Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 879
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
K. Patchaiperumal – Appellant
Versus
The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tuticorin District & Others – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case (MD)No. 135, 270 to 279 of 2013 & 449 & 450 of 2012 & M.P(MD)No. 1, 2 & 3 of 2013 & 1 of 2012
Decided On : 16-02-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:S. Muthalraj, Advocate.
For the Respondents:K. Chellapandian, Additional Advocate General assisted by P. Kandasamy, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side).
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code - Section 138 - Processing sea foods and exporting it to foreign countries – Jurisdiction - Purpose of supplying it to sea foods - Bore wells have been put up in patta lands and ground water was drawn and it is being sold to units involved in processing sea foods and exporting it to foreign countries - In this regard first respondent second respondent based on reports of concerned officials and study done on account of over-exploitation of ground water which resulted in seepage of sea water has issued notices to individual units persons under Section 133 Criminal Procedure Code after passing preliminary order restraining them from doing so - In response to said notices most of persons had responded by pointing out that as and when ground water situation improves jurisdictional District Collector as well as jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer would relax restraint order and permit individual pattadhars to take water for purpose of supplying it to sea foods processing units - It is further stated that admittedly they have been drawing water from their own patta lands by putting up pump sets which is assessed under commercial tariff and reasons assigned in impugned orders that on account of over-exploitation ground water which consequently resulted in seepage of sea water are absolutely baseless – Held, A perusal of impugned orders passed by second respondent coupled with original records produced by Additional Advocate General appearing for State would disclose that second respondent has taken into consideration reports of revenue officials and also taken into consideration Level Groups appointed by District Collector who has conducted survey and found out consequences of over-exploitation of ground water - Files would further disclose that there were series of public agitations of residents of concerned villages who are very much concerned about over-drawl of ground water - First respondent second respondent has also considered written responses submitted by concerned individuals and also summoned them including land owners and recorded their statements and after thorough consideration of same has passed detailed impugned orders with reasons - Though it is a primordial submission of respective Counsel for petitioners that mandatory procedures as contemplated under Section 138 Criminal Procedure Code have been given a complete go-by this Court is of view that it is not so for reason that impugned orders had disclosed reasons for passing such restraint orders and original files would also disclose that statements of witnesses which included land owners have been recorded and therefore is of view that procedures as contemplated under Section 138 Criminal Procedure Code have been complied with - Therefore in light of reasons stated above this Court is of view that there is no infirmity or error in reasons assigned by first respondent second respondent for passing impugned orders - Petitions are dismissed
1. In all these Criminal Revision Cases, the orders dated 05.02.2013, 06.02.2013 and 29.08.2012, respectively passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kovilpatti Sub Division, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District, purported to be under Section 138 Cr.P.C., are put to challenge.
2. A perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kovilpatti Sub Division, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District, would disclose that in Tuticorin District, in the following villages:
Sl.No.
Crl.R.C. No(s).
Name of the Villages
1
135 of 2013
Ottapidaram; Panchalankurichi; Puthiamputthur; Kulasekaranallur;Jambulingapuram; Vellaram; Pasuvandhanai; Sinthalakkattai; Sillanatham; and Veppalodai.
2
270 of 2013
3
271 of 2013
4
272 of 2013
5
273 of 2013
6
274 of 2013
Servaikaranmadam, Allikulam, Perungulam, Valavallan, Keelavallanadu and Arumugamangalam.
7
275 of 2013
Vurthagareddipatti, Allikulam, Perungulam, Valavallan, Keelavallanadu and Arumugamangalam.
8
276 of 2013
9
277 of 2013
Servaikaranmadam, Allikulam, Perungulam, Valavallan, Keelavallanadu and Arumugamangalam.
10
278 of 2013
11
279 of 2013
12
449 of 2012
Puthiamputthur; Jambulingapuram; Kulasekaranallur; Vellaram; Governagiri; Pudur Pandiyapuram; Sinthalakkattai; Periyanatham; Mela Arasadi and North Kalmedu.
13
450 of 2012
bore wells have been put up in the patta lands and the ground water was drawn and it is being sold to the units involved in processing sea foods and exporting it to the foreign countries. In this regard, the first respondent/second respondent (as the case may be), based on the reports of the concerned officials and the study done on account of over-exploitation of the ground water, which resulted in seepage of sea water, has issued notices to the individual units/persons under Section 133 Cr.P.C., after passing the preliminary order restraining them from doing so.
3. In response to the said notices, most of the persons had responded by pointing out that as and when the ground water situation improves, the jurisdictional District Collector as well as the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer would relax the restraint order and permit the individual pattadhars to take water for the purpose of supplying it to the sea foods processing units. It is further stated that admittedly, they have been drawing water from their own patta lands by putting up the pumpsets which is assessed under the commercial tariff and the reasons assigned in the impugned orders that on account of over-exploitation, the ground water which consequently resulted in seepage of sea water, are absolutely baseless.
4. However, the first respondent/second respondent (as the case may be) had taken into consideration the reports of the revenue officials and the study done with regard to the impact of over-drawal of ground water, has passed the final orders on 05.02.2013, 06.02.2013 and 29.08.2012, respectively, restraining them from drawing ground water and challenging the legality of the same, the present revisions are filed.
5. The respective learned Counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the impugned orders came to be passed solely on the basis that the Member of Legislative Assembly of Ottapidaram Constituency had made series of complaints and conducted agitations by instigating the public and there was absolutely no independent application of mind to the ground reality prevailing in those places.
6. It is further contended that Section 138 Cr.P.C., contemplates that after receipt of the
