Disposed

Durai Varathan v. District Collector Tiruvannamalai District

NGT10 Apr 2026Original Application No. 75/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal directed respondents to obtain Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate from TNPCB before commencing STP construction. The court directed respondents to consider objections regarding proximity to a lake and temple before granting consent.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to make an application to TNPCB to obtain necessary consent before commencing work and ensuring no work is commenced without following prescribed procedure.

Durai Varathan vs District Collector Tiruvannamalai… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.04:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Friday, the 10^th day of April, 2026.

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

¶5

Original Application No.75 of 2025(SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶7

1) Durai Varathan,

¶8

S/o Varathan, 61/2, Sokkattan Street, 99, Pudupalayam, Kuruvimalai, Tiruvannamalai, Polur Taluk, Tamil Nadu – 606 751. 2) Parthiban Masilamani, S/o Masilamani, 113/A, Padaikal Street, 99, Pudupalayam Village, Kuruvimalai, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai – 606 751. ...Applicant(s) Versus 1) District Collector, Tiruvannamalai District, NH 234, Vellore Tiruvannamalai Road, Vengikkal, Tiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu- 606 604.

¶9

2) Executive Officer, Polur Town Panchayat, Tiruvannamalai District, Tamil nadu – 606 803.

¶10

3) Executive Officer, Kalambur Town Panchayat, Tiruvannamalai District, Tamil Nadu – 606 903.

¶11

4) The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Collectorate Master Plan Complex, Venkikal, Tiruvannamalai District – 606 604.

¶12

...Respondent(s)

¶13

For Applicant(s): Ms. Swetha represented M/s. A. Yogeshwaran, Poongkhulali. B, Raghunandan Sriram, Jayasakthi. R & Jahnavi Vishwanathan.

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

For Respondent(s): Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R1 to R3. Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R4.

¶16

CORAM :

¶17

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶18

HON’BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

1. The above-captioned Original Application is filed seeking an order of permanent injunction restraining the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents, who are Executive Officers of Town Panchayats, from establishing a Sewage Treatment Plant ( STP ) at lands comprised in Survey No.224/3 (previously S.No.224/1) in Pudupalyam Village, Kuruvimalai Post, Polur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District, as it is in violation of the mandatory siting criteria prescribed by the 4^th Respondent/Pollution Control Board in its Circular Memo No.T16/25323/STP/Orange/2007-4 dated 23.10.2008 and shift the same to an appropriate location.

¶21

2. The other ground raised by the applicant is that the proposed STP is in close proximity to a lake and that the Panchayat cannot establish a STP in violation of the law. The distance is said to be 75 metres from the Vasur Lake, which is against the siting criteria. Besides, there is a Vediappan Temple located 75 metres from the proposed site, which is also against the siting criteria. Finally, the allegation is that the treated sewage cannot be discharged into a lake, the water of which is used for drinking purposes.

¶22

3. Earlier, we had issued a notice directing the respondents, including the District Collector to file their response considering the fact that the STP cannot be established in violation of the siting criteria.

¶23

4. The District Collector – Tiruvannamalai District has filed his report stating that the proceeding of the Collector for the construction of STP was issued on 14.11.2023 and the allocation of the land was issued on 27.11.2023. The extent of

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

land is about 1.15.0 Hectares in R.S No.224/3, PudupalayamVillage, Polur Taluk. The STP is sanctioned for the upgraded Polur Municipality and Kalambur Town Panchayat.

¶26

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu that a drone survey was conducted, from which it is stated that Vasur Lake is situated 260 metres away from Survey No. 224/3 of Pudupalayam Village. It is further submitted that the source of water for the residents of Pudupalayam Village is two open wells located on the banks of the Cheyyar River at Karaipambadi Village (Kalasapakkam), from which drinking water is supplied to the villagers. No water is extracted from the said Vasur Lake for human consumption. The water from Vasur Lake is primarily utilized for irrigation purposes only. It is also admitted that there is a Vediappan Temple, which is visited by the villagers, though not on a daily basis.

¶27

6. The report of the District Collector further states that the water body, namely Vasur Lake and the project site are situated nearly 260 metres away from each other. Between the project site and the water body, there exists a State Highway linking Polur and Chengam, which has been in existence for a long time. Further, a petrol pump is also situated between the State Highway and the water body. The District Collector has also stated that the applicant, Mr. Durai Varathan, does not own any land in the said area.

¶28

7. In the above conspectus of facts, it is evident that the Municipality has decided to establish an STP to address the sewage issue in the Village Panchayat and the necessary sanction has also been granted. It goes without saying that the authorities concerned are required to abide by the law before setting up the STP by obtaining the appropriate ‘Consent to Establish’ and thereafter, the ‘Consent to Operate’ for operating the same. When such an application is made before the TNPCB, which is the regulatory authority, the distance criteria and other objections raised in the application shall be considered by the TNPCB while granting or refusing consent. However, the report of the District Collector does not state whether any application has been made before the TNPCB for obtaining such consent.

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

8. Hence, we direct Respondents No.2 and 3 to make an application before the TNPCB prior to commencing any work and to obtain the necessary consent. We further direct the 1^st Respondent/District Collector to ensure that no work is commenced without following the prescribed procedure.

¶31

9. It is also open to the applicant to raise objections, if any, before the TNPCB, which may consider the same before passing any orders in this regard.

¶32

10. With the above directions, the Original Application [O.A. No.75 of 2025(SZ)] is disposed of.

¶33

Sd/-
Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM
Sd/-
Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM
O.A. No.75/2025 (SZ)
10 th April, 2026. AD.

¶34

Page 4 of 4

Durai Varathan v. District Collector Tiruvannamalai District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durai Varathan v. District Collector Tiruvannamalai District

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

T Evelin Murugatham vs the Principal Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu Department of Environment Climate Change and Forests

News Item Titled Retired Dcf Penalized for Illegal Felling of 800 Treed in Madikeri Forest Appearing in the Deccan Herald Dated 30 08 2024 vs Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Pccf) Karnataka

News Item Titled No Permission Provided for Use of Chemicals in Cleaning Water Bodies: Mpcb Appearing in the Hindustan Times Dated 23.02.2024 vs Pune Muncipal Corporation

Kedar Dattatray Gurav vs Ichalkaranji Agro Foods

Suo Moto Titled Paatal Me Jata Pani Semi Critical Zone Me Bhopal Appear in People S Samachar Newspaper Dated 16TH March 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Suo Moto Titled Raunak Residency Ke Piche Padon Ki Katai Ke Sath Avedh Utkhanan Appear in Dainik Bhaskar Sagar News Paper Dated 26TH February 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Suo Moto Tilted Bhujal Mai Silent Killer Dushit Pani Aapki Nashon Mai Ghol Raha Zehar Appear in Patrika Newspaper Dated 23RD February 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

General Manager Sambhar Salt Ltd. vs State of Rajasthan

T Evelin Murugatham vs the Principal Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu Department of Environment Climate Change and Forests

T Evelin Murugatham vs the Principal Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu Department of Environment Climate Change and Forests

News Item Titled Retired Dcf Penalized for Illegal Felling of 800 Treed in Madikeri Forest Appearing in the Deccan Herald Dated 30 08 2024 vs Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Pccf) Karnataka

K. Saravanan vs the Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority Rep by Its Member Secretary

K Gemini vs Union of India Rep. by the Secretary to Government Ministry of Environment Forests & Cc

Society for Protection of Civil Property and Environmental Rights (Spcper) Rep by Its District President Jaggrapu Mallikarjuna vs the Union of India Ministry of Environment Forests & Climate Change