National Green Tribunal
Sri Balaji Nagar Pothu Nala Sangam ... vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on 28 November, 2025
Item No.7:-
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Dated this the 28th day of November, 2025.
[(Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]
Original Application No.76 of 2025 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF
Sri Balaji Nagar Pothu Nala Sangam
Represented by its President
(Registration No. 157/2015)
R. Chandran
No. 1/331, Tiruppur Kumaran Street,
Padiyanallur, Redhills,
Chennai - 600 052.
...Applicant (s)
Versus
1) The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
Represented by its Member Secretary,
Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 002.
2) The Commissioner
Naravarikuppam Municipality,
Ponneri Taluk,
Tiruvallur District - 600 066.
3) The Executive Officer cum Special Officer
Padiyanallur Village Panchayat (Grade-I),
Padiyanallur,
Tiruvallur District - 600 052.
...Respondent(s)
For Applicant (s): M/s. A. Yogeshwaran, Poongkhulali. B,
Tanvi Srivatsan, Jayasakthi R,
Raghunandan Sriram and Jahnavi. V.
For Respondent(s): Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for the State of T.N.
Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for TNPCB.
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER
Page 1 of 6
JUDGMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member
1. The present Application is filed by the Applicant Association, Sri Balaji Nagar Pothu Nala Sangam, a registered body comprising residents of Pannivakkam, Padiyanallur, and Sothupakkam Villages, aggrieved by the ongoing illegal dumping and burning of solid waste by Respondent No.2 (Naravarikuppam Municipality) and Respondent No.3 (Padiyanallur Village Panchayat) in Survey Nos.34 and 35 of Padiyanallur Village, where a water body known as Vengatanayagan Kulam exists, as recorded in the FMB, revenue map and adangal, classifying the land as "Tank".
2. The applicant contends that dumping of waste in water bodies is expressly prohibited under Rule 4(2) of the Solid Waste Management (SWM) Rules, 2016 and no waste can be dumped without a scientific facility and statutory authorizations. Further, the dumping site is neither a solid waste management facility nor compliant with the siting criteria in Schedule I of the SWM Rules, 2016 (requiring 200 meters distance from ponds, habitations, water-supply wells, etc.). The acts of the Respondents violate the SWM Rules, 2016, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and constitutional principles.
3. The applicant alleges that the 3rd Respondent began illegal dumping in 2016 on the basis of an "enter-upon"
permission dated 12.10.2015. Thereafter, Original Application No.19 of 2016 (SZ) was filed by the Applicant herein, in which this Tribunal, by an interim order dated 29.01.2016, restrained dumping of waste. However, dumping continued in violation of the undertaking given by the respondents and in contempt of the Tribunal's final order dated 19.12.2016.
4. The applicant further alleges that, in late 2023, the 2nd Respondent Municipality also commenced illegal dumping, citing G.O. (Ms.) No.472 dated 11.09.2023 of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, which allotted land for a Page 2 of 6 "solid waste management scheme". No scientific facility has been established and dumping continues unlawfully.
5. The applicant has furnished the satellite images and photographs along with the application to demonstrate large- scale dumping around the tank.
6. The Applicant further contended that the validity of the said Government Order cannot be adjudicated by this Tribunal as held in Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. (2019) 19 SCC 479. Hence, the Applicant herein has filed a writ petition [W.P. No.5218 of 2025] before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and the same is pending consideration. However, the illegality of dumping persists, necessitating the present Application before this Tribunal.
7. According to the applicant, the site is classified as a primary residential zone under the Chennai Master Plan, where garbage disposal sites are impermissible under the Tamil Nadu Combined Building Rules, 2019. Moreover, the Respondents No.2 and 3 have not obtained authorization under Form I of the SWM Rules, 2016, nor consent under the Water and Air Acts and must immediately cease dumping and restore the water body as undertaken earlier.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and also perused the materials available on record.
9. The grievance of the Applicant is founded on the grounds that municipal solid waste is being illegally dumped and burnt in a water body classified as a "Tank" in Survey Nos. 34 and 35 of Padiyanallur Village; that such dumping is wholly illegal and impermissible and results in the destruction of a protected water body in violation of statutory prohibitions; that the Respondents No.2 & 3 have failed to comply with the siting criteria prescribed under the SWM Rules, 2016; that the continued dumping constitutes violations of the SWM Rules, the Water Act, and the Air Act, besides amounting to contempt of the Tribunal's order dated 19.12.2016 in O.A. No.19 of 2016 (SZ).
Page 3 of 610. For the very same property and issue, the Applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal in O.A. No.19 of 2016 (SZ) and obtained an injunction against illegal dumping, along with liberty to approach the Tribunal again if full compliance was not achieved. Despite alleging ongoing violations, the Applicant did not approach this Tribunal for enforcement at the relevant time and has instead filed a fresh application only now.
11. It is an undisputed fact that the Applicant's challenge to the dumping activity is premised on the "enter-upon"
permission and the subsequent alienation of the land effected through G.O. (Ms.) No.472 dated 11.09.2023. However, it is noteworthy that the said Government Order is already under challenge before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No.5218 of 2025, where the Applicant has sought identical substantive reliefs, which is reproduced hereunder:
"It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order in the nature of a Write of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1 st Respondent culminating in G.O. (Ms.) 472 dated 11.09.2023, quash the same and direct the Respondents to remove the wastes dumped in Survey Nos.34 and 35, Padiyanallur Village, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvalluvar District, clean up, remediate the site, pass such other order or orders as may be fit, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
12. The Applicant/Writ Petitioner also had sought for an interim relief, which is as follows:
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an order of injunction restraining the 5th and 6th Respondents from dumping any wastes at Survey No.34 and 35, Padiyanallur Village, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvalluvar District, pending disposal of the present writ petition and thus render justice."
13. A cursory glance reveals that both the writ petition and this Original Application contain identical prayers regarding the same property.
14. Though the environmental concerns raised are genuine and have previously been addressed through judicial directions, the present dispute centres chiefly on the legality of Page 4 of 6 the Government Order by which the land was allotted for use as a solid waste management site. This very issue is already under consideration before the Hon'ble High Court, where it remains pending adjudication.
15. Moreover, instituting parallel proceedings for identical reliefs amounts to forum shopping, which is impermissible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru (2022) 8 SCC 151 has strongly deprecated parallel judicial processes leading to conflicting decisions. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below:
"11. In any case, no law is necessary to state that insofar as the Tribunals are concerned, they would be subordinate to the High Court insofar as the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned. A reference in this respect was also made to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others.
12. We are, therefore, of the considered view that it was not appropriate on the part of the learned NGT to have continued with the proceedings before it, specifically, when it was pointed that the High Court was also in seisin of the matter and had passed an interim order permitting the construction. The conflicting orders passed by the learned NGT and the High Court would lead to an anomalous situation, where the authorities would be faced with a difficulty as to which order they are required to follow. There can be no manner of doubt that in such a situation, it is the orders passed by the constitutional courts, which would be prevailing over the orders passed by the statutory tribunals."
16. Since the Hon'ble High Court has seized of the matter, it would not be appropriate for this Tribunal to adjudicate the same issue.
17. In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered view that the present Original Application is not maintainable, particularly in light of the pendency of W.P. No.5218 of 2025 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras seeking identical reliefs. Entertaining this Application would result in conflicting parallel adjudication. It is open to the Applicant to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Madras to obtain any interim or final order in the pending writ petition.
Page 5 of 618. Accordingly, the Original Application [O.A. No.76 of 2025 (SZ)] is dismissed with the above liberty.
Sd/-
Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM Sd/-
Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM O.A. No.76 of 2025 (SZ) 28th November, 2025. Mn.
Page 6 of 6