Disposed

M.Saravanan, v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC25 Mar 2024WP/35211/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging a District Collector's order cancelling a Grama Sabha resolution against a sago factory, the High Court, after noting the lack of statutory basis for such a Resolution and the environmental clearance obtained, found no cause to interfere at that stage and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; no order as to costs; connected WMPs closed.

M.Saravanan, Vs the State Rep. by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP No.35211 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 25.03.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

WP No.35211 of 2023

M.Saravanan

: Petitioner

versus

1.The State rep. By District Collector, Salem District

¶13

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Attur Taluk, Salem District

¶14

3.The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Salem District

¶15

4.The Block Development Officer, Thalaivasal Panchayat Union, Attur Taluk, Salem District

¶16

5.The Panchayat President, Kattukottai Panchayat, Thalaivasal Panchayat Union, Attur Taluk, Salem District

¶17

6.Jayaprasanth

¶18

: Respondents

¶19

Page 1 of 8

¶20

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

¶21

WP No.35211 of 2023

¶22

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 20.10.2023 of the 1^st respondent under reference No.336/2023/A7 dated 20.10.2023 and quash the same.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.A.E.Ravichandran For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.C.Kathiravan, Special Government Pleader For Respondent No.6 : Mr.P.Chandrasekar

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶26

We have heard Mr.A.E.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.C.Kathiravan, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.P.Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the sixth respondent.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grama sabha of the Kattukottai Panchayat has passed a resolution thereby taking a decision not to allow the sago factory to be installed by the sixth respondent. The said resolution has been cancelled by the District Collector. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶28

Page 2 of 8

¶29

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

¶30

WP No.35211 of 2023

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grama

¶32

sabha has been endowed with power under the Constitution of India. Learned counsel referred to Article 243A of the Constitution to submit that grama sabha can exercise the powers.

¶33

The learned counsel further submits that the water in the village is over extracted and the same is not permissible. Because of the sago industries to be put up by the sixth respondent, the water would be contaminated. The District Collector, while setting aside the resolution of the grama sabha , did not even give notice to the sabha and did not hear them.

¶34

According to the learned counsel, the notification issued by the Ministry of Jal Sakthi, dated 24.09.2020 also provides that in over exploited assessment units, no objection certificate shall not be granted for ground water extraction to a new industry, except those falling in the category of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises. This aspect has also not been considered. The learned counsel submits that

¶35

the very purpose of all the villagers coming together was to avoid contamination and pollution of water which would be a menace to the

¶36

Page 3 of 8

¶37

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

¶38

WP No.35211 of 2023

¶39

whole village.

¶40

According to learned counsel for the sixth respondent, in Kattukottai Village, already ten sago factories are functioning, and in the entire Attur Taluk, about 80 sago factories are functioning. The sixth respondent has obtained necessary permission from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the test reports are placed on record. All these aspects are rightly considered. The petitioner is proceeding only against the sixth respondent, who is a fresh entrepreneur.

¶41

We have considered the submissions. Article 243A of the Constitution of India provides that a grama sabha may exercise such powers and perform such functions at the village level as the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide. The Legislature of the State has enacted the Panchayat Act. The grama sabha in a panchayat may perform such function as may be provided under the Panchayat Act. We asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to any provision under which grama sabha of the panchayat can pass such a resolution. No such resolution was pointed out.

¶42

Page 4 of 8

¶43

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

¶44

WP No.35211 of 2023

¶45

The sixth respondent has placed on record the consent

¶46

obtained from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to establish the

¶47

factory, so also the test reports. Such test reports are placed on record.

¶48

Certainly, the villagers have every right to agitate in case the establishment of a factory is causing environmental hazards and polluting the water and/or causing such other pollution. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has already given its consent to the sixth respondent to establish a sago factory. Operation of the said factory would be after necessary permissions are obtained.

¶49

If an authority grants permission after following the due process of law, then the same cannot be a subject-matter of challenge and if, according to the villagers, the establishment of a factory would cause environmental hazard, they can approach the Green Tribunal in that regard.

¶50

The District Collector has observed that necessary permissions have been obtained by the sixth respondent and the

¶51

Page 5 of 8

¶52

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

¶53

WP No.35211 of 2023

¶54

provisions of law are being adhered to.

¶55

We also fail to understand as to why the petitioner is not proceeding against the other sago factories under the same panchayat and only wants to proceed against the sixth respondent. On that ground also, the bona fides of the petitioner is questioned by the respondents.

¶56

Be that as it may; considering the above said factual matrix, we are not inclined to pass any order, as on date.

¶57

The writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, WMP Nos.35197 and 35200 of 2023 are closed.

¶58

(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 25.03.2024 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No tar

¶59

Page 6 of 8

¶60

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

¶61

WP No.35211 of 2023

¶62

¶63

1.The District Collector, Salem District

¶64

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Attur Taluk, Salem District

¶65

3.The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Salem District

¶66

4.The Block Development Officer, Thalaivasal Panchayat Union, Attur Taluk, Salem District

¶67

5.The Panchayat President, Kattukottai Panchayat, Thalaivasal Panchayat Union, Attur Taluk, Salem District

¶68

Page 7 of 8

¶69

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

¶70

WP No.35211 of 2023

¶71

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

(tar)

WP No.35211 of 2023

25.03.2024

Page 8 of 8

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

M.Saravanan, v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Saravanan, v. the State Rep. by

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

Murali Vs The District Collector

R.Ramesh Kumar, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Arockiaraj Vs the Authorized Officer

A.T.Sakthivel Vs Mr.Sravan Kumar Jatauth

Anitha Vs Dr.a.Arun Thamburaj ,Ias

Vignesh Vs the Deputy Director Health Officer