Allowed

Gunasekaran Ponmani v. the District Collector

Madras HC11 Jun 2021WP(MD)/5191/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition alleged illegal running of a Plastic Grinding Unit without consent. The court treated the allegation serious, ordered inspection compliance, and directed the respondent to stop operations until obtaining necessary consent from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and other requisite licenses.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 7th respondent not to operate the unit unless and until obtained the order of consent from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and other requisite licence from statutory authorities.

Gunasekaran Ponmani Vs the District Collector — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.[MD]No.5191 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.06.2021 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI W.P.[MD]No.5191 of 2021 and W.MP(MD).No.4166 of 2021

¶4

Gunasekaran Ponmani ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector Tirunelveli District Tirunelveli 2.The Tahsildar Thisaiyanvilai Taluk Tirunelveli District 3.The District Environmental Engineer Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board No.30/2, SIDCO Industrial Estate Pettai, Tirunelveli 4.The Commissioner /Block Development Officer Radhapuram Panchayat Union Radhapuram Tirunelveli District 5.The Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Valliyoor Tirunelveli District 6.The Junior Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Rural Office Thisaiyanvilai Tirunelveli District 627 657 7.A.Murugesan ... Respondents

¶5

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent Nos.1 to 6 more particularly the 1^st respondent to take appropriate action on the 7^th respondent for illegally running a Plastic Grinding Unit in a property bearing Survey No.78/12 situated at Muthumothanmozhi Village, Thisaiyanvilai Taluk, Tirunelveli District and consequently, close the said Unit forthwith by considering his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶6

1/4

¶7

W.P.[MD]No.5191 of 2021

¶8

representation dated 08.01.2021 within a time frame as stipulated by this Court.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Palani Velayutham For Respondents 1,2 & 4: Mr.A.K.Manickam Standing Counsel for Government For Respondent 3 : Mr.S.Bagirathan For Respondents 5 & 6 : Mrs.S.Srimathy For Respondent 7 : Mr.J.Bharathan

¶10

ORDER

¶11

¶12

[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]

¶13

This writ petition, styled as a Public Interest Litigation, to take appropriate action against the 7^th respondent, who is alleged to have been running a Plastic Crushing Unit.

¶14

Several allegations have been made by the petitioner against the 7^th respondent, more particularly, that he has not obtained any order of consent from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. The report given to the authorities was taken note of by the 4^th respondent and he had directed the Block Development Officer and the Secretary of the Panchayat to cause inspection of the property and to submit a report. Since nothing happened thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶15

The 7^th respondent has entered appearance through counsel and submitted that the writ petition is purely a private interest litigation as there is an enmity and animosity between the petitioner and 7^th respondent in respect of the immovable property and a suit was filed in O.S.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif, Valliyoor, which is now culminated into an appeal in A.S.No.81 of 2019 on the file of the Sub Court, Valliyoor. Therefore, it is submitted that the entire allegation made against the 7^th respondent is on account of mala fide intention.

¶16

We are conscious of the fact that this writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation. Therefore, the role of the petitioner would stop at the point when he pointed out the illegality which is being committed, which in his opinion is against the public opinion, thereafter, it is the role of the Court. The Court is empowered to discharge the petitioner and yet proceed with the litigation. Therefore, we are not inclined to go into the controversy and the dispute between the petitioner and 7^th respondent, etc. What is required to be seen in the instant case is that whether the operation done by the 7^th respondent is authorized or not.

¶17

The counter affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent gives an aid/assistance to take a decision in the matter. The following averments in the counter would be relevant:

¶18

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

¶19

2/4

¶20

W.P.[MD]No.5191 of 2021

¶21

“3. I respectfully submit that the unit was inspected on 11.03.2021 by the AEE of this office and noticed that a unit by name M/s.Sivasakthi Traders involved in the crushing/grinding of waste plastics to plastic chips and being operated without the consent of Board under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as amended.

¶22

I respectfully submit that a show cause Notice was issued to the unit under the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, vide this office proceeding dated 15.03.2021.

¶23

I respectfully submit that the complaints were also addressed by this office letter dated 15.03.2021 on the action taken against the complaint petition.

¶24

I respectfully submit that the unit vide its reply dated 29.03.2021 has informed that the unit has stopped the operation and also informed that the unit will be operated only after obtaining the consent of the Board.”

¶25

In the light of the above, the 7^th respondent appears to have realized that he is required to have obtained necessary order of consent from the Pollution Control Board and for such reason, he has given a letter dated 29.03.2021 and stopped the operations and also stated that he will operate only after obtaining the consent. The counter affidavit has also mentioned about the equipment and machineries, which are used by the 7^th respondent and what are the type of establishments in and around the premises, which includes the school etc. It may not be necessary for us to go into all these aspects in the light of the stand taken by the 7^th respondent before the 3^rd respondent as stated in the counter affidavit.

¶26

Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition, directing the 7^th respondent not to operate unless and until he obtained an order of consent from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and other requisite licence from the statutory authorities. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar (CSI)

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶31

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

¶32

3/4

¶33

W.P.[MD]No.5191 of 2021

¶34

Note In view of the present lock down owing : to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. Ogy/msa To 1.The District Collector Tirunelveli District Tirunelveli 2.The Tahsildar Thisaiyanvilai Taluk Tirunelveli District 3.The District Environmental Engineer Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board No.30/2, SIDCO Industrial Estate Pettai, Tirunelveli 4.The Commissioner /Block Development Officer Radhapuram Panchayat Union Radhapuram Tirunelveli District 5.The Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Valliyoor Tirunelveli District 6.The Junior Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Rural Office Thisaiyanvilai Tirunelveli District 627 657 +1 CC to M/s.T.R.JEYAPALAM, Advocate ( SR-19254[F] dated 14/06/2021 )

¶35

ORDER	MADE IN
W.P.[MD]No.5191	of 2021
and W.MP(MD).No.4166	of 2021
11.	06.2021

¶36

GS (24.06.2021) 4P 8C

¶37

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

¶38

4/4

Gunasekaran Ponmani v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gunasekaran Ponmani 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 State of Tamilnadu, Vs a.Vellasamy

Sri Lakshmi Modern Rice Mill Vs the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal

Seenivasan.v.C Vs the Commissioner

Venkatesan.R Vs State of Tamilnadu

Sundaravel.a.M Vs the Principal Secretary

Sakthivel.K Vs the District Collector