Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2173
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, R. THARANI, JJ.
P. Rengasamy - Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector cum, The Chairman of the District Environment, Impact Assessment Authority, Trichy & Others - Respondents
W.P.(MD) No. 23754 of 2018 & W.M.P.(MD) Nos. 21515, 21516, 21517, 21518 & 21849 of 2018
Decided On : 07-11-2019
For the Petitioner:R. Rajaraman, Advocate
For the Respondents:A.K. Baskarapandian, Special Government Pleader, V. Vasanthakumar, R. Singaravelan, Senior Counsel assisted by J. Anandhavalli, Advocates
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Right to Information Act - Quash the same as illegal - Quarrying of land - Public interest - Further, it is stated that there is a graveyard situated near the water body and several trees are planted on bund margin - An electricity transformer is located within radius of Meters forest is at a distance of about Meters and there are houses also nearby the water body - It is further stated that periodically villagers undertake cleaning and deepening work of water body and roughly are deployed, who are all villagers in and around the said area - This is done because said water body is main source for irrigating crops - It is submitted that official respondents, without conducting any spot inspection and without ascertaining the physical and geographical condition of land and without undertaking environmental impact assessment mechanically passed the impugned order granting stone quarry lease to an extent of Hectares in of fourth respondent - On coming to know about the grant of stone quarry lease in of the fourth respondent – Held, Court are fully convinced that there is sufficient evidence to show that there is a water body in the land in question. To justify the action in granting permission for stone quarry, a vague averment has been made that pits may have been formed due to manual quarrying which according to first counter affidavit, was for a period of three years - Even assuming the said averment is right, it would have been a case of illegal quarrying in a water body, which is a rocky terrain. Unless and until earth moving equipments and heavy machineries are deployed, quarrying to great depth cannot be done - Therefore, if manual quarrying was permitted or done illegally for three years it could have resulted in small pits and not deep pits where there would be a necessity to construct a sluice to regulate overflow of water – Thus averments set out in the counter affidavit and the additional counter affidavit can in no manner substantiate stand taken by first respondent to justify the grant of permission to quarry stones in the land in question - As pointed by Honorable Supreme Court need not wait till harm occurs and we need not wait till people suffer without water for irrigation and drinking purposes - Courts are empowered to take anticipatory action to prevent such illegality and the harm that may be caused to the public - Protection of environment is of paramount importance and economic interest will have to take a back seat when pitted against environmental interest and public interest - Thus, in light of the findings rendered by us, imposition of any condition while granting clearance or granting lease is of little avail as selection of the site itself is illegal - Court cannot accept the submissions made on behalf of fourth respondent that it is a common knowledge that entire area is a rocky terrain and therefore there is no error in granting permission – Admittedly subject land has been selected for grant of permission to quarry stone for the first time and as per averments made in counter affidavit of first respondent for a brief period of three years manual stone quarrying was permitted but because of violation of condition same was stopped - If illegal quarrying has been done in any area - Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Rc.No.385/2017/Mines on 14.08.2018 by permitting the 4th respondent for quarrying of land in Survey No.63 in Karatampatti Village, Musiri Taluk, Thiruchirapalli District and quash the same as illegal and consequentially direct the respondents to preserve the water body, check dam, water supply system, in Survey No.63 of Karatampatti Village, Musri Taluk, Thiruchirapalli Distict.)
1. This writ petition filed as a public interest litigation by a resident of Karattampatti Village, Musiri Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District, seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of first respondent, dated 14.08.2018, granting permission to the fourth respondent for quarrying stone in Survey No.63 of Karatampatti Village, Musiri Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District and for a consequential direction to the official respondents to preserve the water body, check dam, water supply system in the said survey number.
2. The petitioner would state that the land comprised in Survey No. 63 of Karatampatti Village, measures a total extent of 6.13.0 Hectares and it is a water body, but has been wrongly shown in the revenue records as a rocky terrain. It is stated that in the said land, there is a Kasivu Neer Kuttai (“TAMIL”) and a check dam constructed by the Public Works Department during the year 1985 – 1986 with a bund (“TAMIL”), measuring a breadth of 20 Feet and height of 15 Feet. A bore well was installed inside the water body utilizing the funds allotted to the Member of Legislative Assembly incurring a cost of Rs.3,00,000/-, which is the main drinking water source for the said Village.
3. Further, it is stated that there is a graveyard situated near the water body and several trees are planted on the bund margin. An electricity transformer is located within the radius of 100 Meters, Pulivalam forest is at a distance of about 500 Meters and there are houses also nearby the water body. It is further stated that periodically, the villagers undertake cleaning and deepening work of the water body and roughly 4000 men are deployed, who are all villagers in and around the said area. This is done because the said water body is the main source for irrigating the crops. It is submitted that the official respondents, without conducting any spot inspection and without ascertaining the physical and geographical condition of the land and without undertaking environmental impact assessment, mechanically passed the impugned order, dated 14.08.2018, granting stone quarry lease to an extent of 2.71.0 Hectares in favour of the fourth respondent. On coming to know about the grant of stone quarry lease in favour of the fourth respondent, which will have a great impact on the water body as well as the flora and fauna in the area, the villagers submitted a representation requesting the Authority concerned to make a spot inspection and cancel the lease granted in favour of the fourth respondent. According to the petitioner, the representation did not evoke any response from the Authority concerned and therefore, he, on behalf of himself as well as the villagers, has approached this Court by filing this writ petition.
4. Mr.R.Rajaraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after reiterating the above factual contentions, submitted that the grant of lease in favour of the fourth respondent is wholly illegal as it has been done without any inspection and the Authorities have failed to appreciate the efforts put in by nearly 4000 villagers in deepening and cleaning the water body and ignoring the plight of the villagers, in a mechanical manner, have granted the stone quarry lease to the fourth respondent. It is submitted that if the fourth respondent commences quarry operation, it will not only damage the water body,
