2012 Supreme(Mad) 4450

High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. BANUMATHI & R. SUBBIAH, JJ.
M. Ramasamy & Others
Versus
The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu & Others
W.P.Nos.2790 of 2012, 3553, 7108, 8950, 9535, 9536, 10566, 10901, 11304, 11976, 12562, 12617, 15369, 15420, 17341, 18653, 19826 and 23981 of 2012 and
W.P. (MD) Nos.1399 and 1614 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1, 1 to 4, 1 to 4, 1 to 4, 1 & 2, 1 & 2, 1, 2, 2, 2 1 & 2, 1 to 3, 1 to 3, 1 & 2, 2, 2, 1 to 3 of 2012 and M.P.(MD) Nos.2 to 5 of 2012
Decided on : 01-11-2012

Headnote:

The judgment deals with the validity of Government Order (G.O.) Ms. No. 209, Environment and Forests (EC-1) Department dated 31.12.2011, which sanctioned an interest-bearing advance of Rs. 75 crores to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) for disbursement to the members of the 4th respondent Noyyal Ayacutdars Protection Association (Association). The main issue before the court was whether the G.O. was arbitrary and unjust, intending to give preferential treatment to the members of the Association at the cost of other affected agriculturists.

Fact of the Case:

The Association, representing a group of agriculturists affected by pollution in the Noyyal river basin, had filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) - W.P. No. 29791 of 2003 - seeking directions to the government and TNPCB to prevent pollution and compensate the affected farmers. The First Bench of the Madras High Court, in its order dated 22.12.2006, directed the collection of fines, deposit of ad hoc compensation, and the deposit of a sum of Rs. 25 crores in a nationalized bank as a corpus fund for cleaning the Orathapalayam dam and Noyyal river and for the ultimate payment to be made to the agriculturists towards loss of ecology. The Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal Nos. 6776 of 2009 and 6777 of 2009, upheld the High Court's order and directed Tiruppur Dyeing Factory Owners Association to deposit Rs. 25 crores before the High Court. Subsequently, the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 209 was passed, sanctioning an interest-bearing advance of Rs. 75 crores to TNPCB for distribution to the members of the Association.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the impugned G.O. was arbitrary and unjust, and quashed it. The court found that the amount of Rs. 75 crores, collected as fines and ad hoc compensation and deposited in pursuance of the High Court and Supreme Court orders, was intended to benefit all the affected agriculturists, not just the members of the Association. The court noted that the Association was only one of the petitioners in the PIL and did not have the status of a plaintiff or a decree-holder to claim the benefits accrued in the public interest litigation. The court also found that the government's decision to sanction Rs. 75 crores to TNPCB was based on the representation made by the Association, which had been waging a legal battle against the polluting units, but this did not justify giving preferential treatment to the Association's members over other affected agriculturists. The court further held that the government's assurance to consider the payment of compensation to other affected agriculturists, provided they submitted applications with necessary documents, was not relevant in examining the validity of the impugned G.O.

Issues: 1. Whether the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 209, Environment and Forests (EC-1) Department dated 31.12.2011, was arbitrary and unjust, intending to give preferential treatment to the members of the Association at the cost of other affected agriculturists. 2. Whether the amount of Rs. 75 crores, collected as fines and ad hoc compensation and deposited in pursuance of the High Court and Supreme Court orders, was intended to benefit all the affected agriculturists, not just the members of the Association. 3. Whether the Association had the status of a plaintiff or a decree-holder to claim the benefits accrued in the public interest litigation. 4. Whether the government's decision to sanction Rs. 75 crores to TNPCB was justified, considering that the Association had been waging a legal battle against the polluting units. 5. Whether the government's assurance to consider the payment of compensation to other affected agriculturists, provided they submitted applications with necessary documents, was relevant in examining the validity of the impugned G.O.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of public interest litigation, polluter pays principle, and the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India to arrive at its decision. The court held that the impugned G.O. was arbitrary and unjust as it violated the principles of public interest litigation and the polluter pays principle by diverting funds intended for all affected agriculturists to a small group of agriculturists, namely, the members of the Association. The court also held that the G.O. violated Article 14 of the Constitution by giving preferential treatment to the members of the Association over other affected agriculturists without any rational basis.

Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 209, Environment and Forests (EC-1) Department dated 31.12.2011, and directed the 4th respondent Association and its members to repay the amount disbursed to them within six weeks. The court also directed the government to distribute the amount lying with the District Collector, Tiruppur, and the amount deposited in the High Court, along with accrued interest, to the affected agriculturists identified by the Loss of Ecology Authority (LoEA), including those in favor of whom awards had been passed by LoEA in pending claim petitions. The court further directed the government to keep an amount of Rs. 15 crores in reserve to compensate other affected agriculturists in favor of whom awards may be passed by LoEA in pending claim petitions and to redistribute the remaining amount of compensation to the affected agriculturists on a pro rata basis. The court clarified that it would not entertain any individual claim petitions or inter se disputes between the agriculturists regarding the payment of compensation.