A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to pre-emptively bar a party from filing an application for statutory consent; rather, the appropriate remedy is to ensure the regulatory authority considers the objector's representations during the standard administrative processing of the application.

8.Sri Senthur Murugan Aggregates and M-sand Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Jayankondanilai Village, Singampunari Taluk, Sivagangai District-625 102. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 7 to take immediate actions in accordance with law, including closure, to stop the commissioning and operation of a proposed stone crusher and M- sand unit by the 8^th respondent S.Nos.52/1C, 54/1 and 54/2 situated in Jayankondanilai Village, Singampunari Taluk, Sivagangai District in gross violations of the mandatory siting criteria prescribed by the third respondent in B.P.No.116 dated 06.05.2025 and to pass such further or other orders.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajagopalan For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader for R1 to R6 Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader for R7

ORDER

The writ petition is filed for a mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 7 to take immediate action in accordance with law, including closure, to stop commissioning the operation of the proposed stone crusher and M-sand unit by the eighth respondent in S.Nos.52/1C, 54/1 and 54/2 situated in Jayankondanilai Village, Singampunari Taluk, Sivagangai District.

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is residing within 206 meters of the said survey numbers, in which the eighth respondent is proposing to establish a crusher unit. According to the learned counsel, the same is in violation of the citing criteria framed by the Central Pollution Control Board. The petitioner, therefore, made an objection and also applied under the Right to Information Act, which states that the eighth respondent has, as a matter of fact, applied for consent to establish. The said consent should not be granted, and the eighth respondent cannot be permitted to establish the unit at the proposed site.

3. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader, taking notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 6, would submit that when the eighth respondent is trying to establish only by due process of law, the petitioner cannot object.

4. This writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, in view of the nature of order that is passed.

5. The petitioner cannot straight away pray that the eighth respondent cannot be permitted even to make an application. Even from the case of the petitioner, it can be seen that the eighth respondent has made an application for consent to establish and it is for the third respondent to consider the consent application in accordance with law. If the petitioner wants to object, the petitioner can also make a representation to the third respondent and the third respondent shall also take into consideration the objections of the petitioner while granting or refusing the consent to establish. If the consent to establish is granted, the petitioner has other statutory remedies, including filing of an appeal and also approaching the National Green Tribunal in the manner known to law. Therefore, except to direct the third respondent to take into account the petitioner's objection also while processing the application of the eighth respondent, the prayer in the writ petition cannot be countenanced, as such is disposed of with such liberty to the petitioner to make an objection before the third respondent and directing the third respondent to consider the same while considering the application for consent to establish filed by the eighth respondent. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.