Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2017) 02 NGT CK 0031

Meenava Thanthai K.R. Selvaraj Kumar vs Chairman, National Coastal Zone Management Authority And Ors

National Green Tribunal · Decided on 23 February 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
P. Jyothimani, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Application No .48 Of 2017 & Application No. 46 Of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 361 words
1.

The prayer in this application, seeking for a direction to the respondents to restore environment in and around the surrounding areas of the 7th respondent Company and also to direct the respondents to plan and explore the long term and short term measures for the restitution of environmental pollution particularly, water and air pollution caused in and around the area of the 7th respondent company, cannot be granted on the face of it.

2.

The reasons are manifold. There is already a case pending in respect of 7th respondent wherein certain environmental issues have been raised and this Tribunal is seized of the matter. If really the applicant wants to protect the environment and ecology, it is open to implead himself as a party in that case.

3.

There is a representation made by the applicant on 22.12.2016 to the respondents which shows that on 05.12.2016 the members of the applicant - Association have visited the area of 7th respondent unit M/s. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and found that there has been oil leakage and the effluents discharged by the company completely damaged the Buckingham Canal from Manali to Ennore to a length of about 15 km. The contention of the applicant that the members of the applicant - Association are not aware of the 7th respondent company and it is noticed only on 05.12.2016, is not at all acceptable. On the face of it, when the 7th respondent - company which is already in existence for so many years, suddenly the applicant has filed the representation which in our considered view, cannot be accepted at all.

4.

In any event, now that the applicant has made a representation dated 22.12.2016 that there has been oil leakage by the activity of the 7th respondent - company, it is for the 5th respondent - State Pollution Control Board (Board) to whom the representation has been made, to inspect the entire area and find out as to whether there is any leakage or not. If there is any leakage, it is for the Board to pass appropriate orders. Except the above direction, the application is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.