Disposed

Thangaraj v. the District Collector

Madras HC16 Feb 2018WP(MD)/14024/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public Interest Litigation challenging stone quarry operations near residential areas. The court found that quarry licenses had expired or been suspended, making the petition obsolete. It directed officials to ensure strict compliance with environmental norms for future licenses.

What did the court decide?

No costs. Registry to mark a copy to the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority.

Thangaraj Vs the District Collector — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :16.02.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶5

W.P(MD)No.14024 of 2016

¶6

Thangaraj .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District. 2.The Assistant Director, Geology and Mining Department, Thoothukudi District. 3.The Tahsildar, Srivaikundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

¶7

4.S.Shanmugavel 5.Sarojini Muthammal

¶8

(R4 & R5 are impleaded vide Court order dated 11.10.2017 in W.M.P(MD)Nos.11371 of 2016 and 15234 of 2017) .. Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.11.2015 and to hold an enquiry to stop the usage of explosives in stone quarries situated at Survey Nos.427/1C1, 427/1C2, 426/1A1 & 426/1B situated at Kattamangalam Village, Srivaikundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.AK.Baskarapandian, Special Government Pleader For R-4 : Mr.S.Siva Ilayaraja

¶11

ORDER

¶12

[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.]

¶13

By consent, the main Writ Petition itself, is taken up for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ final disposal.

¶14

¶15

The present Writ Petition styled as a 'Public Interest Litigation', is filed by the petitioner alleging that on account of the location of stone quarries in Survey Nos.427/1C1, 427/1C2, 426/1A1 & 426/1B situated at Kattamangalam Village, Srivaikundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District, the residents as well as the School and College going students are put to extreme hardship and difficulty and there is a danger of sustaining injuries at the time of blasting of rocks and that apart, there is also a heavy movement of lorries, which are carrying the quarried materials, which are also causing difficulty and therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 02.11.2015, praying to the concerned officials, to hold an enquiry and to stop the usage of explosives in the above said stone quarries.

¶16

The Writ Petition was entertained on 04.08.2016 and

¶17

notices were ordered.

¶18

The first respondent, namely, the District Collector, Thoothukudi District, has sent a communication dated Nil.10.2017, to the Special Government Pleader of this Court and it is relevant to extract the tabular column:

¶19

S I . N o	Name and address of lessee	S.F.No. Extent village Taluk District	Clas sifi cati on	Collecto r Proceedi ngs No and Date	Lease From	Per	iod To	From	Remarks
1 .	Thiru.S.Sha nmugavel, S/o.(Late) Sivasamy, residing at Door No.1/136, Church Street, Kattalankul am Village, Thoothukudi	426/1B 0.81.0 Hects Kattalankula m (V) Thoothukudi (T)	Patt a	G.M.1/28 2/10 dt.31.12 .2010	31.12. 10	20	30.1 15	2.20	Quarry Lease expired

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

2 . Thiru.S.Sha nmugavel, S/o.(Late) Sivasamy, residing at Door No.1/136, Church Street, Kattalankul am Village, Thoothukudi	426/1A1 2.00.0 Hects Kattalankula m (V) Thoothukudi (T)	Patt a	G.M.1/MN /16/11 dt.13.07 .2011	13.07.20 11	12.07.20 16	Quarry Lease expired
3 . Thiru.S.Sha nmugavel, S/o.(Late) Sivasamy, residing at Door No.1/136, Church Street, Kattalankul am Village, Thoothukudi	418/1A (P) 3.80.0 Hects Kattalankula m (V) Thoothukudi (T)	Patt a	G.M.1/11 4/2013 dt.02.06 .2014	02.06.20 14	01.06.20 19	Quarry suspend ed due to want of clearan ce from NBWL
4 . Thiru.V.Mut hukumar S/o.Vedhamu thud Door No.18B, North Dooveypuram 10^th Street, V.V.D.Road, Thoothukudi	427/1C1, 427/1C2 & 427/1C3B 2.25.5 Hects Kattalankula m (V) Thoothukudi (T)	Patt a	G.M.1/51 9/10 dt.30.04 .2012	30.04.20 12	29.04.20 17	Quarry Lease expired

¶23

A perusal of the Tabular Column would disclose that in respect of Serial Nos.1, 2 and 4, the quarry licence granted in favour of the fourth respondent had expired and insofar as Serial No.3 in respect of Survey.No.418/1A(P) admeasuring to an extent of 3.80.0 hectares is concerned, licence has been suspended for want of clearance from the National Board for Wildlife and insofar as Serial No.4, in respect of Survey Nos.427/1C1, 427/1C2 & 427/1C3B, admeasuring to an extent of 2.25.5 hectares is concerned, the quarry licence granted in favour of one V.Muthukumar, got expired https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and as on today, no quarrying operation is going on.

¶24

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent would submit that after complying with all the formalities, licence was granted and he is also having Explosive Licence and it would expire on 31.03.2020 and would further add that similar complaint was also given to the District Collector, Thoothukudi District and it was forwarded to the third respondent, who after conducting enquiry had sent a communication dated 08.01.2016 in e.f.vz; .M4/16578/2015 stating that within the prohibited distance of 600 metres from the quarry, no houses are located and the Adaikalapuram tenement is about 600 metres away from the quarry and in the event of blasting of rocks, no hindrance or inconvenience will be caused to the residents of the locality and enquiry was also conducted along the Assistant Director of Mining and Geology and it revealed that some third parties, who is having house sites near the above said quarries have submitted these kind of representations.

¶26

Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, would submit that as on today, no quarrying operation is going on in the aforesaid lands and as such, the grievance expressed by the petitioner has properly been addressed.

¶27

This Court heard the rival submissions and perused the materials placed before it.

¶28

In the light of the fact that out of three quarry licences granted in favour of the fourth respondent, two licences got expired and one licence has been suspended for want of clearance from the 'National Board for Wildlife' and the typed set of documents filed on behalf of the fourth respondent also would disclose that the Environmental Clearance has been accorded by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority on 17.10.2013.

¶29

In the light of the subsequent developments, nothing survives for further adjudication in this writ petition. However, in the event of granting any licence in future either to the fourth respondent or to any other person, the concerned official respondents, shall ensure the strict compliance of the relevant norms and regulations and also cause periodical inspection as to the compliance of the relevant norms and regulations, for grant of licence.

¶30

This Court has come across very many such Clearances accorded by the State Level Environment Assessment Authority and this Court is of the considered view that a more detailed order should be passed considering the nature of the project, incorporating the location of the area and the impact.

¶31

The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Costs.

¶32

¶33

The Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to 'the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Chennai', also.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Assistant Registrar(AD-I)

¶36

/True Copy/

¶37

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶38

¶39

1.The State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, 3^rd Floor, Panagal Maaligai, No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai-15. 2.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District.

¶40

3.The Assistant Director, Geology and Mining Department, Thoothukudi District. 4.The Tahsildar, Srivaikundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

¶41

+1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No. 49905 +1cc to M/S.D.Venkatesh, Advocate SR.No. 49493 +1cc to M/S.S.Siva Ilayaraja, Advocate SR.No. 49161

¶42

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.14024 of 2016 16.02.2018 pm

¶43

JM/SV MMS/SAR 1/28.02.2018/5P/8C

¶44

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

Thangaraj v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thangaraj v. the District Collector

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

The District Collector Vs O.M.Kamala

R.Irudhayaraj Vs the District Collector

C.Periyasamy, Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep by Its

R.Paramasivam, Vs the Commissioner

L.Thangapandi, Vs the District Collector

G.Bibin Gnanakumar Vs Hindustan Petroleum