Disposed

Rathinasamy v. District Collector

NGT9 Jan 2025IA No. 192/2022 in Original Application No. 74/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of an application challenging quarry operations. It found the primary quarry ceased operations, while other respondents had laid tar roads or complied with regulations. The Tribunal directed the TNPCB to impose stricter conditions for future renewals.

What did the court decide?

Original Application disposed; TNPCB directed to impose stricter conditions for future Consent Renewals, including mandatory dry dust collectors and wind-breaking walls.

Rathinasamy vs District Collector — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No.1:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the 09^th day of January, 2025.

¶4

(Through Video Conference)

¶5

Original Application No.74 of 2022 (SZ) & I.A. No.192 of 2022 (SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF

¶7

T. Rathnasamy

¶8

S/o. Thayandasamy, No.530/2A1B, Myvadi Village – II, Krishnapuram Post, Madathukulam Taluk, Tiruppur District.

¶9

… Applicant(s)

¶10

Versus

¶11

1. The District Collector Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶12

2. The Assistant Director Mines Department, Collectorate, Tiruppur.

¶13

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Udumalpet, Tiruppur District.

¶14

4. The District Environmental Engineer Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Tiruppur South, Tiruppur District.

¶15

5. Marudachalam

¶16

S/o. Kalimuthu, S.F. No.530/2A2, Myvadi Village, Madathukulam Taluk, Tiruppur District.

¶17

6. G.P.R. Sand Blue Metals Pvt. Ltd.

¶18

Represented by its authorized representative S.F. No.539/2 (part), Myvadi Village, Madathukulam Taluk, Tiruppur District.

¶19

7. M/s. Makesh Stone Crusher

¶20

Represented by its authorized representative S.F. No.519/2 (part), Myvadi Village, Madathukulam Taluk, Tiruppur District.

¶21

Page 1 of 8

¶22

8. M/s. Arthanareshwarar Blue Metals

¶23

Represented by its authorized representative, Narasingapuram, Myvadi Village, Madathukulam Taluk, Tiruppur District.

¶24

9. K.M.S. Karuppusamy

¶25

S/o. Subbaiyagounder, Karuppusamypudur, Myvadi Village, Madathukulam Taluk, Tiruppur District.

¶26

...Respondent(s)

¶27

For Applicant(s): Mr. D.R. Arun Kumar. For Respondent(s): Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R1 to R3. Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R4. Mr. Siva Sankar for R5. M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates & Mr. Sam Jayaraj Houston for R6. Mr. Senthil Kumaran for R7. M/s. S. Sathya Narayanan, V. Subramanian & R. Narayanan for R8. Ms. S. Akila for R9.

¶28

Judgment Reserved on: 19^th December, 2024.

¶29

CORAM :

¶30

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶31

HON’BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶32

JUDGEMENT

¶33

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member.

¶34

1. The above Original Application is filed by the owner of the agricultural land in S.F. No.530/1B of Myvadi Village, Madathukulam Taluk, Tiruppur District, alleging that Respondents Nos.5 to 9, who are the crusher operators, are carrying on the operations in violation of the rules and regulations, particularly of the Board Proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB).

¶35

Page 2 of 8

¶36

2. The applicant’s house is just 20 feet away from the pathway, and his agricultural well is 40 feet away. Therefore, while lorries transport quarry stones and crushing materials above the permitted level using the mud pathway leading to the Udumalpet—Pazhani National Highway, it causes abundant pollution of both the water and air.

¶37

3. The applicant refers to a circular issued by the 4^th Respondent dated 31.01.2019, which states that the approach road should be properly laid with tar and concrete and should be sprayed with water. Similarly, the approach road to individual crusher should be made in good condition and watered. The TNPCB also has additionally imposed a condition that “there should be a bi-lane road system to approach the stone crushing unit” . As the above conditions are not complied with by Respondents No.5 to 9, the applicant has sent representations dated 09.05.2022 and 14.05.2022 to Respondents No.1 to 4.

¶38

4. Since there was no response, the above Original Application is filed seeking the following prayers:-

¶39

“(a) Order closure of quarry and its operations belonging to the 5^th Respondent and pass any such other orders deem fit and proper under the given circumstances and thus render justice.

¶40

(b) Or in the alternate, direct the Respondents No.5 to 9 not to operate their business operations without properly laying the approach road with Tar and Concrete and spray it with water which is comprised in the mud pathway comprised in S.F. No.518, 520, 531/1, 533 and 554 and indulging in a powerful blasts than the permitted level.”

¶41

5. After filing the Original Application, the applicant filed an interlocutory application [I.A. No.192 of 2022 (SZ)] to amend the Prayer (b) as follows:-

¶42

“(b) Direct the Respondents No.6 to 9 not to operate their business without properly laying the approach road with Tar and Concrete and spraying it with water which is comprised in the mud pathway in S.F. No.518, 520, 531/1, 533 and 554 and not to indulge in carrying out powerful blasts than the permitted level.”

¶43

6. So, the interlocutory application [I.A. No.192 of

¶44

2022 (SZ)] is allowed.

¶45

Page 3 of 8

¶46

7. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), who is the 3^rd Respondent filed a report dated 18.04.20223 , after conducting a meeting with the crushing unit operators on 14.03.2023. The RDO has reported that the 5^th Respondent’s quarry has been inoperative for the last six months due to repeated complaints from the applicant. The distance between the applicant’s land and Respondent No.6 and 7’s units are 830 Meters and 0.5 Km respectively. The 8^th Respondent (M/s. Arthanareshwarar Blue Metals) is doing the water sprinkling activity within their premises and on the roads. The RDO has further reported that as the 8^th Respondent’s premises is laid with tar road and the sprinkling activity is done on a regular basis, the applicant is not affected by the quarrying process of the 8^th Respondent. So far as the 9^th Respondent is concerned, the alleged pathway is a shared pathway and where the applicant resides is the encroached patta land belonging to one Jayalakshmi. The RDO has stated, based on the estimate submitted by the Block Development Officer (BDO) – Maduthukulam, that for laying a road of a distance of 363 Meters with a width of 10 Meters, the approximate cost would be Rs.15 Lakhs.

¶47

8. The 5^th Respondent, in his reply dated 18.01.2023 , stated that the house claimed to have been put up by the applicant is not situated on his land but on the land belonging to one Jayalakshmi in Sy. No.530/2A1A. Excepting the said house, there are no other houses in the vicinity of 300 Meters. The said Jayalakshmi has already given no objection to the 5^th Respondent’s quarry. It is further alleged by the 5^th Respondent that the applicant had not obtained any approval/ permission from the Director of Geology and Mining, which is mandatory for putting up any construction in the vicinity of 300 Meters from the quarrying area, as per the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The 5^th Respondent has produced a communication dated 17.10.2022 from the BDO – Madathukulam, wherein it is stated that based on the complaint given by the 5^th Respondent – Marudachalam, the building and planning permit issued in favour of the Applicant – Rathnasamy was cancelled and that the said Rathnasamy was not granted any kind of permit for Sy. No.530/2A. The 5^th Respondent had emphasized that he

¶48

Page 4 of 8

¶49

commenced the quarry operations of rough stone and gravel only after obtaining requisite permits from the District Collector, Deputy Director – Department of Geology and Mining, Environmental Clearance from the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu, Consent from the TNPCB, etc. However, he has ceased to operate from 20.07.2022.

¶50

9. The 6^th Respondent has filed a reply , stating that he is running the crusher unit in the name and style of ‘GPR Sand and Blue Metals Private Limited’ (earlier known as ‘Jyothi Blue Metals’ ), which is situated in Sy. No.539/2 Part. The company has got two divisions viz., Blue Metal Division and M-Sand Division. The consent issued by the TNPCB is valid till 31.03.2027 for the Blue Metal Division and for the M-Sand Division, the consent is valid till 31.03.2028. According to the 6^th Respondent, the applicant’s land is approximately 830 – 890 Meters diagonally and by road, it is far by 2 Km. Therefore, the allegation that the applicant’s land is situated adjacent to the unit is false. The 6^th Respondent is also using the sprinklers for the roads for the purpose of settling down the dust and has never faced any complaints so far from the neighbours. The 6^th Respondent is situated in Sy. No. 539 and has an approach road of approximately 300 meters, adjacent to Sy. No. 541, providing access to the National Highway. The conditions stated in the alleged circular referred by the applicant were not made part of the conditions for the operation of the stone crusher by the 6^th Respondent. It is also stated that in order to settle his personal scores with the 6^th Respondent, the applicant has unnecessarily impleaded the 6^th Respondent, alleging pollution caused by his unit.

¶51

10. The 7^th Respondent (M/s. Mahesh Stone

¶52

Crushing Unit) has filed a reply stating that the unit is situated in Sy. No.519/2. It is stated that the applicant’s land is situated after the land of the 7^th Respondent at about 81 Meters away from the pathway. The 7^th Respondent is only a crusher unit and does not carry on any quarry operation. Therefore, the allegation that he is doing the blasting operation, resulting in noise pollution is false. The 7^th Respondent also has stated that the applicant only with an intention to harass the 7^th Respondent due to personal

¶53

Page 5 of 8

¶54

dispute has given complaints and filed this application. The consent issued by the TNPCB was valid till 31.03.2023.

¶55

11. The reply of the 9^th Respondent is also filed, stating that he is a quarry owner operating in the name of M/s. KMS Karuppusamy Quarry with a valid quarry lease issued to him on 10.05.2004 for a period of 5 years. Thereafter, it was extended till 24.10.2015 and a further extension renewed the said lease till 27.02.2025. The 9^th Respondent had obtained consent which was valid till 20.11.2024. He has also alleged that the applicant’s land is far away and even according to the 9^th Respondent, he has been unnecessarily roped into the litigation when this respondent is fully complying with the rules and conditions imposed in the approvals and permits granted for the quarry operation.

¶56

12. The prayer in the original application, as amended, is for the closure of the quarry and its operations belonging to the 5^th Respondent and directing the 6^th to 9^th Respondents not to operate their business without properly laying the approach road with Tar and Concrete and spraying it with water which is comprised in the mud pathway in S.F. No.518, 520, 531/1, 533 and 554 and not to indulge in carrying out powerful blasts than the permitted level.

¶57

13. The report of the Revenue Divisional Officer – Udumalpet as well as the TNPCB would state that the 5^th Respondent unit has stopped operations from 20.07.2022 when the unit was inspected on 12.01.2023. As the unit itself has ceased to operate, no direction needs to be given in this regard. The TNPCB has already advised the 5^th Respondent to intimate to the Board as and when they recommissioned the quarry operation.

¶58

14. So far as the 6^th Respondent is concerned, their Consent to Operate is valid up to 31.03.2027 for crushing of various sizes of rough stones. For the M-Sand activity also, the 6^th Respondent has obtained separate consent, which is valid up to 31.03.2028. The said unit is located at a distance of 827 Meters south west side of the applicant’s land. The 6^th Respondent also has provided GI Sheet with the necessary enclosure for the jaw crusher, vibrator and other necessary air pollution control

¶59

Page 6 of 8

¶60

measures. The 6^th Respondent also provided the water sprinklers to prevent fugitive emissions and it was found under operation. The 6^th Respondent has got spray arrangements for the road reaching the crusher and it has developed the greenbelt within the boundaries of the unit.

¶61

15. The 7^th Respondent also has a valid consent for the crushing unit and the said unit has also provided GI sheets with necessary enclosures for the jaw crusher, vibrator, etc. However, the TNPCB has found that the unit was carrying on washing the stone dust within the premises, which is not a permissible activity. Hence, the show cause notice was issued on 12.01.2023 for the violations and the TNPCB is to initiate necessary action pursuant to the same and levy environmental compensation.

¶62

16. The 8^th Respondent has a Consent to Operate, which is valid till 31.03.2028 for its crushing unit. The TNPCB has found that the unit was not in operation during the inspection. The unit also provided GI Sheets for VSI Machines and water sprinklers within the premises. The unit was inspected on 28.10.2022 and found to be operating without obtaining valid consent from the Board. Hence, the show cause notice was issued on 04.11.2022. The TNPCB has mentioned that appropriate action will be initiated against this unit for the illegal operation and levy environmental compensation.

¶63

17. Regarding the 9^th Respondent, the TNPCB has stated that it is a quarry unit for rough stone and gravel which has got consent valid up to 31.03.2026. The said unit is also fully in compliance with all the conditions, including that of the Environmental Clearance conditions.

¶64

18. When the matter was being heard, laying of the tar road was insisted. On 19.12.2024, the 7^th Respondent filed photographs to show that along with two other units dealing with blue metal have laid down the approach road from the National Highway to their units.

¶65

19. From the photographs produced, it is evident that the blacktopping has been done to the approach road and thus, the prayer sought for by the applicant is satisfied. The learned counsel

¶66

Page 7 of 8

¶67

for the applicant also admitted that the approach road with tar had already been laid by the respondents’ units.

¶68

20. Since the 5^th Respondent is no longer operational and other units viz., Respondents Nos.6 to 9 are meeting the applicant's demand, it is appropriate to dispose of the Original Application.

¶69

21. However, the TNPCB is directed to proceed with the action already initiated by them against the erring unit for the violations noted. Additionally, the TNPCB may impose the following conditions, which were directed by this Tribunal in Original Application No.12 of 2024 (SZ) , to the units whenever they apply for renewal.

¶70

“The TNPCB shall also impose conditions for dry dust collection systems such as cyclones and dust hoppers or any other suitable measures in addition to sprinkler systems.

¶71

The TNPCB shall impose the development of green cover as a precondition for the grant of Consent to Operate or for the erection of wind breaking wall, which could be a GI / MS sheet or any other prescribed material of adequate height till such time the trees grow to the desired height.

¶72

In addition to the green cover around the individual unit/cluster, a condition may be imposed for the development of green cover in the radius of safe distance prescribed. This should also include increasing the green cover along the approach roads, in the residential area as well as in and around the public buildings.”

¶73

22. Accordingly, the Original Application [O.A. No.74 of 2022 (SZ)] is disposed of.

¶74

Sd/-

¶75

Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM

¶76

Sd/-

¶77

Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM

¶78

Internet – Yes/No

¶79

All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No

¶80

O.A. No.74/2022 (SZ) & I.A. No.192/2022 (SZ) 09^th January, 2025. Mn.

¶81

Page 8 of 8

Rathinasamy v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rathinasamy v. District Collector

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

Kgisl Technologies and Infrastructures Private Limited vs Seiaa

Gold Star a Proprietorship Firm through Mr Prasad Betkar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Babu Lal Jajoo vs State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary

M/S Bajaj Sanjay Poultry Farm vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

News Item Titled "Road Expansion Along Nilgiris Highways Ruining Local Ecology Increasing Risk of Landslips: Activists" Appearing in the Hindu Dated 04.01.2024 vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Sunil Paliwal vs Local Self Government Department

Vikas Kumar vs

Vikas Kumar vs

Kgisl Technologies and Infrastructures Private Limited vs Seiaa

Gr. Tamilmani vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

P Kamalakannan vs the District Forest Officer

Kulal Munindar Narendar Goud vs Union of India

Kulal Munindar Narendar Goud vs Union of India

Kulal Munindar Narendar Goud vs Union of India