Disposed

South Indian Fishermens Welfar v. The Secretary to Govt.

Madras HC4 Jun 2015WP/15147/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking action against the third respondent for air and noise pollution. Counsel for the second respondent (TNPCB) undertook to issue a show-cause notice and decide within two months. The court accepted the statement and disposed of the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by accepting the response of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to issue a notice within two months.

South Indian Fishermens Welfar Vs The Secretary to… — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 04.06.2015

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Honourable Mr.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE and The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition No.15147 of 2015

¶6

South Indian Fishermen's Welfare Association represented by its President No.97, Kamarajar Salai, Nochikuppam, Mylapore, Chennai 600004. ... Petitioner

¶7

Versus 1.The Secretary to Government Environment Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

¶8

2.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, No.76, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

¶9

3.G.Rameshkumar Proprietor, A.L.Jewellers No.49, Venkatachalam Street, Royapuram, Chennai 600 013. .. Respondents.

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent to take action on the petitioner's representation dated 04.08.2014 for causing air and noise pollution by the 3^rd respondent Unit within a time frame.

¶11

For Petitioner ::: Mr.L.Chandrakumar

¶12

for M/s. N.R. Jasmine Padma

¶13

For Respondents ::: Mr.S.T.S.Murthy

¶14

Government Pleader for R.1 Ms. Rita Chandrasekaran for R.2 Mr.S.Arivazhagan for R.3

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

(The Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice)

¶18

The petitioner seeks action against the third respondent for the air and noise pollution caused by the unit of the third respondent, who is stated to be engaged in the business of making gold ornaments on a large scale. A representation has already been made by the petitioner on 04.08.2014 to the second respondent/Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.

¶19

Learned counsel for the TNPCB states that show cause notice has been issued to the third respondent and a decision in accordance with law will be taken after notice to all concerned within a maximum period of two months from today.

¶20

The aforesaid statement is taken on record and the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ksr Copy to: 1.The Secretary to Government Environment Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, No.76, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

¶21

+1cc to M/s. N.R.Jasmine Padma, Advocate, S.R.No.26891 +1cc to M/s. Ritachandrasekaran, Advocate, S.R.No.27309 + 1 cc to Mr. S. Arivazhagan, Advocate Sr.26991 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.26834 VD(CO) EU(17/06/2015)

¶22

W.P.No.15147 of 2015

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

South Indian Fishermens Welfar v. The Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

South Indian Fishermens Welfar v. The Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Federation of Associations of Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Rajashree Age 42 Years Vs Union of India

M.Sivaramalingam Vs The Commissioner

A.Marimuthu, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Raj Kumar, Vs The Secretary

Hutsun Agro Product Limited Vs P.Rajaram