Disposed

M.Paramasivam, v. the District Collector

Madras HC3 Jun 2024WP/12316/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition alleging illegal livestock/meat processing causing pollution in Sivanmalai Village; court disposed of it by directing the District Collector to consider the representation dated 10.03.2024 on merits within eight weeks after hearing interested parties.

What did the court decide?

First respondent (District Collector) directed to consider representation dated 10.03.2024 and pass orders on merits within eight weeks after hearing interested parties.

M.Paramasivam, Vs the District Collector — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.12316 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03.06.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.R.MAHADEVAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

W.P.No.12316 of 2024

M.Paramasivam

.. Petitioner

1.The District Collector, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

¶12

2.The Deputy Director,

¶13

The Town and Country Planning, Kumaran Road,

¶14

Tiruppur District.

¶15

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District.

¶16

4.The Tahsildar, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.

¶17

Page 1 of 7

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P.No.12316 of 2024

¶20

5.The Divisional Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Tiruppur North, Tiruppur District.

¶21

6.The President, Sivanmalai Panchayat, Tiruppur District.

¶22

7.The Inspector,

¶23

Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Standards Authority, No.428-431, Office of District Collector, Tiruppur District.

¶24

8.The Assistant Executive Engineer, WRO, Aliyar Sub Division, Pongalur, Tiruppur District.

¶25

9.The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Union Office, Kangeyam, Tiruppur District.

¶26

10.M/s.Saks and Kaaviyas Agro Process Industries, rep. by its Partner Komarasamy, No.15/165, Nallipalayam Padiyur, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur. .. Respondents

¶27

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing respondents to forbear the 10^th respondent from the illegal running of his livestock processing business situated in Re.Survey No.906/1 Sivanmalai Village,

¶28

Page 2 of 7

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.No.12316 of 2024

¶31

Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District by considering the petitioner representation dated 10.3.2024.

¶32

For the Petitioner : Mr.K.Myilsamy For the Respondents : Mr.Karthik Jagannath Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 4 & 8

¶33

ORDER

¶34

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

¶35

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing respondent No.10 from illegally running the livestock processing business in Re.Survey No.906/1, Sivanmalai Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.

¶36

Mr.K.Myilsamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted

¶37

that respondent No.10 has involved in the business of meat processing of all kinds of animals, cattle and livestock such as cows, oxen, bulls, fish, pigs etc. in Re.Survey No.906/1, Sivanmalai Village, Kangeyam Taluk. He would submit that as part of their business, respondent No.10 is packaging, preserving, importing and exporting their

¶38

Page 3 of 7

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.No.12316 of 2024

¶41

processed products and due to operation of the meat processing business, several incidents of pollution arose in and around the village. In this regard, the villagers have submitted a representation on 10.03.2024 to the first respondent. Despite receipt of the said representation, the first respondent has not taken any action till date.

¶42

Mr.Karthik Jagannath, learned Government Advocate, who accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 and 8, on instructions, submitted that the first respondent will consider and pass orders on the representation dated 10.03.2024 on merits and in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to all concerned.

¶43

Recording the submission made by learned Government Advocate and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to consider the representation dated 10.03.2024 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to all the interested parties, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44

___________ Page 4 of 7_

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P.No.12316 of 2024

¶47

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

(R.M.D., ACJ.) (M.S.Q., J.)

¶49

03.06.2024

¶50

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No NC : Yes/No

¶51

bbr

¶52

To:

¶53

1.The District Collector, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

¶54

2.The Deputy Director, The Town and Country Planning, Kumaran Road, Tiruppur District.

¶55

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District.

¶56

4.The Tahsildar, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.

¶57

5.The Divisional Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Tiruppur North, Tiruppur District.

¶58

Page 5 of 7

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

W.P.No.12316 of 2024

¶61

6.The President, Sivanmalai Panchayat, Tiruppur District.

¶62

7.The Inspector,

¶63

Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Standards Authority, No.428-431, Office of District Collector, Tiruppur District.

¶64

8.The Assistant Executive Engineer, WRO,

¶65

Aliyar Sub Division, Pongalur, Tiruppur District.

¶66

9.The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Union Office, Kangeyam, Tiruppur District.

¶67

Page 6 of 7

¶68

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶69

W.P.No.12316 of 2024

¶70

THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.

bbr

W.P.No.12316 of 2024

03.06.2024

___________ Page 7 of 7_

¶75

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.Paramasivam, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Paramasivam, 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

T.Jothimalar Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Royal Sundaram Generation Insurance Company Vs Commissioner of Central Excise

C.Priyanga Vs The Secretary

Chief Educational Officer Vs K. Balu

The Director of School Education Vs K.Natarajan, Ma., M.Ed.

Raman Vs the Commissioner