Dismissed

Baskaran.J v. the Dist.Collector

Madras HC21 Apr 2021WP(MD)/8126/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court at Madurai dismissed a public interest litigation filed by an advocate alleging severe pollution by an industry. The bench closed the petition for lack of specificity and vagueness, directing the petitioner to conduct further research and submit a comprehensive representation before seeking legal recourse.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to do further research and seek legal recourse after submitting a comprehensive representation.

Baskaran.J Vs the Dist.Collector — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.8126 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.04.2021 CORAM :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI W.P.(MD) No.8126 of 2021

¶5

Lr.J.Baskaran .. Petitioner

¶6

¶7

The District Collector, Collectorate Building, Thoothukudi District.

¶8

The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District.

¶9

The Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board, C7, SIPCOT, Industrial Complex, Thoothukudi District.

¶10

The South India Bromine and allied chemical Pvt Ltd.,

¶11

Rep. by Director.

¶12

Michale Metha. .. Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 17.02.2020 for initiate necessary action against the 4th respondent.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Moorthy For respondents : Mr.N.Shanmuga Selvam Additional Government for R1 to R3

¶15

ORDER

¶16

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

¶17

The petitioner, who is a practising Advocate in Thoothukudi, has filed this writ petition as a public interest litigation targeted against the fourth respondent-Industry, alleging that the fourth respondent-Industry is causing severe pollution in the locality.

¶18

The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is bereft of particulars and the representation also is absolutely vague. The writ petitioner, being a lawyer should have done some more research before he ventures to file a public interest https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ litigation against an industry.

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

W.P.(MD)No.8126 of 2021

¶21

Furthermore, it is stated that the fourth respondentindustry has been functioning for several years in the same place. Thus, on the given facts, we are not convinced to entertain this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is closed, giving liberty to the petitioner to do further research in the matter and after giving a comprehensive representation and allowing reasonable time to the officials to act on the representation only the petitioner can seek for any legal recourse.

¶22

With the above observation, the writ petition is closed. No costs.

¶23

Assistant Registrar (P&A)

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

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 .

¶26

To:

¶27

The District Collector, Collectorate Building, Thoothukudi District.

¶28

The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District.

¶29

The Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board, C7, SIPCOT, Industrial Complex, Thoothukudi District.

¶30

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-17170[F] dated 22/04/2021 )

¶31

ES(CO) KB(12.05.2021) 2P 5C

¶32

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

¶33

Page 2 of 2

Baskaran.J v. the Dist.Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baskaran.J v. the Dist.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 Branch Manager, Vs the Minimum Wages Act Authority

Vandiyoor Sri Nachiyarammal Vagaira Religious Endowment Vs the Special Commissioner and Commissioner

M/S.Zubana Leathers Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Chief Manager

S.Manikannan Vs the District Collector

M/S.Sswana Motors Vs M/S.City Union Bank Ltd.

Dharmar Vs The District Collector