Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 3293
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
Neelamalai Agro Industries Limited, Owning Katary and Sutton Estates Nilgiris District
Versus
District Collector, Nilgiris District, Tamil Nadu
W.P.No.16092 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 of 2012
Decided on : 27-07-2012
For the Petitioner:E.K. Nandakumar, SC for M/s. King and Patridge, Advocates.
For the Respondent: V. Jayaprakash Narayanan, Spl.G.P.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the ban on JCB machines in the Nilgiris District was primarily intended to prevent irreparable damage to the hills and protect the ecology, with no total ban on the use of JCBs for agricultural operations.
Headnote:
JCB Machines - Agricultural Operations - Nilgiris District JCB and Pocline Owners Association - W.P.No.9860 of 2008, W.P.No.13397 of 2011 - S.Nos.102/6 and 36/2B - Summary: The court discussed the use of JCB machines for agricultural purposes in the Nilgiris District, referencing previous orders and observations related to the protection of ecology and prevention of irreparable damage to the hills. The court clarified that the ban on JCBs was primarily aimed at mining and quarrying activities, and there was no total ban on the use of JCBs for agricultural operations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought permission to use JCB machines for removing tea plants in certain survey numbers, but the District Collector denied permission based on a report stating that JCB machines cannot be used even for agricultural purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order passed by the authority was not arbitrary and that there was no total ban on the use of JCBs for agricultural operations in the Nilgiris District.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be allowed to use JCB machines for agricultural purposes in the specified survey numbers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that the ban on JCBs was primarily aimed at mining and quarrying activities, and there was no total ban on the use of JCBs for agricultural operations.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were imposed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The court clarified that the ban on JCB machines in the Nilgiris District was primarily aimed at preventing environmental damage caused by mining and quarrying activities, not for agricultural purposes (!) (!) .
-
The order issued by the authorities was found to be non-arbitrary, and there was no total ban on the use of JCBs for agricultural operations in the district (!) .
-
The petitioner’s request to use JCB machines for removing tea plants was denied based on reports indicating that such machinery cannot be used even for agricultural purposes, but the court emphasized that this restriction was specific to mining and quarrying, not agriculture (!) (!) .
-
The court noted that prior orders and the relevant judicial directions were intended to protect the ecology and prevent irreparable damage, and did not prohibit the use of heavy machinery for legitimate agricultural activities in appropriate circumstances (!) (!) .
-
The court dismissed the petition, affirming that the authorities acted within their powers and that there was no total ban on using JCBs for agricultural purposes. It also highlighted that heavy machinery use in hillocks could cause irreparable environmental harm if permitted without proper regulation (!) .
-
The court acknowledged previous orders which emphasized that heavy machinery could only be used with proper permissions and for authorized purposes, and not indiscriminately for agriculture or construction in ecologically sensitive areas (!) (!) .
-
Overall, the decision underscores that regulatory restrictions are aimed at environmental protection, and the use of machinery for agriculture in the Nilgiris District is permissible provided that proper permissions are obtained and the use does not cause environmental harm (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice related to this document.
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner Company seeking to challenge an order dated 08.12.2011 issued by the District Collector, Udagamandalam. By the said order, the petitioner was informed that their request to remove the tea plant in the Ulikkal Village, Kunoor Taluk in S.Nos.102/6 and 36/2B by using JCB machines and for levelling the field cannot be considered in the light of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kunoor, wherein it was informed that even for agricultural purposes, JCB machines cannot be used. Hence the petitioner Estate was denied permission to use JCB machines for the removal of tea plants in the said survey numbers.
2. When the matter came up on 26.6.2012, this court directed the learned Special Government Pleader Mr.Jayaprakash Narayanan to get instructions from the respondent. Accordingly, a counter affidavit dated Nil (July, 2012) was filed by the respondent District Collector, Nilgiris.
3. The Contention raised by the petitioner was that the order passed by the authority was arbitrary and he ought not to have placed reliance on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer. He had abdicated his power and discretion. The RDO, Kunoor had not given the details of the writ petition referred to in his report and presumably, it referred to the order passed by this court in W.P.No.9860 of 2008, dated 18.11.2009 by the division bench. The order of this court will not apply to the case on hand. That was the public interest litigation filed by the organisation interested in environment. The main prayer of that writ petition was not to allow the mining and quarrying operations anywhere in the hills of Nilgiris District. It was with a view to protect the environment and pollution in the Nilgiris. The Court after hearing all parties had issued certain directions to check the use of JCBs for the purpose of mining and quarrying activities. The court never had an occasion to consider the case of persons like the petitioner who are carrying on business of cultivating tea, for permitting the use of JCBs for replanting operations. This was never the issue before the division bench. Therefore, there was no total ban on the use of JCBs, particularly in respect of agricultural operations.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, a reference was made to the decision passed by this court. It was stated that this court had clearly made observations in paragraphs 9 and 10 and that the order of this court has to be understood in its right perspective and cannot be misconstrued. The order was to protect the ecology and to prevent the irreparable damage and harm to the existing stability of the Nilgiris hills and to protect ecology. In fact, it was stated that subsequent to the division bench order, an another writ petition was filed by the Nilgiris Potato and Vegetable Grower's Association in W.P.No.13397 of 2011 seeking for a direction to permit the farmers residing in the Nilgiris District to avail the use of their machinery devices like the Pocline or JCB earth movers exclusively for agricultural purposes in their existing fields. That writ petition was dismissed with costs. The division bench by its order dated 6.6.2011 had observed as
follows :
"This writ petition, under the grab of public interest litigation, has been filed for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 8 herein to permit the farmers residing in the Nilgiri District to avail use of their machinery devices like the Pocline or JCB earth movers for exclusively agricultural purposes in their existing agricultural fields and consequently grant such other relief.
In our view, the relief sought for is wholly misconceived and mis-use of forum of public interest litigation. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-to be deposited with the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai-104. Consequently, miscellaneous petition is closed."
5. It was also stated in the counter aff
