Disposed

S Vijay v. Water Resource Department

NGT5 Dec 2024Original Application No. 55/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal disposed of a miscellaneous application seeking further directions for check dam construction. The tribunal recorded that the 5th respondent had complied with original directives by constructing a check dam to recharge groundwater, which discharges into a nallah, thereby satisfying the original environmental clearance conditions.

What did the court decide?

The miscellaneous application seeking further directions for check dam construction was dismissed as the respondents have complied with the original environmental directives.

S Vijay vs Water Resource Department — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No.5 & 6:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

¶3

SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶4

Thursday, the 05^th day of December 2024.

¶5

(Through Video Conference)

¶6

Original Application No.55 of 2023(SZ)

¶7

WITH M.A. No.09 of 2024 (SZ) in O.A. No.55 of 2023(SZ)

¶8

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶9

S. Vijay

¶10

S/o. Subramani
3/272, Aadhidravitar Street,
Thekkampatti, Vattakadu Post,
Omalur Taluk, Salem.
Tamil Nadu – 636 012.

¶11

...Applicant(s)

¶12

Versus

¶13

1) The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

¶14

Water Resources Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 002.

¶15

2) The Member Secretary

¶16

State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority Ground Floor, Panagal Maligai, No.1, Jeenis Raod, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶17

3) Central Ground Water Board South Eastern Coastal Region Rep. by its Regional Director E-Wing, G-Block, Rajaji Bhavan, CGO Complex, Besant Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 090.

¶18

4) The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Rep. by its Chairperson No.76, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶19

5) The Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited Rep. by its Managing Director Having Office No.5/53, Omalur Main Road, Jagir Ammapalayam Post, Salem – 636 302.

¶20

...Respondent(s)

¶21

Page 1 of 4

¶22

For Applicant(s):	M/s. P. Paramasiva Doss, K. Sathish, S. Ganesh Kumar, K. Balakrishnan, J. Jayakumar and S. Mohanraj.
For Respondent(s):	Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R1 & R5. Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R2.
	Mr. S. Janarthanan for R3.
	Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R4.

¶23

CORAM :

¶24

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶25

HON’BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member.

¶28

M.A. No.09 of 2024 (SZ):-

¶29

1. The above miscellaneous application [M.A. No.09 of 2024 (SZ) in O.A. No.55 of 2023 (SZ)] is filed to direct the 1^st Respondent viz., the Water Resources Department to place on record about the proposed action initiated for connecting the water clogged pool found within the premises of the 5^th Respondent viz., Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited and to submit the report about the discharge points namely the check dam which falls 1.5 Kms away from the water clogged area.

¶30

2. However, the direction sought for in the Original Application [O.A. No.55 of 2023 (SZ)] is to construct the check dams and rainwater harvesting structures in Sengaradu, Chettichavadi and Thathayangarpati Villages situated at Omalur Taluk, Salem District, as stipulated in the Environmental Clearance dated 14.10.2020.

¶31

3. While disposing of the O.A. No.55 of 2023 (SZ) vide Judgment dated 06.09.2023, this Tribunal directed the Water Resources Department or the department to which the work is entrusted to ensure that the construction of the check dam is

¶32

Page 2 of 4

¶33

completed as expeditiously as possible, however, not beyond three months from the date of sanction of the fund and also directed them to report compliance.

¶34

4. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Tribunal, the Manager (Mines) - Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited has filed a status report dated 23.08.2024 , wherein they have specifically stated that the check dam has been constructed, primarily aimed at groundwater recharge. The check dam in question, as reported, is situated at a distance of 4.0 KM from the mining area and has been constructed in accordance with the conditions set forth in the Environmental Clearance. The discharged water is let out in the nallah which takes its natural course and subsequently benefits the villages passing through Thekkampatty, Vellalapatty, Chettichavadi, Sengaradu, Moongilpadi, Vinayagapatty and Kondappanaickanpatty.

¶35

5. The grievance raised in the Miscellaneous Application is that the constructed check dam does not facilitate the direct discharge of water from the mines to the dam as envisioned by the applicants. However, the relief sought for in the Miscellaneous Application appears to extend beyond the prayers sought for in the Original Application, suggesting additional infrastructure for direct water discharge which was not contemplated under the directives of this Tribunal in the main application.

¶36

6. As the constructions stipulated by earlier orders have been completed and the primary objectives of the Original Application have been satisfied, there is no basis to extend the mandate beyond the original environmental and developmental directives.

¶37

7. In light of the foregoing, this Tribunal finds that the respondents have complied with the directives issued in the Original Application. The grievances noted in the Miscellaneous Application, seeking additional constructions, do not align with

¶38

Page 3 of 4

¶39

the directives of the Original Application or the stipulated Environmental Clearance.

¶40

8. In view of the above, the Miscellaneous Application [M.A. No.09 of 2024 (SZ) in O.A. No.55 of 2023 (SZ)] is disposed of.

¶41

O.A. No.55 of 2023 (SZ):-

¶42

9. As the order dated 06.09.2023 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No.55 of 2023 (SZ) has been complied with, no further orders need to be passed.

¶43

10. Hence, recording the compliance report filed by the Manager (Mines) - Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited, the original application [O.A. No.55 of 2023 (SZ)] is closed.

¶44

Sd/Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM Sd/Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM

¶45

O.A. No.55/2023 (SZ) & M.A. No.09/2024 (SZ) 05^th December, 2024. Mn.

¶46

Page 4 of 4

S Vijay v. Water Resource Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Vijay v. Water Resource Department

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

Rasesh B Vissanji and Ors. vs

Hardeep Sharma vs Ramash Chand Aarya

Prakash Agrawal vs Nahar Builders Limited through Sukhraj Babulal Nahar Director

News Item Titled Three Die of Asphyxiation at Illegal Coal Mine in Gujarat Appearing in the Hindu Dated 15.07.2024 vs Central Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary

All India Anti Corruption Organization(Regd) Represented by Subrata Mallick vs Union of India

Ashok Paswan vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Sabir Khan vs State of West Bengal

Subhas Debnath vs State of West Bengal

Suo Motu Huge Pollution Risk in 8KM Around Nlc vs Managing Director Nlc India Ltd.

Yanati Sreenivasulu Reddy S/O Ramachandra Reddy Hindu Aged About 70 Years vs the Chief Secretary Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Yanati Sreenivasulu Reddy S/O Ramachandra Reddy Hindu Aged About 70 Years vs the Chief Secretary Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 9/2024 in Original Application No. 55/2023 of S Vijay vs Water Resource Department

Jagan Kumar J vs the Principal Secretary

Stanley Joseph vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change