AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
With the consent of both the counsel the main application itself is taken up for final disposal.
This application has been filed with a prayer to forbear respondents 1 to 3 and 10 to 13 from granting licence/permission to the 18th respondent to commence power plant or any other industry anywhere in Kudikadu or Thiagavalli Village in Cuddalore District.
It appears that the government, for the purpose of giving to the 18th respondent, had purchased around 700 acres of land over a stretch of 10 square kilometres in the said area. The applicant society has stated that the land consisting of rich cashew groves along with vettiver in several acres of land. The applicant has also stated about various steps taken by the government in purchasing the land and writ petitions filed by various owners of land from whom the lands have been purchased. Even though the applicant has stated that trees which are grown in the sand lands are valuable, there are no particulars about the number of trees standing and the number of trees which are stated to have been cut by the 18th respondent.
However, in the interim prayer the applicant has sought for an interim injunction against the respondents 7 to 9 and 14 to 18 from cutting any trees or crop forcibly in any property purchased by the 18th respondent till the disposal of the main application. The applicant which is an association of agriculturists has also stated that the owners are still in possession of the property even though the private purchase has been completed.
At the time of admission, on the basis of the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the trees are being cut, in order to preserve the environment, by our order dated 23.11.2015, we have passed an interim order, directing the 18th respondent not to cut the trees any further until further orders from this Tribunal.
The 18th respondent has filed M.A.272 of 2015 for vacating the said order. In the application filed by the 18th respondent, it is stated that nearly 700 acres of land which are continuous in nature have been purchased by the 18th respondent from various vendors and admittedly they also contain cashew plants. The 18th respondent has stated that in as much as private purchase has been effected by the 18th respondent which is a public limited company and various efforts taken by the previous owners, including the present association has been met by the 18th respondent in innumerable litigations including writ petitions as well as suits and ultimately having failed in their efforts in protecting the property, the applicant has taken refugee under environmental issue and filed this application. It is also stated by the 18th respondent that as a lawful owner of the property, it has got every right to put the land for its convenient use. It remains a fact that as on date no effective step has been taken for the purpose of starting the industrial unit. However, it is brought to the notice of this Tribunal that the 18th respondent has got environmental and CRZ clearance for the construction of marine facilities in R.S.No.328 and 336 at Thiyagavalli Village, Cuddalore Taluk in the order of MoEF & CC dated 11th June, 2009. In addition to that the said communication of MoEF & CC dated 11th June 2009 shows that MoEF & CC has also granted E.C on 16.1.2008 for the thermal power plant proposed to be put up by the 18th respondent. It is seen that the said EC as well as CRZ clearance have been subsequently extended in the order of MoEF & CC dated 13.3.2014. A reference to the said order of MoEF & CC dated 13th March 2014, in clear terms show in Clause 39 and 40 about the protection of green belt as well as the development of three tier green belt around Ash Pond. The conditions are as follows:
''(xxxix) Green Belt consisting of 3 tiers of plantations of native species around plant and at least 100 m width shall be raised. Wherever 100 m width is not feasible a 50 m width shall be raised and adequate justification shall be submitted to the Ministry. Tree density shall not be less than 2500 per ha with survival rate not less than 75%. The guidelines of Indian Road Congress (IRC) may be followed.
(xi) Three tier green belt shall be developed all around Ash Pond over and above the Green Belt around the plant boundary.''
Therefore it is clear that the authorities competent to grant EC under the EIA Notification, 2006, ought to have taken note of the existence of plants and trees in the area concerned while granting EC with the conditions protecting the green belt.
It is unfortunate that the applicant has not chosen to bring forth the said factual aspect before this Tribunal. Even otherwise the association has challenged the purchase of land by the 18th respondent at various stages and it is seen that at one stage when a writ petition was filed, the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that the writ petition is not maintainable and any right can be agitated only in a civil forum. Subsequently it appears that the applicant association has moved the civil court and filed a suit for injunction. It is also brought to the notice of this Tribunal that as against the filing of the suit, a civil revision petition has been filed before the Hon'ble Madras High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on various grounds including that the applicant association cannot maintain a suit for injunction in respect of personal right to property and the Hon'ble High Court has also stayed the further proceedings in the suit. These are all some of the instances to show as to how the applicant association has taken enormous efforts for the purpose of protecting the interest of the land owners and is successful in stalling the commissioning of the project as such.
Be that as it may, this Tribunal which is concerned about the environmental issue is unable to find out any material in any of the pleadings made by the applicant so as to enable this Tribunal to come to a conclusion that environmental hazard is being created by the 18th respondent. However, in the light of the EC having been granted under the EIA Notification by the competent authority, at this stage of the project, we are of the considered view that this application cannot be kept pending at all. If it is the case of the applicant association that against the terms and conditions of EC certain activities are being done by the 18th respondent, it is always open to the application association to work out its remedy in the manner known to law.
We are of the considered view that the application is not maintainable. Accordingly the application shall stand dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the main application, the interim order passed by this Tribunal on 23.11.2015 stands vacated and M.A.272 of 2015 filed by the 18th respondent to vacate the said order stands allowed.