Dismissed

S.P.J.Sundararajan v. a.R.Rahul Nadh IAS

Madras HC9 Aug 2024CONT P(MD)/1624/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt petition was filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act for alleged disobedience of an order in W.P(MD)No.30038 of 2023. The petitioner claimed environmental clearance was granted without considering their objections. The court found that since clearance was granted, there was no cause for contempt, though correctness remained open for separate challenge. The petition was d

What did the court decide?

Petitioner left to agitate correctness of clearance grant separately; contempt petition dismissed.

S.P.J.Sundararajan Vs a.R.Rahul Nadh IAS — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Cont.P(MD)No.1624 of 2024 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED : 09.08.2024

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶5

Cont.P(MD)No.1624 of 2024 in

¶6

W.P(MD)No.30038 of 2023

¶7

S.P.J.Sundararajan ... Petitioner/Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

Mr.A.R.Rahul Nadh, I.A.S., Member Secretary, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, III Floor, Panagal Maligai, No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet,

¶10

Chennai – 600 015. ... Contemnor/Respondent No.4

¶11

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act,

¶12

1971, to punish the contemnor/respondent No.4 for the willful disobedience and violating the orders of this Court in W.P(MD)No.30038 of

¶13

2023, dated 18.12.2023.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kannan For Respondent : Mr.N.Dilipkumar

¶15

_____________ Page 1 of 5_ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Cont.P(MD)No.1624 of 2024

¶18

[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]

¶19

Mr.N.Dilipkumar, learned counsel takes notice for the respondent.

¶20

2 . The complaint of the petitioner is that the order of this Court dated 18.12.2023 made in W.P(MD)No.30038 of 2023, has been disobeyed. Operative portion of the order dated 18.12.2023 reads as follows:

¶21

11. In the light of the narrative discussion and dispositive reasoning thus far the following order is made:

¶22

a) the fourth respondent viz., State Level Impact Assessment Authority shall take a decision as regards clearance for grant of stone quarry permission / license in said land ie., S.Nos.450, 451, 452 and 453 in Kattalangulam Village, Thoothukudi Taluk,Thoothukudi District (Patta No.3424) after fully considering said representation of PIL petitioner. To be noted, for the sake of convenience, we deem it appropriate to extract and reproduce the said representation ie.,representation dated 11.01.2023 and the same is as follows:

¶23

(Extract omitted)

¶24

Page 2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

Cont.P(MD)No.1624 of 2024

¶26

b) the fourth respondent ie., SLEIAA while considering the aforementioned representation shall give adequate and ample opportunity to respondents 10 and 11 (private respondents) to meet all the points that have been raised in the said representation;

¶27

c) The fourth respondent ie., SLEIAA shall consider the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law and all that we have said is the said representation of PIL petitioner shall also be taken into account in addition to other parameters / determinants while taking a decision regarding clearance;

¶28

d) Though obvious for the sake of abundant clarity and specificity, we make it clear that we are not expressing any view or opinion on the merits of the matter and the floor is clear for SLEIAA to decide on clearance on its own merits and in accordance with law albeit taking into account the said representation ie., 11.01.2023 representation in the aforesaid manner, after giving adequate opportunity to respondents 10 and 11. This Court is informed that all clearance of fourth respondent ie., SLEIAA are uploaded in its official website and the same will obviously apply to the case on hand. Though obvious in the light of provisions of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, we make it clear that grant of permission / license for stone quarry in said land by seventh respondent (if that be so) shall be post clearance by SLEIAA.

¶29

_____________ Page 3 of 5_ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

Cont.P(MD)No.1624 of 2024

¶31

¶32

3 . It is not in dispute that environmental clearance has been granted. It is the case of the petitioner that his objections have not been considered. Now that permission has been granted by the Environmental Clearance Authority, we find no cause for contempt. Hence, leaving it open to the petitioner to agitate the correctness of the grant, this contempt petition is dismissed.

¶33

[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]

¶34

09.08.2024

¶35

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes

¶36

¶37

¶38

The Member Secretary, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, III Floor, Panagal Maligai, No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶39

_____________ Page 4 of 5_ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

Cont.P(MD)No.1624 of 2024

¶41

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶42

¶43

Cont.P(MD)No.1624 of 2024

¶44

09.08.2024

¶45

_____________ Page 5 of 5_ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.P.J.Sundararajan v. a.R.Rahul Nadh IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.P.J.Sundararajan v. a.R.Rahul Nadh IAS

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

T.Lawrence, S/O. T.Thomas, Vs the Secretary to the-

C.P. Saravanakumar Vs the Secretary

S. Madasamy Vs the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.

S.Logesh Vs the State of Tamilnadu

M.Veerapandi Vs The District Collector

M.Jothi Vs The District Collector