SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Parthiban Blue Metal
Vs
Member Secretary T.N. Polln.Cont. Bd. & Ors.
(Arijit Pasayat and S.H.Kapadia,JJ.)
01.02.2007
JUDGMENT
Dr.Arijit Pasayat, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In these appeals challenge is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants.
3. Background facts as projected by the appellants are as follows:
“Various stone crushing units were being operated by the appellants in
Trisoolam Village, Kanjipuram District, Tamil Nadu. According to the appellants
they had obtained "no objection certificate" from the Tehsildar,
Divisional Fire Officer and the Panchayat Union for the purpose of running the
units. After Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (in
short the 'Water Act')] and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1981 (in short the 'Air Act') came into force appellants applied for
consent from the concerned authorities under these Acts. Considering the
applications the District Environmental Engineer called for some particulars
and appellants were required to remit a sum of Rs.1750/- each towards consent
fee under the Acts, which was also paid. Appellants were granted permission by
the Commissioner, Panchayat Union for construction of a shed and installation
of 25 HP Electric Motor to run the units and as per the approved plan the shed
was constructed and business was being carried out. The Principal Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (in short the 'Board') issued notice to each
of the appellants requiring shifting to alternative sites since the units were
located at about 325 meters from the residential colony. Appellants gave their
reply stating that the units were operating since 1972 and in fact they were
located in the non- urban zone. Some writ petitions were filed by the Krishna
Nagar Welfare Association and Kennedy Valley Welfare Association. Since there
were various reports, which were somewhat contradictory to each other, Civil
Appeal No. 6742 of 2001 and W.P. (C) 2594 of 1999 were disposed of by this
Court with certain directions. The Industries Department of the State Government
issued G.O.Ms. No. 13 dated 22.1.2002 wherein it was declared as follows:
"In the order first read above, in adherence to the Supreme Court Order in
C.A. No. 10732/95, the Government issued amendment to Rule 36(1) of Tamil Nadu
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 to the effect that no quarrying shall be
done within a radial distance of 500 metres from inhabited site. The position
was also informed to Supreme Court of India in connection with S.L.P.(C) No.
13564/98."
4. The District Environmental Officer issued a notice to each of the appellant
observing that their units were located within 500 meters from the residential
area and therefore, penal action was called for. A Writ Petition (Writ Petition
No. 35855 of 2003) was filed before the High Court alleging pollution because
of the activities of the stone crushing units. The appellants challenged the
notices/orders issued by the Board. The High Court dismissed the same holding
that the action initiated by the Board was justified.
5. During the hearing of the cases on 13.11.2006, the following order was
passed:
"Our attention has been drawn to the notice dated 11 March, 1994 issued to
one of the petitioners, M/s. Rathnam Blue Metals, which states that the units
is located at about 325 meters from Krishna Nagar against the limit of 500
meters from residential area. The contention of the petitioners is that now the
limit has been reduced to 300 meters and, therefore, their unit is located
within the permissible distance. It is further submitted that all the units are
in adjoining sites and are beyond the distance of 300 meters from residential
area. The respondent-Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is directed to verify
the factual scenario and file an affidavit within four weeks."
6. An affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 Board
annexing a map and giving the following details. Name of the Nine Stone Crushing
Units and its Distance from Approved Habitation:
|
Sl.No. |
Name |
Distance |
|
1. |
Parthiban Blue Metal
|
330 M |
|
2. |
Geetha Blue Metal |
352 M |
|
3. |
Vetrivelan Blue Metal |
379 M |
|
4. |
Rathna Blue Metal |
386 M |
|
5. |
Loganayaki Blue Metal |
376 M
|
|
6. |
Star Blue Metal |
442 M |
|
7 |
Adhilakshmi Blue Metal |
447 M
|
|
8. |
Vasupevan Blue Metal |
454 M
|
|
9. |
Siva Blue Metal |
510 M”
|
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the factual
position was not examined in detail by the High Court. The affidavit filed by
respondent Nos.1 & 2 alongwith the map before this Court throw some light
on the controversy. In the circumstances, we think it appropriate to remit the
matter to the High Court to consider the effect of the affidavit and the map.
It goes without saying that the parties shall be permitted to place materials
in support of their irrespective stand so that the High Court can consider the
issues involved. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the
merit. The appeals are accordingly disposed of without any orders as to costs.