Disposed

Kgs Jeevanandham v. the State of Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department

NGT22 Sept 2026IA No. 139/2026 in Original Application No. 133/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal Southern Zone disposed of an original application concerning environmental hazards from fish waste at a new fish market construction in Dindigul. The Tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to consider the applicant's representation and ensure scientific waste management, and to file a compliance report after construction completion and operation commencement.

What did the court decide?

TNPCB directed to consider applicant's representation and ensure scientific waste management; compliance report to be filed after construction completion and operation commencement; pending I.A. Nos. 138-141 closed; matter listed for 07.01.2027 for compliance report

Kgs Jeevanandham vs the State of Tamil Nadu Municipal… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.04:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Tuesday, the 22^nd day of September,2026.

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

¶5

Original Application No.133 of 2026(SZ)& I.A. Nos.138 to 141 of 2026 (SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶7

K.G.S. Jeevanandham,

¶8

Managing Trustee, Hubris Wasteman Trust, Dindigul– 624 301. …Applicant(s) Versus

¶9

State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Secretariat,
Fort St. George,
Chennai –600 009.
2. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Represented by its Member Secretary,
No.76, Anna Salai,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032.
3. The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Collectorate Complex,
Dindigul – 624 004.
4. The Commissioner,
Dindigul City Municipal Corporation,
15/9, Trichy Road,
Dindigul – 624 001.
5. The Assistant Director of Fisheries,
Department of Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare,
Dindigul District – 624 001.
6. The District Collector,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul – 624 004.
...Respondent(s)

¶10

Page 1 of 3

¶11

For Applicant(s): M/s. Y. Prakash, A. Nazar Mohamed & S. Vaiduriya For Respondent(s): Mr. J. Pradeep for the State of TN. Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for TNPCB.

¶12

CORAM :

¶13

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

1. The present Original Application is expressing concern over the fish market which is being constructed in the same place where originally there was an old structure in existence. The challenge to the same was already dealt with by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench in W.P. (MD) No. 11634 of 2026 . However, the Hon’ble High Court held that while renovating the fish market, the respondents therein shall ensure that no waste materials will be thrown into the residential area or any other area causing environmental pollution, which would affect the public health.

¶16

2. Now, the apprehension of the Applicant is that even the new construction wherever it is being constructed also does not provide for adequate scientific collection, segregation, storage, transportation, processing and disposal of the fish waste, which if left unattended would be hazardous to the health of the public around.

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

3. In this regard, it appears that the Applicant herein has also made a representation to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) as early as on 06.03.2026 and he has not received any reply.

¶19

4. Since the Applicant has already made a representation to the TNPCB, we direct them, for whom the notice is accepted by the learned counsel, Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith, to consider the said representation and ensure that no waste is being disposed of unscientifically and appropriate provisions made for the segregation and treatment of the same.

¶20

5. Though with the above direction the Original Application [O.A. No. 133 of 2026(SZ)]is disposed of , we direct the TNPCB to file a compliance report after the completion of the construction and the operation commenced, which may take three months’ time.

¶21

6. The pending interlocutory applications [I.A. No.138 to 141 of 2026 (SZ)] shall stand closed .

¶22

7. List the matter on 07.01.2027 for filing the compliance report by the TNPCB.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM

¶25

Sd/Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM

¶26

O.A. No.133/2026(SZ) & I.A. Nos.138 to 141/2026 22^nd September, 2026. NS.

¶27

Page 3 of 3

Kgs Jeevanandham v. the State of Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kgs Jeevanandham v. the State of Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jot Singh Bist vs

Bikramjit Singh Shergill vs .

Bikramjit Singh Shergill vs .

Anurag Singhal vs Union of India

Anuj Kumar Son of Rajesh Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Gian Sagar Educational and Charitable Trust vs Punjab Pollution Control Board

Gian Sagar Educational and Charitable Trust vs Punjab Pollution Control Board

Gian Sagar Educational and Charitable Trust vs Punjab Pollution Control Board

S Vanjinmuthu vs the District Collector

Krishna Blue Metals vs the Chairman Seiaa

Tribunal on Its Own Motion Based on the News Item Published in Eenadu Newspaper Edition Dated 12TH June 2021 Under the Caption Dredging Along the Embankments of Krishna River to Be Stopped vs the Chief Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh

News Item Titled Dumpyard Plan at Megalithic Site in Chennai S Perumbakkam Raises Asi S Hackles Residents Fear Appearing in the New Indian Express Dated 05 01 2025 vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary

Ravi N vs Perumbakkam Panchayat Union Office

Jeganathan Kumarasamy vs State of Tamil Nadu through Its Chief Secretary