Partly allowed

K.Arjunan v. the Chairman

Madras HC6 Oct 2023WP/29251/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted permission to the petitioner to quarry until 20.10.2023, recognizing his valid DEIAA clearance and Pollution Consent. The Court held the quarrying must cease after this date unless fresh clearances are obtained, as the order is co-terminus with the DEIAA validity.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to quarry till 20.10.2023 with transport permits; quarrying must cease thereafter without fresh clearances.

K.Arjunan Vs the Chairman — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.29251 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06.10.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU and

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA

¶7

W.P.No.29251 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.28860 of 2023

K.Arjunan

... Petitioner

The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, No.76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai 600 032

¶12

1. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, No.9, Jeenis Road,

¶13

Saidapet, Chennai 15

¶14

1. The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.

¶15

The Deputy Director, Salem District, Department of Geology and Mining, Salem.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

Page No.1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

PRAYER

¶19

W.P.No.29251 of 2023

¶20

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 4th respondent to permit the petitioner herein to carry on quarrying operation in the land measuring 4.99.00 Hec. comprised in Survey No.1/7 (Part -9) of Panamarathupatty Village, Salem Taluk and District, by issuing necessary transport permits until the date of expiry of environmental clearance obtained from the District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority vide Lr. No. DEIAA-DIA/TN/MIN15255/2018-SLM E.C.No.26/2018 dated 10.06.2018 i.e. 20.10.2023 without insisting environmental clearance appraised by SEIAA.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel, Senior Counsel for Mr.P.S.Prabhu For R-1 : Mrs.Shanumugavalli Sekar, Standing Counsel For R-2 : Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy, Standing Counsel For RR 3 & 4 : Mrs.Mythreye Chandru, Special Government Pleader

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

(The order of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J. )

¶24

The petitioner was granted quarry lease on 21.10.2018 and the same

¶25

___________ Page No.2 of 6_ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.No.29251 of 2023

¶27

was granted for a period of ten (10) years from 21.10.2018 to 20.10.2028. The Environmental clearance for the said project was granted by the District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA). The clearance that was granted was co~terminus with the grant of the lease i.e. the clearance is valid till 20.10.2023.

¶28

2.The petitioner submitted his application for Consent to Operate under The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the same came to be granted by the 1^st respondent vide Proceedings dated 30.07.2018 and renewed vide Consent Order dated 03.04.2023. In the meantime, the DEIAA was abolished and the power was vested with the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority. An order was passed by the National Green Tribunal in O.A.No.142 of 2022 directing all clearances given by DEIAA to be re~appraised by SEAC/SEIAA. This order was passed on 07.12.2022.

¶29

3.On account of the fact the re~appraisal was not done by the SEIAA,

¶30

___________ Page No.3 of 6_ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.No.29251 of 2023

¶32

the consent was not renewed.

¶33

On the above submissions, Mr.Srinivasamurthy, learned counsel

¶34

for the SEIAA submits that it will take minimum period of three (3) weeks for re-appraisal.

¶35

Mrs.Mythreye Chandru, learned Special Government Pleader drew the attention of this court to the proceedings dated 06.10.2023 whereby, the Deputy Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Collectorate, Salem, stated that issuing of transport permits are stopped to the writ petitioner in W.P.No.29252 of 2023/lessee until obtaining fresh Environmental Clearance (EC) from State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA).

¶36

In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submission of the petitioner that the 4^th respondent refused to issue transport permit for the petitioner's quarry despite holding a valid Environment Clearance as on date and necessary Consent to Operate from the 1^st

¶37

___________ Page No.4 of 6_ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.No.29251 of 2023

¶39

respondent, we permit the petitioner to quarry till 20.10.2023 for which he has a valid consent from the Pollution Control Board as well as from DEIAA. We make it clear that all the conditions stipulated by the Pollution Control Board and DEIAA must be strictly complied with.

¶40

If the petitioner applies for extension of lease, this order will not enure in his favour, for its co~terminus with the DEIAA approval i.e. till 20.10.2023. The petitioner will not be entitled to quarry after the said date without clearance from the Pollution Control Board and SEIAA and a valid lease.

¶41

This writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶42

(J.N.B., J.) (N.M., J.) 06.10.2023

¶43

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order sts/nvsri

¶44

Note:Issue order copy by 11/10/2023

¶45

___________ Page No.5 of 6_ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P.No.29251 of 2023

¶47

J.NISHA BANU, J., and N.MALA, J.,

¶48

nvsri

¶49

To:

¶50

1. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, No.76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai 600 032

¶51

1. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, No.9, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai 15

¶52

1. The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.

¶53

1. The Deputy Director, Salem District, Department of Geology and Mining, Salem.

¶54

Order made in W.P.No.29251 of 2023

¶55

Dated: 06.10.2023

¶56

___________ Page No.6 of 6_ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.Arjunan v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Arjunan v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Samuel Surendran Vs The Secretary to Government

K.Dhatchayani Vs the Commissioner

D.Jagannathan Vs K.Dhatchayani

K.Prakash Vs the Chairman

M.Senthilraj Vs the Chairman

P.Lakshmi Vs the Chairman