Madras High Court Dismisses Article 226 Writ Petition on Mine Dewatering as Withdrawn by Petitioner

Mine Dewatering Plea Withdrawn: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition

Chennai, Tamil Nadu – The Madras High Court, on June 20, 2024, dismissed a writ petition concerning the dewatering of stagnant rainwater in mining areas in Salem District after the petitioner chose to withdraw the case. The bench, comprising The Honourable Mr. Justice D. Krishnakumar and The Honourable Mr. Justice K. Kumaresb Babu , closed the petition (WP No.15667 of 2024) without imposing costs.

Background of the Petition

The petitioner, S.Bharathi Raja , had filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raising concerns about the dewatering activities in stone quarrying mines located at S.No.581/1 and 581/2 in Kurumbapatti Village, Shervaroys South Range, Omalur Taluk, Salem District, an area spanning 96.34 hectares.

Mr. Raja 's prayer sought specific directions from the court:

1. To compel the State Ground & Surface Water Resources Data Center Department (Respondent 6) and the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (Respondent 8) to consider his representation dated August 13, 2023. This representation pertained to the dewatering of stagnant rainwater in the specified "drines" (drains or mining pits). He urged that this consideration be made after conducting a public hearing with surrounding villages to ascertain the "ground reality."

2. To issue an order directing Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited (Respondent 11) , the entity presumably operating the mines, to cease dewatering activities in the aforementioned quarrying sites.

The petition arrayed a total of twelve respondents, including central and state government departments related to environment, forests, mines safety, water resources, and pollution control, as well as the District Collector of Salem and Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited.

Court's Order and Withdrawal

During the hearing on June 20, 2024, Mr. G. Punniakoti , learned counsel appearing for the petitioner S.Bharathi Raja , informed the Court of the petitioner's intention to withdraw the writ petition. An endorsement to this effect was also made by the counsel.

Accepting this submission, the High Court bench, in its order delivered by Justice D. Krishnakumar , stated:

> "Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the writ petition and the learned counsel has made an endorsement to that effect. > > 2. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to that effect, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. There will no order as to costs."

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. A related miscellaneous petition, WMP No.17067 of 2024, was also closed. The judgment did not specify the reasons behind the petitioner's decision to withdraw the plea.

Implications of the Decision

The dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn means that the specific reliefs sought by Mr. Bharathi Raja regarding the public hearing, consideration of his representation, and the cessation of dewatering by Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited through this particular legal action will not be adjudicated further by the High Court under this petition. The underlying issues concerning the dewatering and its potential environmental impact may remain, but this specific legal challenge has concluded.

The case was represented by Mr. J. Madanagopal Rao , Central Government Standing Counsel for the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Respondent 1), and Mr. E. Vijay Anand, Additional Government Pleader for several state government respondents including Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited (Respondents 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12).