Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2017) 03 NGT CK 0031

Meenava Thanthai K.R. Selvaraj Kumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors

National Green Tribunal · Decided on 23 March 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
P. Jyothimani, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Application No. 238 Of 2016 & Application No. 239 Of 2016

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

9 paragraphs · 694 words
1.

This application is filed for a direction against the 12th respondent - M/s. KTV Health Food Pvt. Ltd., for their illegal construction of oil storage tanks and laying of pipeline in contravention of CRZ Notification, 2011, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and to remove the same.

2.

Admittedly the 12th respondent has purchased the said oil tanks in an auction sale conducted under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. It is also candidly admitted that laying of pipeline in the coastal area by the 12th respondent was without obtaining CRZ clearance even though according to the 12th respondent, permission has been obtained from the National Highways Authority, Fisheries Department and Port Trust. It is to be appreciated that whatever authority grants permission, admittedly this being a coastal zone, when the CRZ Notification is occupying the field, necessarily the MoEF & CC has to confer CRZ Clearance. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the MoEF & CC that on the recommendation made by the State Coastal Zone Management Authority the matter was considered by the EAC which in turn has recommended the case and at any time the MoEF & CC is likely to pass appropriate orders.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that when once admittedly it is found that the 12th respondent has carried on the activities without obtaining CRZ clearance, final orders to be passed not only for the purpose of removal of oil tanks but also imposing penalty by way of 'polluter pays' since by virtue of the conduct of the 12th respondent not only the statutory notification has been given a goby but also it has resulted in pollution in the area.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the 12th respondent however denied the said contention saying that it is only for the purpose of transit of edible oil through oil tankers and closed pipeline and storage of the same to the factory at Gummidipoondi and there is no possibility for any pollution.

5.

In our order dated 18.1.2017 we have directed the 12th respondent to immediately stop its operations carried on at No.1, 2 & 3, S.N. Chetty Street, Tondiarpet, Chennai 600 081 and also directed the 6th respondent - Board to ensure that the 12th respondent unit stopped its operations and file status report. Accordingly, the Board has filed the status report dated 14.2.2017 in which it is stated that the Board has issued direction by proceedings dated 31.1.2017 for closure of the unit and stoppage of power supply to the unit. It is also stated that accordingly the power supply to the 12th respondent was disconnected on 7.2.2017. The learned counsel appearing for the 12th respondent would submit that immediately after the original closure order was passed, the unit was already closed.

6.

Be that as it may, now that the unit was closed, we make it clear that no activity shall be carried on in the said unit, unless and until MoEF & CC passes appropriate orders in the manner known to law.

7.

It is also relevant to note that in this case we have appointed an Advocate Commissioner and directed both the applicant as well as the 12th respondent to equally share the remuneration to be paid to the Advocate Commissioner viz., Rs.40,000/- and accordingly it is stated that the applicant has also contributed Rs.20,000/- towards his share. As it is clear that the 12th respondent has laid the pipeline without obtaining CRZ clearance, we are of the view that any amount which has been contributed by the applicant towards Advocate Commissioner's fee is to be returned by the 12th respondent. In view of the same we direct the 12th respondent to refund Rs.20,000/- to the applicant through the learned counsel within a period of one week.

With the above direction, the application stands closed. There shall be no order as to cost.

In view of the order passed in the main application, M.A.No.29 of 2017 is closed as no order is necessary.