Disposed

S.Velu v. The District Collector

Madras HC27 Jul 2021WP/15402/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a petition seeking to stop shrimp hatchery construction alleging groundwater pollution. The court did not decide merits but directed official respondents to hear private respondents before passing orders on the complaint.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to submit fresh representations within two weeks; authorities must consider them and pass a speaking order within eight weeks after hearing both parties.

S.Velu Vs The District Collector — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 27.07.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶7

W.P.No.15402 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.16291 of 2021

¶8

S.Velu ... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.The District Collector, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu- 603001.

¶11

2.The Block Development Officer, Kanathur Village, Block Panchayat, Lathur @ Pavunjur- 603 312, Chengalpattu District.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar, Kanathur Village, Cheyyur Taluk, Cheyyur- 603 302, Chengalpattu District, 4.Member Secretary, Coastal Aquaculture Authority, 5th Floor, Nandanam, Chennai- 600 035.

¶13

5.The Member Secretary, Tamilnadu pollution Control Board, No.76 Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032.

¶14

6.The Village Panchayat, Koovathur Gram Panchayat, Cheyyur Taluk, Chengalpattu District.

7.Surej Naik

8.Manikavel

... Respondents

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to stop this illegal construction and direct the 2^nd and 5^th Respondent not to grant the permission for any shrimp hatchery unit in future.

¶19

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

For Petitioner

: Ms.B.Bhuvaneshvari

For Respondents

: Mr.P.Muthukumar Counsel for State for RR 1 to 5

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(Made by Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.)

¶26

The petitioner seeks to prevent the setting up of shrimp hatchery units at Kanathur Village, Chengalpattu District.

¶27

The petitioner states that persons residing in Kanathur Village are largely dependent on agriculture for their livelihood. For such purpose, ground water is relied upon by these villagers. It is alleged that the seventh and eighth respondents are constructing shrimp hatchery units in S.Nos.92 and 93 of Kanathur Village and that if such shrimp hatchery units are permitted to function, it would result in pollution of the ground water. Therefore, the petitioner submitted complaints to the District Collector and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, but no action has been taken thereon.

¶28

Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the State, accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 and states that the fourth respondent is the appropriate authority from a pollution control perspective and the second respondent with regard to any hatchery related construction activity. Therefore, he states that the aforesaid authorities would consider and dispose of representations from the petitioner.

¶29

Accordingly, without going into the merits of the matter, the petitioner is permitted to submit fresh representations to the Block Development Officer and the Member Secretary, Coastal Aquaculture Authority, in respect of the construction and pollution aspects respectively. Such representations shall be submitted within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the authority concerned is directed to consider such representation and dispose of the same by a speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing both to the petitioner and to the private respondents herein. In view of the fact that the official respondents have been directed to hear the private respondents before passing orders, the writ petition is being disposed of without notice to the private respondents herein.

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.15402 of 2021 is disposed of in these terms without any order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.16291 of 2021 is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶36

sra

¶37

¶38

1.The District Collector, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu- 603001.

¶39

2.The Block Development Officer, Kanathur Village, Block Panchayat, Lathur @ Pavunjur- 603 312, Chengalpattu District.

¶40

3.The Tahsildar, Kanathur Village, Cheyyur Taluk, Cheyyur-603 302, Chengalpattu District,

¶41

4.The Member Secretary,

¶42

Coastal Aquaculture Authority, 5th Floor, Nandanam, Chennai- 600 035.

¶43

5.The Member Secretary,

¶44

Tamilnadu pollution Control Board, No.76,

¶45

Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032.

¶46

6.The Village Panchayat,

¶47

Koovathur Gram Panchayat, Cheyyur Taluk,

¶48

Chengalpattu District.

¶49

+1cc to the Government Pleader (SR No.35940)

¶50

W.P.No.15402 of 2021

¶51

NRL (CO) PR (02/08/2021)

¶52

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

S.Velu v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Velu 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

K.R.Ramaswamy Vs Harmendra Sing

M. Vellingiri Vs the Authorized Officer

M/S.Annai Appliance Manufacturing P Ltd. Vs M/S.Canara Bank

P.Tanveer Ahmed Vs the Authorised Officer

V.K.P.Sakthivel Vs The Executive Director and Recovery

Ca.v.Venkata Sivakumar Vs The Honourable Registrar