Disposed

M/S Fomra Housing and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director v. the Member Secretary Tnpcb

NGT18 Dec 2020Original Application No. 38/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A construction company filed an application alleging a fish market caused environmental degradation in a residential zone. The Tribunal found no water or air pollution as waste was treated properly. It held the activity was not prohibited but directed authorities to monitor operations and adhere to pollution control recommendations.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 3rd respondent to adhere to TNPCB recommendations; direction to TNPCB and Corporation to monitor functioning; application disposed of with parties to bear respective costs.

M/S Fomra Housing and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2020)

¶1

Item No.5:

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Original Application No. 38 of 2019 (SZ)

¶4

(Through Video Conference)

¶5

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶6

M/s. FOMRA Housing and
Infrastructure Pvt. Limited.
Rep. by its Managing Director Mr. SharadFomra
Having its Office at
No.18, AA Block, 3 rd Street,
Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.
Versus
1) The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
No.76, Mount Salai, Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032.
2) The District Environmental Engineer, Ambattur
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
No.77 A South Avenue Road,
Ambattur Industrial Estate,
Chennai – 600 058.
3) C. Haridoss
S/o. Mr. Chandran
M/s. Sri Devi Karumari Fish Angaadi
No.1/30, Chettiyar Agaram Main Road,
Chettiyaragaram, Chennai - 600 077.
4) The District Collector,
Chennai District,
District Collectorate Office,
No.62, Rajaji Salai, 4 th Floor,
Chennai – 600 001.
5) The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Building, Chennai – 600 003.
[Respondents 4 & 5 impleaded as per
Order in I.A. No.28/2019(SZ) dt. 18.05.2020]

...Applicant(s)

...Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s):

Sri. Sai Sathya Jith.

¶11

[1]

¶12

For Respondent(s): Sri. C. Kasirajan through

¶13

M/s. Meena for R1, R2. Sri. K.S. Viswanathan for R3. Dr. V.R. Thirunarayanan for R4. Smt. P.T. Ramadevi through Sri. Raghul Adithya for R5.

¶14

Date of Judgment: 18^th December, 2020.

¶15

CORAM :

¶16

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶17

Whether the Judgement is allowed to be published on the Internet – Yes/No Whether the Judgement is to be published in the All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The above case has been filed by the applicant regarding the environmental degradation likely to be caused on account of the operation of a fish market in the residential zone by the 3^rd respondent. It is alleged in the application that the applicant was a builder and he had undertaken a project by name “HUES” and construction is going on. According the applicant, the entire area is classified as “Primary Residential Zone”. On 24.05.2019, he had seen a display board in the neighbouring property stating that wholesale and retail fish market was proposed to be set up in the premises. According to the applicant, it is not a permissible activity at all in a primary residential zone area. Though, several complaints have been made to the authorities including the Pollution Control Board and Licensing Authority, they have not taken any action. On the other hand, the fish market was inaugurated and it is functioning causing environmental issues. According to the applicant, the entire construction was illegal and no impact assessment study was conducted before establishing this fish market in the residential area regarding the

¶20

[2]

¶21

pollution that is likely to be caused and there was no mechanism for supervising such stalls as well.

¶22

So, the applicant filed this application seeking the following reliefs:-

¶23

a) Direct the respondents (1) and (2) to take action against the respondent No.(3) for setting up, commencing and operating the illegal Fish Market at No.1/30, Chettiyar Agaram Main Road, Chettiyaragaram, Chennai – 600 077.

¶24

b) Direct the respondents (1) and (2) to initiate criminal prosecution against the respondent No.(3) for violation of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

¶25

c) Direct the respondent No.(3) to demolish and not to use the premises, temporary or permanent which are put for the purpose of carrying on the trade of Fish Market at No.1/30, Chettiyar Agaram Main Road, Chettiyaragaram, Chennai – 600077.

¶26

d) Direct the respondent No.(3) to restore the lands in No.1/30, Chettiyar Agaram Main Road, Chettiyaragaram, Chennai – 600077 to the status of its original purpose and usage classification of Primary Residential Zone.

¶27

e) Direct the respondent to pay compensation as may be determined by this Hon‟ble Tribunal for having cause pollution by constructing and operating the Fish Market at No.1/30, Chettiyar Agaram Main Road, Chettiyaragaram, Chennai – 600077.

¶28

f) To pass such further and other order/s as this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted on the date of admission that he had moved a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras as W.P. No.26210 of 2019 and the Hon’ble High Court by order dated 07.09.2019, disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the respondents 1 & 2 to ensure that no unauthorized construction, more so fish stall or any material causing nuisance to the residence be constructed in the said area.

¶30

This Tribunal constituted a Joint Committee comprising of (i) a Senior Scientist of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), (ii) a Senior Office from the Municipal Corporation, Greater Chennai and (iii) the District Collector, Chennai District to inspect the area in question and ascertain the genuineness of the allegations made in the application including the disposal of solid waste and waste

¶31

[3]

¶32

water generated in that area being properly dealt with to avoid air as well as water pollution and also to ascertain as to whether this has violated any of the citing criteria of establishing such markets in the residential area and if there is any violation, then take appropriate action and directed them to submit a factual as well as action taken report before this Tribunal.

¶33

The 3^rd respondent filed reply statement along with documents contending as

¶34

follows:-

¶35

“The third respondent respectfully submits as follows: 1) At the outset, the respondent states that application itself is not maintainable as having been filed by a company with a sinister motive and to promote its own personal interest as against the interest of environment. The application has been filed by a construction company having no interest in the protection of environment and who are themselves serious violators of building regulations in respect of the very same project for which the present application has been filed. The applicant having chosen to establish their residential project in a mixed residential and semi commercial area is now keen on getting rid of these traders by making false allegations against them before the statutory authorities/courts/tribunals. The entire location map of the area looked at in totality would establish the fact beyond doubt that the residential project of the applicant has come up in the midst of several pre-existing establishments. The application that has been filed in the guise of protection of environment is actually a motivated litigation deliberately initiated to scuttle the small business prospects of this respondent apart from lacking in bona fides. 2) It is submitted that while this respondent is obliged to comply with all rules and regulations relating to environment protection in respect of running their small trading business, it is just and necessary that persons like the applicant are adequately warned and restrained from abusing the process of court. 3) When the above application came up for admission on22.11.2019, this Hon‟ble Tribunal constituted a Joint Committee comprising of a Senior Scientist from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Senior Officer from Municipal Corporation, Greater Chennai and District Collector, Chennai to inspect the area in question and ascertain the genuineness of the allegations made in the application including the disposal of solid waste and waste water generated in that area and whether the area has been kept clean, so as to avoid the air as well as

¶36

[4]

¶37

water pollution and if there is any violation, what are the action taken then submit a report to this Hon‟ble Tribunal and posted the case to 21.01.2020.

¶38

4) This respondent states that the local authority, viz., Corporation of Chennai has reported on before this Hon‟ble Tribunal on the next hearing date that stop work and lock and seal notices have been issued to this respondent pursuant to orders of the Hon‟ble High Court in a writ petition preferred by the applicant. This respondent has no intention of ignoring any statutory notices issued to him. It is necessary to mention here that even though this respondent was added as a party to the said writ petition, this respondent was not adequately represented in the matter and except directing the authorities to take action on the representation of the applicant regarding his complaint, there was no finding on merits against this respondent. This respondent is pursuing his remedy of appeal against the orders of the Hon‟ble High Court as he was not properly represented in the case and orders were passed based on the distorted facts presented by the applicant.

¶39

5) When the matter was taken up for further hearing, the Joint committee has submitted a report before this Hon‟ble Tribunal on 20/03/2020 wherein it has been stated that this respondent has not committed any violation of pollution control laws. In this context, this respondent places the following facts for the kind consideration of this Hon‟ble Tribunal.

¶40

6) This respondent has been issued with a licence by the Greater Chennai Corporation Revenue department under section 287 of CCMC Act dated 15/07/ 2019 for running a fish stall in an area of 300 sq.ft at the address bearing 1/13, Singara Naicker Street, ChettiarA garam, Chennai 600 077. This respondent has also been issued with a Sanitary certificate dated 05/09/2019 by the Greater Chennai Corporation for the fish stall known as Sree Devi Karumari Amman Fish Angadi. The Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services has also issued a Fire license to this respondent under section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Fire service Act 1985 dated 16/09/2019.

¶41

7) The property where the fish stall has been set up is also assessed to property tax by the Greater Chennai Corporation. By letter dated 26/09/2019, this respondent has requested the Assistant Revenue Officer, Zone XI, Valasaravakkam, Chennai to issue a receipt for the sum of ₹ 38,380 remitted by the respondent towards property tax for the area occupied by the fish stall and also the temporary structure put upon the property.

¶42

[5]

¶43

8) On 07/02/2020, this respondent has addressed a detailed representation to the CMDA, Pollution Control Board and the Greater Chennai Corporation stating that they have been running the Fish Stall doing the business of wholesale trade of fish. This respondent had submitted that the applicant construction company has been constructing two blocks of residential apartments one comprising ground + nine floors and the other ground + 12 floors and the construction is presently underway. The respondent had complained to the authorities that the construction debris is being thrown and disposed straight from the eighth floor into open lands without using any proper protective equipment. The construction had been going on day and night for more than two weeks and due to serious and blatant violation of construction norms, the respondent as well as the entire public and the surroundings have been suffering from serious breathing problems. The respondent had also stated that the lands in Survey Nos.341 and 342, ChettiarAgaram Village had been classified as National highway area and water body in the village accounts of ChettiarAgaram village. The respondent had further stated that while applying for plan, the construction company had converted the mixed residential/commercial area into residential area for the purpose of open space reservation (OSR). Due to this sudden change in classification to suit their own interest, the applicant company is trying to drive out everyone by claiming the area to be a primary residential area. On the other hand, the physical land-use of the area continues to be mixed residential and semi-commercial with the area around the apartments as well as the respondent‟s fish stall are all being occupied by commercial establishments, automotive repair sheds, etc., (as observed by the Joint Committee itself in the report). Therefore, this respondent had sought for appropriate action to be taken against the applicant construction company for violation of building rules so that the grievances of the public will be duly addressed.

¶44

9) Even before submission of the above representation, the applicant had been constantly quarrelling with the respondent as they wanted to get rid of the fish stall in order to promote their own construction. Since the respondent was doing their small business in their own land, the respondent was unwilling to accede to any illegal demands and threats by the applicant company. As a result, with an ulterior motive, the applicant approached the Hon‟ble High Court as well as this Hon‟ble Tribunal simultaneously making false allegations as against this respondent.

¶45

[6]

¶46

10) This respondent had approached the CMDA seeking information under the RTI Act regarding the grant of plan sanction to the applicant company. In response, the CMDA, by letter dated 21/10/2019 had clearly stated that the plan had been approved on the basis of a provisional NOC issued by the National Highways Authority of India dated 02/05/2013 as well as the final NOC issued by letter dated 10/09/2015 by the Ministry of Road transport and Highways and by letter dated 23/09/2015 issued by the National Highways Authority of India.

¶47

11) It is therefore clear that the applicant company provided misleading information and suppressed material facts before the National Highways Authority of India knowing full well that part of Survey No. 1 ChettiarAgaram Village is a water body and no construction can be made thereon. In fact, the area in respect of which the NOC has been obtained by the applicant company from the National Highways Authority of India forms the entry point to the entire apartment complex without which the project itself would have been a non-starter. While in fact the applicant company is thus a total violator of all building laws, he has managed to cry foul at a Lilliputian trader like the respondent in order to destroy a small business run by this respondent.

¶48

12) The other allegations made in the application are denied. This respondent is doing any activity that would attract the provisions of the Pollution Control laws and make obtaining consent mandatory. This respondent is only doing a trading activity that does not involve discharge of effluents and the business of the respondent is permitted by the Corporation of Chennai and other statutory authorities as stated already. This respondent sensing the sinister intentions of the applicant filed a caveat before the civil court but the applicant instead of approaching the civil court moved the Hon‟ble High Court and this Hon‟ble Tribunal. The applicant has admitted in Paragraph 8 of the application that he has approached the Hon‟ble High Court for the violation of building and development rules and approaching this Hon‟ble Tribunal for other issues concerning environment. Therefore, the applicant cannot simultaneously raise issues concerning development and building regulations before this Hon‟ble Tribunal which might result in conflict of decisions with the orders of the Hon‟ble High Court having not attained any finality as yet. The other reliefs sought for in the application are unsustainable and have no basis.

¶49

13) This respondent states that by presenting false facts and making scurrilous allegations, the applicant persuaded this Hon‟ble Tribunal to appoint a joint committee as though there is

¶50

[7]

¶51

violation of pollution control laws. The applicant had projected a picture as though this respondent is a huge businessman with political or other influence so that he can ward off all statutory notices or legal action while in fact, this respondent is a small wholesale trader in fish. The joint committee has filed a report dated 20/03/2020 wherein it has been clearly stated that this respondent is not guilty of violation of any of the pollution control laws. In the light of such findings by a Committee constituted by this Hon‟ble Tribunal, all the allegations to the contrary made by the applicant fall to the ground.

¶52

14) It is submitted that in addition, it has been pointed out in the report that the approved plan for the entire area has not been obtained by the respondent. This is an issue relating to town planning and as stated already this respondent has already applied for approval of construction in the additional area which is presently only a very temporary shed made of asbestos since the open space needs to be covered for storing the fish before they are taken away by traders. There is no activity undertaken except sale for barely a few hours in the morning and therefore there is no violation of any building rules or pollution laws. This respondent sincerely believed since there is no construction as such over the property and temporary sheds were erected merely for shade and brief storage during the actual sale of fish which would be only for a few hours in the morning, no special planning approval is required Nevertheless, after the applicant started making a mountain out of a molehill, the respondent has now applied for an approval for even the temporary asbestos shed area which would be otherwise a simple open space so that there are no legal pinpricks that busybodies and vengeful individuals like the applicant can take advantage of. This respondents has photographs of the property to show that all the allegations made otherwise by the applicant are false. 15) Moreover, the applicant has already approached the Hon‟ble High Court by way of W.P.No.26210 of 2019 seeking for directions to the authorities to consider the representation of the applicant complaining of unauthorized construction which is purely an issue relating to planning and development. Therefore, the Hon‟ble High Court had directed the representation of the applicant to be considered by the authorities and ensure that there is no unauthorized construction. It is important to note that the Hon‟ble High Court has not made any decision on merits as to whether this respondent has actually put up any such unauthorized construction. After the applicant availed the remedy under

¶53

[8]

¶54

Article 226 of the Constitution of India and also secured an order for suitable action to be taken by the authorities, the applicant has sought a parallel remedy seeking for an identical relief before this Hon‟ble Tribunal. This respondent had no opportunity to file a counter affidavit to the writ petition and contest the matter and was also not adequately represented when final orders were passed in the writ petition. Therefore, this respondent is pursuing his further remedies by way of writ appeal.

¶55

16) The applicant is misusing the provisions of the NGT Act for personal gain. The reliefs under Section 14 are granted in cases where any question relating to environment arises out of implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule-I of the NGT Act. The applicant, fully conscious of the fact that this respondent is not causing any pollution by purely doing a trading activity, has abused the process of court by providing misleading information and false allegations in order to bring the application within the ambit of the Act. Nevertheless, once the Joint Committee has reported that there is no pollution at all caused by the activity carried on by the respondent, the allegations of the applicant have been proved to be false. Under such circumstances, no further relief can be sought for by the applicant u/s 14 of the Act. If at all the applicant wants to relentlessly pursue his witch hunting activities against the respondent, it is open to him to approach the Hon‟ble High Court for further reliefs and he cannot be permitted to misuse the process of this Hon‟ble Tribunal for that purpose.

¶56

17) It is respectfully submitted that the interest of environment has been well taken care of by this Hon‟ble Tribunal by appointing a Joint Committee who have also filed a report stating that this respondent is not causing any pollution. The applicant now wants to enlarge the scope of the application and seek for reliefs that are unconnected with the object and purpose of the NGT Act until he achieves the desired result. If at all any further directions are required in this application, it should be in the nature of an investigation by the Joint Committee already appointed to ascertain whether the applicant company has encroached and converted the water body in Survey No.1 of ChettiarAgaram village and has surreptitiously obtained an NoC from the National Highways Authority of India for the said purpose. The very construction put up by the applicant is illegal and is in total violation of building rules.

¶57

It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss Application No.38 of 2019 and thus render justice.

¶58

[9]

¶59

Dated at Chennai on this the day of July 2020.”

¶60

When the matter was taken up on 21.01.2020, the learned counsel appearing for the Greater Chennai Corporation submitted that they informed the District Collector to fix the date for inspection but they did not receive any reply. They had also produced the letter which showed that pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble High Court, the Greater Chennai Corporation had taken action against unauthorized construction by issuing “Stop Work Notice / Notice calling for approved plan” dated 29.11.2019 to the 3^rd respondent. Since they refused to receive the notice, the same was affixed on the wall on 09.12.2019. Subsequently, further action has been taken by issuing “Lock & Seal and Demolition” notice dated 26.12.2019. The 3^rd respondent had refused the notice and the same was affixed on the wall on 26.12.2019 and further action will be taken after the expiry of the statutory period, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. So, the matter was posted to 28.02.2020.

¶61

On 28.02.2020, this was again adjourned to 20.03.2020 and on 20.03.2020, it was adjourned to 12.05.2020 and thereafter, it was adjourned by successive notifications. Again, the matter was taken up on 18.05.2020, we had received the report submitted by the Joint Committee which was received on 20.03.2020 where, it has been observed as follows:-

¶62

“In this regard, the premises of the fish market namely M/s. Sri Karumariamman Fish Angadi (Partnership firm operated by Mr. C. Haridass and Hariharan) located at No.1/30, Chettiar Agaram Main Road, Chettiar Agaram, Karambakkam, Chennai – 600 077 was inspected by the Joint Committee on 14.03.2020 and the following were observed:

¶63

1) M/s. Sri Devi Karumariamman Fish Angadi (hereafter called as „Unit‟) has established and obtained license vide No.1150001041/2019-20 dated 15.07.2019 from the zonal officer, Greater Chennai Corporation, Valasaravakkam – Zone XI for construction of commercial Fish Angadi in an area of 300 S.ft.

¶64

2) Now, the unit has established the Fish Angadi at an area of 6000 S.ft. and for that, the unit has submitted the application for necessary approval from the Greater Chennai Corporation.

¶65

[10]

¶66

3) The said unit is located adjacent to the ongoing residential construction project of M/s. Fomra Housing and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on the northern side.

¶67

4) The said unit falls under Primary residential zone as per the CMDA Classification.

¶68

5) The fish market is surrounded by road on the west side (front entrance) vacant land (north side), Office building and commercial establishments (Godowns) and a small savory & mixture manufacturing facility located east side and the ongoing residential construction project of M/s. Fomra Housing and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd on the north east and east side (Topo sketch showing the Fish Angadi site and surrounding features is enclosed as Annexure).

¶69

6) The unit has provisions for 24 Nos. of fish stall within the premises.

¶70

7) The units activity involves unloading of fishes and selling of the same on whole sale basis and the left out fishes are cleaned (if necessary) and sold the retailers.

¶71

8) It was informed that the fish market is operated from 5.00 A.M. to 11.00 A.M. on all 6 days in a week except on Sunday from 5.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M.

¶72

9) It is reported that the unit generates waste water of quantity 0.2 KLD from the fish washing and floor cleaning activity. The wash water is collected in the common collection tank through concrete lined channel and is being disposed into the Thirumazhilsai Town Panchayat Sewage Treatment Plant of 3.0 MLD Capacity, Thiruvallur District for further treatment through tanker lorries (Receipt of the tanker lorry connected with Thirumazhisai Town Panchayat STP is enclosed).

¶73

10) The source of raw water for this unit activity is from bore well within the premises.

¶74

11) The solid waste of 30 kg/day (fish cleaning and cutting process) generated is being collected and sent to private agency who is processing and converting into manure (receipts and records maintained for the same is enclosed).

¶75

12) There is no repulsive/intolerable odour was felt from the fish market and the unit has provided closed shed and all the four sides were covered with metal sheet. Hence, there will be no impact on surroundings due to operation of fish market in that area.

¶76

13) The unit has provided septic tank followed by soak pit arrangements for the treatment and disposal of domestic sewage generated.

¶77

14) No process emissions from the unit and hence no air pollution due to operation of this unit.

¶78

15) The unit activity involves only commercial operation and not creates any water pollution in that area since the unit sends the generated waste water into the Thirumazhisai Town Panchayat STP for further treatment and disposal.

¶79

[11]

¶80

Conclusion:

¶81

1) There is no water pollution in the said location as the wash water is being disposed into Thirumazhisai Town STP through tanker lorries.

¶82

2) Also, the solid waste generated due to fish cleaning operation is also sent to private agency and there is no disposal of the same inside the premises.

¶83

3) There is no air pollution and the only nuisance would be odour for which the unit has covered all the sides with metal sheets of 15-20 feet height and the Fish Angadi is in operation from 5.0 A.M to 11.0 A.M. only.

¶84

4) Though the Fish Market is surrounded by the commercial establishments few residential apartments including ongoing construction project site of M/s Fomra Housing and Infrastructure Private Limited, the site falls under the Primary Residential Zone as per the CMDA land use classification for which the unit has obtained for an area of 300 Sq.ft.

¶85

5) Stop work notice have been issued to the unit due to unauthorised construction of 6000 Sq.ft without planning permission from the Greater Chennai Corporations under section 49 of Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 vide letter. No. NO. 11/00026/2019 dated 29.11.2019 and further lock & seal and demolition notice also been served to the unit by the Zonal Officer, Zone-XI vide letter No. 11/00010/2019 dated 20.12.2019 since no reply was received from the above said unit.”

¶86

The above said report was considered by this Tribunal on 18.05.2020 and directed them to file a further report and posted the case to 25.06.2020.

¶87

The 5^th respondent/Greater Chennai Corporation filed their report on 14.08.2020

¶88

which reads as follows:-

¶89

“Report filed on behalf of Greater Chennai Corporation

¶90

I, Sasikala Wife of Mr. G. Suresh Babu, Hindu, aged about 43 years, the Municipal Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner, Zone – XI, Greater Chennai Corporation, having office at No.33, Arcot Road, Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:-

¶91

1) I am the Municipal Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner, Zone - XI, Greater Chennai Corporation and as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the above case based on the available records.

¶92

2) I deny all the allegations and averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the above petitioner except those that are

¶93

[12]

¶94

specifically admitted herein as true and put the petitioner to prove the same.

¶95

3) I respectfully submit that the petitioner has filed the above said application praying to (a) direct the respondents (1) and (2) to take action against the respondent No.(3) for setting up commencing and operating the illegal Fish Market at No.1/30, Chettiyar Agaram Main Road, Chettiyaragam, Chennai – 600 077 (b) direct the respondents (1) and (2) to initiate criminal prosecution against the respondent No.(3) for violation of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (c) direct the respondent No.3 to demolish and not to use the premises, temporary or permanent which are put for the purpose of carrying on the trade of Fish Market at No.1/30, Chettiyar Agaram Main Road, Chettiyaragam, Chennai – 600 077 (d) direct the respondent No.3 to restore the lands in No.1/30, Chettiyar Agaram Main Road, Chettiyaragam, Chennai – 600 077 to the status of its original purpose and usage classification of primary residential zone (e) direct the respondent to pay compensation as may be determined by this Hon‟ble Tribunal for having caused pollution by constructing and operating the Fish market at No.1/30, Chettiyar Agaram Main Road, Chettiyaragam, Chennai – 600 077.

¶96

4) I respectfully submit that the Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation is impleaded as fifth respondent to the above Application vide I.A. No.28 of 2020 in Appl. No. 38 of 2019 dated 20.03.2020.

¶97

5) I respectfully submit that when the above Application came up for hearing on 22.11.2019, the Hon‟ble Tribunal has passed an order as follows:-

¶98

“… 4. However before admitting the matter, we feel it appropriate to appoint a Joint Committee consisting of the Senior Scientist of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), Senior Office from the Municipal Corporation, Greater Chennai and District Collector, Chennai to inspect the area in question and ascertain the genuineness of the allegations made in the application including the disposal of solid waste and waste water generated in that area being properly dealt with to avoid air as well as water pollution and also ascertain as to whether this has violated any of the citing criteria of establishing such markets in the residential area and if there is any violation, then take appropriate action and submit a factual as well as action taken report before the Tribunal within a period of one month.

¶99

5. The petitioner is directed to submit a set of papers to the above said officials within a week.

¶100

[13]

¶101

6. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the above officials by e-mail immediately so as to enable them to comply with the direction of this Tribunal.

¶102

7. The State Pollution Control Board will be the nodal agency.

¶103

8. For consideration of the report on 21.01.2020….”

¶104

6) I respectfully submit that pursuant to the above orders a Joint Committee was formed with the following members to inspect the site and submit the status report to the Hon‟ble NGT (SZ) Chennai.

¶105

i. Er. S. Indira Gandhi, District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Ambattur.

¶106

ii. Dr. P. Vijayalakshmi, Deputy Chief Scientific Officer, District Environmental Laboratory, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Ambattur.

¶107

iii. Selvi. O. Farhath Begum, Personal Assistant (G) (i/c) to the Collector, Chennai (nominated by the District Collector, Chennai)

¶108

iv. Tmt. S. Sasikala, Zonal Officer, Zone-XI, Greater Chennai Corporation (Representative of the Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation).

¶109

7) I respectfully submit that the premises of the fish market namely M/s. Sri Devi Karumariamman Fish Angadi (Partnership firm operated by Mr. C. Haridoss and Mr. B. Hariharan) located at No.1/30, Chettiyar Agaram Main Road, Chettiyaragam, Chennai – 600 077 was inspected by the Joint Committee on 14.03.2020 and the following were observed:

¶110

i. M/s. Sri Devi Karumariamman Fish Angadi (hereafter called as „Unit‟) has established and obtained license vide No.11150001041/2019-20 dated 15.07.2019 from the zonal officer, Greater Chennai Corporation, Valasaravakkam, Zone – XI for construction of commercial fish angadi in an area of 300 Sq.ft.

¶111

ii. Now, the unit has established the Fish Angadi at an area of 6000 Sq.ft. and for that, the unit has submitted the application for Revenue License, necessary approval and it was rejected by Health Department from the Greater Chennai Corporation.

¶112

iii. The sand unit is located adjacent to the ongoing residential construction project of M/s. Fomra Housing and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. On the northern side.

¶113

iv. The said unit falls under Primary residential zone as per the CMDA classification.

¶114

v. The fish market is surrounded by road on the west side (front entrance), vacant land (north side), office building and commercial establishments (Godowns) and a small savory & mixture manufacturing facility located at east side and the ongoing

¶115

[14]

¶116

residential construction project of M/s. Fomra Housing and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. On the north east and east side.

¶117

vi. The unit has provisions for 24 Nos. of fish stall within the premises. vii. The unit‟s activity involves unloading of fishes and selling of the same on whole sale basis and the left out fishes are cleaned (if necessary) and sold to the retailers.

¶118

viii. It was informed that the fish market is operated from 5.00 A.M. to 11.00 A.M. on all 6 days in a week except on Sunday from 5.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M.

¶119

ix. It is reported that the unit generates waste water of quantity of 0.2 KLD from the fish washing and floor cleaning activity. The wash water is collected in the common collection tank through concrete lined channel and is being disposed into the Thirumazhilsai Town Panchayat Sewage Treatment Plant of 3.0 MLD capacity, Thiruvallur District for further treatment through tanker lorries.

¶120

x. The source of raw water for this unit activity is from bore well within the premises.

¶121

xi. The solid waste of 30 kg/day (fish cleaning and cutting process) generated is being collected and sent to private agency who is processing and converting into manure.

¶122

xii. There is no repulsive/intolerable odour was felt from the fish market and the unit has provided closed shed and all the four sides were covered with metal sheet. Hence, there will be no impact on surroundings due to operation of fish market in that area.

¶123

xiii. The unit has provided septic tank followed by soak pit arrangements for the treatment and disposal of domestic sewage generated.

¶124

xiv. No process emissions from the unit and hence no air pollution due to operation of this unit.

¶125

xv. The unit activity involves only commercial operation and not creates any water pollution in that area since the unit sends the generated waste water into the Thirumazhilsai town Panchayat STP for further treatment and disposal.

¶126

8) I respectfully submit that earlier the applicant herein had filed a Writ Petition bearing W.P. No.26210 of 2019 praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 28.05.2019 and take action against the respondent No.3, as per law within a time frame and pass orders. I further submit that the Hon‟ble High Court has disposed the above writ petition by order dated 17.09.2019 as follows:-

¶127

“…. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 submits that, the 3^rd respondent/Mr. Haridoss was permitted to run a fish stall in a 300 Sq.ft. Whereas, he has erected construction in 3000 Sq.ft. which has been now on

¶128

[15]

¶129

inspection found and notice to remove the unauthorized construction has been issued to the petitioner vide notice dated 17.09.2019.

¶130

5. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The 1^st and 2^nd respondents are hereby directed to ensure that no unauthorized construction more so, fish stall or any material causing nuisance to the residence been constructed in the said area. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed……”

¶131

9) I respectfully submit that pursuant to the above directions of the Hon‟ble High Court the Greater Chennai Corporation has taken action against the unauthorized construction by issuing a Stop work Notice/ Notice Calling for Approval Plan dated 29.11.2019 to 3^rd respondent Mr. C. Haridoss. Since the said Mr. C. Haridoss refused to receive the above said notice, the same was affixed on the wall of Mr. C. Haridoss on 09.12.2019 Notice was affixed on the gate and photographs were taken.

¶132

10) I respectfully submit that in continuation to the above notice further action has been taken by issuing a Lock and Seal and Demolition Notice dated 26.12.2019, since the said Mr. C. Haridoss refused to receive the above said notice, the same was sent through Speed post to Mr. C. Haridoss on 27.12.2019 and the same was received and acknowledged by the third respondent herein.

¶133

11) I respectfully submit that due to outbreak of the corona virus disease (COVID-19) the Government of India has declared as a pandemic in more than a dozen states and union territories, where provisions of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1987 have been invoked, and educational institutions and many commercial establishments have been shut down. India has suspended all tourist visas, as a majority of the confirmed cases were linked to other countries. Above all the entire country is under lockdown from 24^th March 2020 and the same was extended till 31^st August 2020. Further all the officials of Greater Chennai Corporation have been deployed for the prevention of the pandemic disease.

¶134

12) I respectfully submit that after the present pandemic situation further action against the unauthorized construction put up by the third respondent will be taken as per due process of law.

¶135

Hence, in the above said circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to accept the report and thus render justice.”

¶136

[16]

¶137

Thereafter, as per the earlier direction of this Tribunal, further report was filed by

¶138

the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) dated 09.10.2020 which was received on 04.11.2020 which reads as follows:-

¶139

“Report filed on behalf of the 1^st and 2^nd respondents – Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

¶140

I, Ramasubbu, son of V. Ramasamy, Hindu, aged about 57 years, having office at No.76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:-

¶141

1. I am the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and I am filing this Report on behalf of the 1^st and 2^nd respondents Board and as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the case as per records.

¶142

2. It is respectfully submitted that the Hon‟ble NGT (SZ) has passed order dated 25.06.2020 and directed inter-alia as follows:“The committee is directed to file a further report to this Tribunal by e-mail or e-filing at [email protected] on or before 24.07.2020 and the other respondents are also directed to file their reply statement to the allegation mentioned in the application before that date through e-mail or e-filing”.

¶143

3. It is respectfully submitted that pursuant to the above order, the premises of the M/s. Sri Devi Karumariamman Fish Angadi (Partnership firm operated by Mr. C. Haridass and Mr. B. Hariharan) located at No.1/30, Chettiar Agaram Main Road, Chettiar Agaram, Karambakkam, Chennai was inspected on 22.07.2020. During inspection, the following were observed.

¶144

i. The unit was under operational;

¶145

ii. It was informed that the fish market is operated from 5.00 A.M. to 11.00 A.M. that too only two days in a week. Also, informed that the unit is not operated and closed completely on Sunday due to complete lock down;

¶146

iii. The unit‟s activity involves unloading of fishes and selling of the same on whole sale basis and the left out fishes are cleaned (if necessary) and sold to the retailers;

¶147

iv. The wash water is collected in the common collection tank through concrete lined channel and is being disposed into the Thirumazhilsai Town Panchayat Sewage Treatment Plant of 3.0 MLD Capacity, Thiruvallur District for further treatment through tanker lorries;

¶148

v. The solid waste of 30 kg/day (fish cleaning and cutting process) generated is being collected and sent to private agency who is processing and converting into manure;

¶149

vi. The unit has provided septic tank followed by soak pit arrangements for the treatment and disposal of domestic sewage generated;

¶150

[17]

¶151

vii. To control the odour nuisance, the unit has covered all the sides with metal sheets of 15-20 feet height and the Fish Angadi is in operation from 5.00 A.M. to 11.00 A.M. only;

¶152

Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal (Southern Zone) may be pleased to take this Report on record and pass such further or other orders as this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case and thus render justice.”

¶153

When the matter came up for hearing today through Video Conference, Sri. Sai Sathya Jith represented the applicant. Sri. C. Kasirajan through M/s. Meena represented respondents 1 & 2, Sri. K.S. Viswanathan represented 3^rd respondent, Sri. Dr. V.R. Thirunarayanan represented 4^th respondent and Smt. P.T. Ramadevi through Sri. Raghul Adithya represented 5^th respondent.

¶154

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the unauthorized construction has been removed and they are now operating within the authorized construction and he wants only a proper monitoring to be done by the Pollution Control Board authorities to avoid any public nuisance being caused on account of the operation of the fish market in that area.

¶155

The learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent submitted that the applicant himself is a promoter who had made the construction in violation of the environmental laws and he is taking a private vendetta against the 3^rd respondent to prevent lawful activity being conducted by a citizen in order to pursue his avocation.

¶156

The Greater Chennai Corporation submitted a status report dated 16.12.2020 received on the same day by this Tribunal which reads as follows:-

¶157

“Z.O.XI.C.No.5927/2020 Greater Chennai Corporation Zone – XI

¶158

STATUS REPORT

¶159

Sub: Greater Chennai Corporation – O.A. No.38 of 2019 filed by M/s. Fomra Housing and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., - Hon‟ble High Court order dated 17.09.2019 – Compliance Report – Furnished – Reg.

¶160

[18]

¶161

Ref: Hon‟ble High Court order dated 17.09.2019 in W.P. No.26210 of 2019 filed by M/s. Fomra Housing and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

¶162

*****

¶163

Kind attention is invited the subject and reference cited above.

¶164

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition praying to issue writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.05.2019 and take action against the respondent No.3, as per law within a time frame and pass orders.

¶165

In the above said case the Hon‟ble High Court has passed an order dated 17.09.2019 as follows:-

¶166

“…. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1

¶167

& 2 submits that, the 3^rd respondent/ Mr. Haridoss was permitted to run a fish stall in a 300 Sq.ft. Whereas, he has erected construction in 3000 Sq.ft. which has been now on inspection found and notice to remove the unauthorized construction has been issued to the petitioner vide notice dated 17.09.2019.

¶168

5. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The 1^st and 2^nd respondents are hereby directed to ensure that no unauthorized construction more so, fish stall or any material causing nuisance to the residence been constructed in the said area……”

¶169

It is submitted that as per direction of the Hon‟ble High Court action had been taken by issuing a Locking and Sealing Notice & Demolition dated 26.12.2019 issued to Mr. C. Haridoss. Further in continuation of the above notice further action had been taken by issuing a De-occupation Notice dated 20.10.2020 issued to Mr. C. Haridoss.

¶170

It is submitted that after removal of the temporary structure put up at No.1/30, Chettiyar Agaram Main Road, Chettiyaragam, Chennai – 600 077, Identified temporary structure around 3000 Sq.ft. fish shop removed on 17.11.2020 by the officials Greater Chennai Corporation with Police protection.

¶171

Further stating the above fact a letter has been addressed to the petitioner through register post.

¶172

Hence, the Law Officer is kindly requested to treat this as Compliance Report and update the same in the LCMS.

¶173

Joint Director/Zonal Officer-XI”

¶174

We are only concerned about the possible pollution being caused on account of running a fish market in the disputed area and not concerned about the personal allegations made by the applicant as well as the 3^rd respondent against each other. There is nothing on record to show that this activity is a prohibited activity within that area and it is not coming within the purview of the consent mechanism, as it appears to be a “Green Category” unit. So establishment of such unit does not

¶175

[19]

¶176

require any environmental impact assessment study as contended by the counsel for the applicant as also averred in the application.

¶177

However, since there is a possibility of pollution being caused, if such unit is functioning in a residential area, then the Pollution Control Board as well as the Greater Chennai Corporation are expected to monitor the activities of such units and see that no pollution is being caused on account of the operation of such units in a residential area by taking all necessary precaution to avoid possible pollution to both air and water.

¶178

The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) in their report had given certain recommendations to the 3^rd respondent as to how the fish market will have to be conducted without causing any pollution.

¶179

So under such circumstances, we feel that the matter can be disposed of by giving certain directions. So, the application is disposed of as follows:-

¶180

(i) Since the unauthorized construction said to have been made by the 3^rd respondent has been removed, the same need not be gone into by this Tribunal in this proceedings.

¶181

(ii) The 3^rd respondent is directed to strictly adhere to the recommendations made by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) in their report dated, 09.10.2020 which has been referred to above in the Judgment so as to avoid any possible complaint of any pollution caused on account of their activities in that area from the nearby residents.

¶182

(iii) The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) as well as the Greater Chennai Corporation authorities are directed to monitor the functioning of the 3^rd respondent unit periodically and if there is any violation found or any pollution caused on account of their activities, then they are directed to take appropriate action against the 3^rd respondent in accordance with law.

¶183

[20]

¶184

(iv) The parties are directed to bear their respective costs in the

¶185

application.

¶186

(v) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Tamil

¶187

Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) as well as to the Greater Chennai Corporation immediately by e-mail for compliance.

¶188

With the above observations and directions, this application is disposed of.

¶189

......................................J.M.
(Justice K. Ramakrishnan)
................................E.M.
(Shri. Saibal Dasgupta)
O.A. No.38/2019,
18 th December, 2020. Mn.

¶190

[21]

M/S Fomra Housing and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director v. the Member Secretary Tnpcb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Fomra Housing and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director v. the Member Secretary Tnpcb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paschimbanga Vigyan Mancha vs State of West Bangal

Meenava Thanthai K.R.Selvaraj Kumar Meenavar Nala Sangam vs State of Tamilnadu

Ashish Rohildas Shinde vs Lonavala Municipal Council

Residents of Antrikishkanball 3G vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Suresh Kumar vs State of Haryana

Paneerselvam Rajangam vs District Collector Nagapattinam

Sri. Pallela Laxman vs Ministry of Environment Forests Climate Change

Mahanoy River Safety Society Represented by Kumar Alok S/O Surendra Kr Singh vs the State of Bihar through Chief Secretary

Meenava Thanthai K.R.Selvaraj Kumar Meenavar Nala Sangam vs State of Tamilnadu

Devineni Rajasekhar vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Its Principal Secretary to Government Industries & Commerce (Mines) Departmentn

Tirumalasetti Srinivass/O Tirumalasetti Rambabu vs 1. Government of India Rep by Its Secretary

Sri. Pallela Laxman vs Ministry of Environment Forests Climate Change

Paneerselvam Rajangam vs District Collector Nagapattinam

Aadeshwar Traders Represented by Y.G. Ravi Teja Reddy vs Forests and Enovironment Department