Maaligai No.I, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai.

5.The Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai.

6.The District Collector, Department of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai.

7.The Deputy Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli 8.The Chairman Koodangulam Project Local Committee, Nuclear Power Corporation Jawahar Street, Ramavarmapuram Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

9.The Managing Director, The Hi-tech Rock Products, & Aggregates Limited, Mount Poonamalee Road, Manapakkam, P.B.No.979, Chennai.

: Respondents PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 8 herein to forbear the 9th respondent from doing any mining operations in the land bearing S.F.No.475/2B1, 475/2C1, 477/2C3A, 2C3A, 2C3C, 2C4B, 2C5B, 2C6B, 2C7, 2C8, 2C9(P), 478/2A1B, 2C3A, 2C3B, 2C3C, 2C3D, 2C3F1, 2C3G1, 2C3H1, 2C3K1, 2C3L, 2C3M, 4,6,8,10 for an extent of 4.96.0 hectares in Erukkandurai Part II Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District by cancelling 9th respondent quarry lease & license in the light of G.O.Ms.No.829 Public Work Department dated 29.04.1991 issued by the 3rd respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthy For Respondents : Mr.K.Chellapandian Assistant Advocate General assisted by Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader for R3, R5 to R7 Mr.M.Rajendran CGSC for R1 Mr.C.Muthu Saravanan for R8 Mr.S.Suresh for Aiyar & Dolia for R9

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel for R1 & R2, the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 3, 5 to 7 and the learned counsel for the respondents 8 and 9.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 had given quarrying license to the respondent No.9 within 2.8 kms. radius of the Nuclear Power Station site at Koodankulam and therefore, the said license requires to be cancelled in public interest.

3. On notice, the respondents have entered appearance and have placed materials before this Court to show that the quarry license was given to the 9th respondent in respect of the area, which is 5.98 kms. from Koodankulam Nuclear Power Project and it is 2.9 kms. from the compound wall of the site.

4. Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthy drew our attention to G.O.Ms.No.829 dated 29.04.1991 and submitted that whenever any activity is to be

permitted by the revenue authorities within 2 to 5 kms. radius around the Nuclear Power Station, permission of the Project Local committee should have to be obtained, whereas, in this case, such a permission has not been obtained.

5. In the opinion of this Court, the necessity to obtain clearance from the Koodankulam Project Local Committee would arise only where the proposed activity falls within the radius of 2 to 5 kms. and not beyond it. That apart, the revenue authorities had written to the Project Director of Koodankulam Project seeking his permission, for which, the Project Director, by communication dated 02.12.2019, has stated as follows:

"This is to inform you that Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project NPCIL, do not have any objection regarding granting of permission for quarry lease at location mentioned in the letter referred above."

6. In such view of the matter, this petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed and the interim order of injunction stands vacated. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar () // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) RR To 1.The Secretary to Government of India, Union of India Department of Atomic Energy Anushakti Bhavan Chatrapathi Shivaji Maharaj Marg, Mumbai 400 001 Maharashtra 2.The Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Niyamak Bhavan, Anushaktinagar Mumbai - 400 094 Maharashtra.

3.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu Public Works Department Fort St. George, Chennai.

4.The Chairman, The State level Environment Impact, Assessment Authority (SEIAA) 3rd Floor, Panagal Maaligai No.I, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai.

5.The Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai.

6.The District Collector, Department of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai.

7.The Deputy Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli 8.The Chairman Koodangulam Project Local Committee, Nuclear Power Corporation Jawahar Street, Ramavarmapuram Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

+1 CC to Mr.T.CIBI CHAKRABORTHY, Advocate ( SR-10132[F] dated 05/03/2020 ) +1 CC to SPL.GP ( SR-10183[F] dated 05/03/2020 ) +1 CC to Mr.C.MUTHUSARAVANAN, Advocate ( SR-10127[F] dated 05/03/2020 ) +1 CC to Mr.AIYAR&DOLIA, Advocate ( SR-10321[F] dated 06/03/2020 ) +1 CC to Mr.N.DILIP KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-10394[F] dated 06/03/2020 ) Order made in W.P.(MD)No.2081 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.2922 and 2925 of 2020 04.03.2020 VB(11.03.2020) 4P 14C