SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Mad) 5187

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. H.L. GOKHALE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
Dr. K. Mohan & Another
Versus
Chennai Port Trust, Rep. by its Chairman, Chennai & Others
Writ Petition Nos.23461 of 2009 & 21315 of 2009
Decided on : 01-12-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:Sriram Panchu, Senior Counsel, for V. Achuthan, S. Arokia Maniraj, Advocates. For the Respondents:P. Wilson, P. Wilson Associates, Advocates, J. Ravindran, (For C.M.D.A.) Advocate, G. Masilamani, Senior Counsel, R Mani Sundargopal, R. Ramanlal (For T.N.P.C.B.), Advocates.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the temporary nature of the storage tanks, the non-hazardous nature of the stored materials, and the jurisdiction of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, in governing the activities in a major port.

Headnote:

Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act - Construction of Storage Tanks - Sections 2(7), 2(13), 47, 49 - Second Master Plan for the Chennai Metropolitan Area - Coastal Regulation Zone Notification - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - [KEYWORD] - Construction of Storage Tanks - Sections 2(7), 2(13), 47, 49

Fact of the Case:

The case concerns the construction of storage tanks for edible oil near a residential neighborhood by the Chennai Port Trust. The petitioners argued that the construction violated the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the storage tanks were temporary structures and the stored materials were non-hazardous. It noted the increasing demand for edible oil and the necessity of providing storage facilities near the port area. The court also highlighted that the area fell under the jurisdiction of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, and the objections based on the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification were futile.

Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to the construction of storage tanks near a residential area, as well as the necessity and permissibility of the construction under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the temporary nature of the storage tanks, the non-hazardous nature of the stored materials, and the necessity of providing storage facilities near the port area. It also highlighted the jurisdiction of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, and the permissibility of the construction under the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed by the court, which found no merit in the petitioners' arguments and ruled in favor of the respondents. The court also noted that the objections based on the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification were futile.

Judgment :-

H.L. Gokhale, C.J.

Heard Mr. Sriram Panchu, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. V. Achuthan for the petitioner in W.P. No.23461 of 2009 and Mr. S. Arokia Maniraj, learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P. No.21315 of 2009. Mr. P. Wilson, learned senior counsel appears on behalf of the Chennai Port Trust; Mr. J. Ravindran, learned counsel appears on behalf of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority; Mr. G. Masilamani, learned senior counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Mani Sundargopal for the third respondent in both the writ petitions; and Mr. R. Ramanlal, learned standing counsel for the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board appears on behalf of the fourth respondent in W.P. No.21315 of 2009.

2. Both these writ petitions are concerning nine tanks for storing edible oil which are to be constructed/are being constructed for the first respondent-Chennai Port Trust. The principal submission in both these writ petitions is that these tanks are situated nearby a residential neighbourhood and it would be hazardous to permit them to come up over there. The first of these two writ petitions, i.e., W.P. No.23461 of 2009 refers to some seven survey numbers wherein these tanks are supposed to be located, though the first respondent-Chennai Port Trust has pointed out that they are being located only in one of these survey numbers, i.e., Survey No.282 of Royapuram, Chennai, and which survey number is a part of the Chennai Port Trust area. The prayer in this writ petition is that the Chennai Port Trust be refrained from putting up these structures contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The second writ petition, i.e., W.P. No.21315 of 2009 also makes the same prayer, though the prayer therein is that the first respondent-Chennai Port Trust be restrained from installing these storage tanks to store molasses in the residential area without obtaining prior approval of re-conversion/re-classification of the area from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and prior clearance from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.

3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that this construction would be governed by the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and the Rules framed thereunder. Reliance is placed on the definition of a building under Section 2(7) of the Act which covers in sub-clause (b) thereof, even a structure on wheels or simply resting on the ground without foundations and in clause (c), it includes even a ship, vessel, boat, tent, van and any other structure used for human habitation or used for keeping or storing any article or goods. Reference is also made to the definition of the term development coming under Section 2(13) of the Act, which states that development means the carrying out of all or any of the works contemplated in a regional plan, master plan, detailed development plan or a new town development plan prepared under the Act and which also includes the carrying out of the building, engineering, mining or other operations in, or over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any building or land. Amongst the exclusions from this definition given in the proviso, only temporary works for maintenance, improvement or alteration are excluded under sub-clause (a) of the proviso. It is then pointed out that under Section 47 of the Act, after the coming into operation of any development plan in any area, no person (other than any State Government or the Central Government or any local authority) shall use or cause to be used any land or carry out any development in that area otherwise than in conformity with such development plan. It is emphasised that a local authority as defined under Section 2(23) of the Act includes the Municipal Corporation of Chennai, or of Madurai, or a municipal council constituted under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 and some of the




































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top