Dismissed

T.Ajithkumar v. The Principal secretary

Madras HC8 Mar 2022WP/5167/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a writ petition challenging the renewal of no objection certificates for groundwater extraction by two water companies, the Court found the petition suffered from laches due to delay and lack of bona fide public interest. It dismissed the writ for want of merit, holding no illegality was established.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; G.S. was directed; consequential MPNs closed; No costs.

T.Ajithkumar Vs The Principal secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.03.2022 CORAM :

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

W.P.No.5167 of 2022

¶7

T.Ajithkumar .. Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Principal Secretary,

¶10

Water Resources Department, Secretariat, St. George Fort,

¶11

Chennai.

¶12

2.The Chief Engineer,

¶13

State Ground & Surface Water

¶14

Resources Data Centre,

¶15

Water Resources Department, Taramani, Chennai-600 113.

¶16

3.The Engineer-in-chief,

¶17

Water Resources Department and Chief Engineer (General),

¶18

Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶19

4.The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.

¶20

5.The Executive Engineer (PWD) (WRO), Hydrology Division, Tiruchirapalli.

¶21

6.The District Environmental Engineer, Pollution Control Board, No.4/326, RTO office, Trichy Main Road, Ariyalur District-621 713.

¶22

7.The Assistant Director (Geology), Geological Sub Division, Trichy.

¶23

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

¶24

8.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.

¶25

9.The Revenue Inspector, Taluk Office, Sendurai, Ariyalur District.

¶26

10.The Block Development Officer, Block Development Office, Sendurai Block, Sendurai, Ariyalur District.

¶27

11.J.Murugesan, Panchayat President, Ananthavadi Village, Sendurai Block & Taluk, Ariyalur District.

¶28

12.M/s.Sathya Packaged Drinking Water, No.1/213A, Ananthavadi Road, Keelarayampuram, Sendurai Block & Taluk, Ariyalur District - 621 718.

¶29

13.M/s.MR Aqua Industries, No.5/17A, Ananthavadi Village, Sendurai Block & Taluk, Ariyalur District-621 718. .. Respondents

¶30

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus directing the second respondent to call for the records pertaining to the impugned orders issued in favour of the 12th respondent vide proceeding dated 21.04.2020 Lr.No.OT.9/G-31204/RenewalNOC/Trichy/2020 & 13th respondent vide proceeding dated 28.11.2020 Lr.No.OT.8/AG-385/NOC/Trichy/2020 and quash the same as illegal and further direct the second respondent to implement the Consolidated guidelines-2011 and further consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.11.2021.

¶31

For the Petitioner : M/s.R.Selvakkodi

¶32

For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 10

¶33

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

¶34

ORDER

¶35

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

¶36

This writ petition has been filed to challenge the renewal of no objection certificate issued in favour of the 12th respondent, as also the no objection certificate issued in favour of the 13th respondent for drawal and transportation of the groundwater for packaging.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no objection certificate has been granted to the 13th respondent - M/s.MR Aqua Industries without verifying the feasibility for drawal and transportation of the groundwater of 40,000 LPD. As against the requirement of the firm for 1,00,000 LPD, the second respondent accepted and granted 40,000 LPD to the 13th respondent.

¶38

Learned counsel further submitted that the second respondent has renewed the no objection certificate in favour of the 12th respondent for drawal of the ground water for the quantity of 20,000 LPD. He added that this public interest litigation has been filed because after the renewal of the no objection certificate, the 12th respondent started working from 2021. Thus, a prayer is made to grant the relief as sought for in the writ petition.

¶39

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

¶40

The writ petition, challenging the renewal of no objection certificate by the order dated 21.04.2020 in favour of the 12th respondent, has been filed after a lapse of almost two years without justifying the delay. The aforesaid is only one part and, otherwise, it is in reference to the report on the feasibility for groundwater drawal and transportation clearance given in reference to the 13th respondent, namely M/s.MR Acqua Industries. Without any application for renewal of the no objection certificate, referring to the feasibility report of the 13th respondent, namely, M/s.MR Acqua Industries, the second respondent renewed the no objection certificate for the 12th respondent. The aforesaid is the second part.

¶41

We find the statement that the 12th respondent started working in the year 2021 on the issuance of the renewal of no objection certificate to be misleading. When this Court asked learned counsel for the petitioner to refer the relevant part of the affidavit indicating that the 12th respondent started working after the renewal of no objection certificate under challenge i.e. 21.04.2020, a reference of paragraph 18 onwards

¶42

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

¶43

was given, though it is not stated that the 12th respondent started working from the year 2021. This Court then invited the attention of learned counsel for the petitioner to paragraph 14 where a statement has been made that the 12th respondent was running water plant from 2015 onwards in the village of the petitioner and the 13th respondent commenced the water plant in 2020. The statement of fact in reference to the 12th respondent that it is working from 2021 runs counter to the affidavit of the petitioner. It is more so when challenge to the renewal of no objection certificate in favour of the 12th respondent was referred in reference to the feasibility report of the 13th respondent. The petitioner has tried to mix up the facts by referring to the feasibility report given in reference to the application of M/s.MR Acqua Industries to challenge it for respondent No.12 i.e. M/s.Sathya Packaged Drinking Water.

¶44

Taking the overall facts into consideration, we do not find that this is a bona fide public interest litigation. Rather, there is misleading statement of fact in the course of argument and otherwise, there is no illegality in the action of the second respondent. The 12th respondent is operating prior to 2015 itself as per the averment in the petition, but challenge to its working has been made in reference to the renewal of no objection certificate in the year 2020 without justifying the delay. The writ petition, therefore, also suffers from laches.

¶45

In reference to the grant of No Objection Certificate to the 13th respondent, the respondent authorities after considering the feasibility granted such permission. The petitioner failed to produce any document to substantiate that the grant of permission was in violation of any provision or of law.

¶46

For all the reasons given above, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.5268, 5269 and 5270 of 2022 are closed.

¶47

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶48

//True Copy//

¶49

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶50

bbr

¶51

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

¶52

To:

¶53

1.The Principal Secretary,

¶54

Water Resources Department,

¶55

Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai.

¶56

2.The Chief Engineer,

¶57

State Ground & Surface Water Resources Data Centre, Water Resources Department, Taramani, Chennai-600 113.

¶58

3.The Engineer-in-chief,

¶59

Water Resources Department and Chief Engineer (General),

¶60

Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶61

4.The District Collector,

¶62

Office of the Collectorate, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.

¶63

5.The Executive Engineer (PWD) (WRO),

¶64

Hydrology Division, Tiruchirapalli.

¶65

6.The District Environmental Engineer,

¶66

Pollution Control Board,

¶67

No.4/326, RTO office, Trichy Main Road, Ariyalur District-621 713.

¶68

7.The Assistant Director (Geology),

¶69

Geological Sub Division, Trichy.

¶70

8.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.

¶71

9.The Revenue Inspector,

¶72

Taluk Office, Sendurai, Ariyalur District.

¶73

10.The Block Development Officer,

¶74

Block Development Office,

¶75

Sendurai Block, Sendurai,

¶76

Ariyalur District.

¶77

+1 cc to M/s.R.Selvakkodi, Advocate Sr.NO. 15344 +1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.NO. 15829

¶78

W.P.No.5167 of 2022

¶79

vbm(CO) A.SK(16/03/2022)

¶80

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

T.Ajithkumar v. The Principal secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Ajithkumar v. The Principal secretary

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

S.S.R.Samuvel Vs The District Collector

Narasimmabalan Vs Union of India

N.P.Bhashgaran Vs The Chief Secretary

Immaculate College of Education for Women Vs Pondicherry University

S.Thamarai Selvi Vs Kumar Jayant IAS

K. Srinivasan Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu