Ramachandran.K v. The Chairman
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P(MD)Nos. 19269 of 2021 & 812 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos. 16023 of 2021 & 657 of 2022 K.Ramachandran .. Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 19269/21 Rev.A.Michaelsamy S/o. Amirtham, The Correspondent of Christ the King CBSE Public School, Assisipuram - Nedungur Post - 621 105, Lalgudi Taluk, Thiruchirappalli District. .. Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 812/22 Vs 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, No.76, Annasalai, Lake View Colony, Guindy, Chennai.
Tamil Nadu - 600 032.
2.The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, No.25, Sidco. Industrial Area, Thiruchirapalli - 15.
3.The District Collector, Thiruchirapalli, 4.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Lalgudi Taluk, 5.The Village Administrative Officer, Village Administrative Office, Neikulam Village, Lalgudi Taluk, Thiruchirapali District.
1/3
6.The District Forest Officer, District Forest Office, Backside to District Court, 7.The Proprietor, Coimbatore Minerals M Sand Unit III, Neikulam Village, Lalgudi Taluk, .. Respondents in both writ petitions Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of mandamus directing the first respondent to cancel the consent order No.2101136098768 dated 02.01.2021 issued by the second respondent and direct the fourth respondent stop the construction work of seventh respondent. For Petitioner (in both WPs) : Mr.Milton Arul Rajendran J For Respondents (in both WPs) : Ms.Vijayakumari Natarajan for R1, R2 : Mr.K.Balasubramani, Special Government Pleader for R3 to R6 : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy for R7 COMMON ORDER [Made by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.] These two petitions are styled as public interest litigation. 2.
The petitioners are different but the contesting respondent is the same and the grievance is also the same. 3.
During the course of hearing, learned Special Government Pleader and the learned advocate for the State Pollution Control Board have, on the basis of their instructions / counter submitted that, no violation is noticed by them in the functioning of the seventh respondent.
4.
The matter could be taken up for hearing on merits, keeping the above aspect in view, however, learned advocate for the petitioner at this stage has requested that, the petitioner would like to approach other forum, as may be available, such as National Green Tribunal etc. To enable the petitioner to keep that option open, if he wishes, these petitions are not examined further. 2/3
5.
These writ petitions stand disposed of in above terms, with liberty as noted above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions would not survive. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P & A) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) ssm/12 To 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, No.76, Annasalai, Lake View Colony, Guindy, Chennai. Tamil Nadu - 600 032.
2.The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, No.25, Sidco. Industrial Area, Thiruchirapalli - 15. 3.The District Collector, Thiruchirapalli,Thiruchirapalli District.
4.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Lalgudi Taluk, 5.The Village Administrative Officer, Village Administrative Office, Neikulam Village, Lalgudi Taluk, Thiruchirapali District.
6.The District Forest Officer, District Forest Office, Backside to District Court, +6 CC to M/s.J.MILTON ARUL RAJENDRAN, Advocate ( SR-11630 & 11629[F] dated 11/03/2022 ) +2 CC to M/s.VIJAYAKUMARI NATARAJAN, Advocate ( SR-11779 & 11780[F] dated 14/03/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-11832 & 11831[F] dated 14/03/2022 ) +2 CC to M/s.T.LAJAPATHI ROY, Advocate ( SR-12029 & 12023[F] dated 15/03/2022 ) W.P(MD)Nos. 19269 of 2021 and 812 of 2022 11.03.2022 TR(23.03.2022) 3P 18C 3/3