Sundararajan.S.P.J v. The Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL W.P.(MD)No.30038 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)No.25923 of 2023 in W.P.(MD)No.30038 of 2023 S.P.J.Sundararajan : Petitioner Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Environment and Forests Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 60 009.
2.The Member of Secretary, Hill Area Conservation Authority, Office of the Commissioner of Town and Country Planning, 807, Anna Salai, Chennai.
3.The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, 76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
4.The Member Secretary, State Level Environment Impact
Assessment Authority, III Floor, Panagal Maligai, No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.
5.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
6.The District Forest Officer, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi.
7.The Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Collectorate, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
8.The Revenue Divisonal Officer, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
9.The Thasildar, Thoothukudi Taluk, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
10.S.P.S.Raja 11.M/s.Golden Blue Metals Private Limited, Pandaravilai, Eral Taluk, Thoothukudi District.
: Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents No.1 to 9 from granting any permission for Stone Quarry to and in favour of the respondent
No.10 or in favour of respondent No.11 herein or in favour of any one claiming through them with regard to the Land Comprised in Survey No. 450, 451, 452, 453 (under patta Number 3424) of Kattalangulam Village, Thoothukudi Taluk, Thoothukudi District and to cancel the permission for stone quarry, it is was already been granted and pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, Govt. Pleader for R1, R2 & R5 to R9 Ms.M.Sudharani for Ms.Vijayakumari Natarajan, Standing Counsel for R3 Mr.Y.Jagadeesh (Enrl.No.2264/11) for Mr.N.Dilipkumar for R4
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.] Captioned main 'Writ Petition' ('WP' for the sake of brevity) has been presented in this Court on 11.12.2023 and it has been presented as a 'Public Interest Litigation' ('PIL' for the sake of brevity).
2. Short facts shorn of granular particulars are that captioned WP pertains to an intended stone quarry in 'S.Nos.450, 451, 452 and 453 in Kattalangulam Village, Thoothukudi Taluk, Thoothukudi District' (hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of convenience and clarity); that said land is a private land ie., belonging to respondent No.10 (private
respondent); that the eleventh respondent which is a private limited company is intending to start a stone quarry in said land in an arrangement with the 10th respondent is PIL petitioner's say; that patta number for said land is Patta No.3424; that PIL petitioner is former president of Perungulam Town Panchayat in Thoothukudi District; that said land is situate within Perungulam Town Panchayat; that PIL petitioner has raised some objections turning on eco-sensitivity; that captioned PIL WP has been filed with a mandamus prayer qua respondents 1 to 9 for forbearing the official respondents 1 to 9 as regards grant of permission for stone quarry in favour of respondents 10 and 11 in said land.
3. In the Admission Board hearing, Mr.V.Kannan, learned counsel on record for PIL petitioner reiterated the aforementioned facts. Learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to a representation dated 11.01.2023 sent by PIL petitioner to all the official respondents. This 11.01.2023 representation sent by the PIL petitioner shall be referred to as 'said representation' for the sake of convenience and clarity. Learned counsel submitted that said representation is very comprehensive and very many points turning on eco-sensitivity have been raised.
4. Issue notice to official respondents.
5. Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, learned Government Pleader, State of Tamil Nadu, accepts notice for respondents 1, 2 and 5 to 9. Ms.M.Sudharani, learned counsel representing Ms.Vijayakumari Natarajan, learned Standing Counsel for 'Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board' ('TNPCB for the sake of brevity) accepts notice for third respondent. Mr.Y.Jagadeesh (Enrol.No. 2264/11), learned counsel representing Mr.N.Dilipkumar, learned Standing Counsel for 'State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority' ('SLEIAA' for the sake of brevity) submits that Mr.N.Dilipkumar accepts notice for fourth respondent and he would be representing Mr.Dilipkumar in the hearing.
6. As the hearing progressed, it came to light that captioned matter turns on a narrow compass. It also came to light that captioned main WP and 'Writ Miscellaneous Petition' ('WMP' for the sake of brevity) thereat can be disposed of by putting in a safety valve as regards respondents 10 and 11 (private respondents). This is being mentioned as we are acutely conscious that we are taking up the main WP in the Admission Board without respondents 10 and 11 (private respondents are not before us).
7. In the aforementioned scenario in the Admission Board hearing, main WP and captioned WMP thereat are taken up and heard out with the consent of both sides.
8. The reason for us to record that the captioned main WP and captioned WMP turn on a narrow compass is the fair stand taken by learned counsel for PIL petitioner. Learned counsel for PIL petitioner adverting to said representation (representation dated 11.01.2023) submitted that it will suffice if his representation is considered by SLEIAA before passing final orders and if there is a direction in the nature of a caveat to seventh respondent who is to grant permission / license for stone quarry that permission for stone quarry shall be granted only after receipt of clearance from SLEIAA.
9. Before we proceed further, we deem it appropriate to record the stated position of official respondents. Official respondents submits that the process of grant of stone quarry permission / license to respondents 10 and 11 has passed through various tiers and it is now pending with SLEIAA (4th respondent before us). It was also pointed out that SLEIAA is a
independent body and that it would consider all aspects of ecology and environment before grant of clearance if that be so.
10. As regards the safety valve qua respondents 10 and 11 (private respondents) we would be making it clear that SLEIAA shall give an opportunity to respondents 10 and 11 to meet various points that have been raised by PIL petitioner in said representation ie., representation dated 11.01.2023.
11. In the light of the narrative discussion and dispositive reasoning thus far the following order is made:
a) the fourth respondent viz., State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority shall take a decision as regards clearance for grant of stone quarry permission / license in said land ie., S.Nos.450, 451, 452 and 453 in Kattalangulam Village, Thoothukudi Taluk, Thoothukudi District (Patta No.3424) after fully considering said representation of PIL petitioner. To be noted, for the sake of convenience, we deem it appropriate
to extract and reproduce the said representation ie., representation dated 11.01.2023 and the same is as follows:
b) the fourth respondent ie., SLEIAA while considering the aforementioned representation shall give adequate and ample opportunity to respondents 10 and 11 (private respondents) to meet all the points that have been raised in the said representation;
c) The fourth respondent ie., SLEIAA shall consider the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law and all that we have said is the said representation of PIL petitioner shall also be taken into account in addition to other parameters / determinants while taking a decision regarding clearance;
d) Though obvious for the sake of abundant clarity and specificity, we make it clear that we are not expressing any view or opinion on the merits of the matter and the floor is clear for SLEIAA to decide on clearance on its own merits and in accordance with law albeit taking into account the said representation ie., 11.01.2023 representation in the aforesaid
manner, after giving adequate opportunity to respondents 10 and 11. This Court is informed that all clearance of fourth respondent ie., SLEIAA are uploaded in its official website and the same will obviously apply to the case on hand. Though obvious in the light of provisions of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, we make it clear that grant of permission / license for stone quarry in said land by seventh respondent (if that be so) shall be post clearance by SLEIAA.
12. Captioned WP is disposed of in the aforesaid manner with the aforesaid limited directives and preservation of rights in the aforementioned manner. Consequently captioned WMP is also disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
[M.S.,J.] & [R.S.V.,J.] 18.12.2023 Index : Yes vsm
To 1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Environment and Forests Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 60 009.
2.The Member of Secretary, Hill Area Conservation Authority, Office of the Commissioner of Town and Country Planning, 807, Anna Salai, Chennai.
3.The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, 76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
4.The Member Secretary, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, III Floor, Panagal Maligai, No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.
5.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
6.The District Forest Officer, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi.
7.The Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Collectorate, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
8.The Revenue Divisonal Officer, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
9.The Thasildar, Thoothukudi Taluk, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
M.SUNDAR, J.
and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
vsm W.P.(MD)No.30038 of 2023 18.12.2023