National Green Tribunal
A.Ayubkhan S/O Sh.Ameerkhan vs State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep By Secretary To ... on 28 March, 2022
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan, Satyagopal Korlapati
Item No.21:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 207 of 2017 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. A. Ayubkan
S/o SH. Ameerkhan,
No. 17, Sengazhuner Odai Street,
Kancheepuram- 631 502
2. P. Sivashankaran,
S/o M. Panchachelam,
No. 202/1, Thenpathi Kilaku Street,
Kavanthandalam Village,
Kanchipuram- 631 603
3. P. Nandhini
D/o Purushotham
61B, Jawaharlal Street,
Kanchipuram
...Applicant(s)
With
1. State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by its Secretary to Government
Highways Department, Secretariat,
Chennai- 600 009
2. District Collector,
Collectorate complex,
Kancheepuram- 631 501
3. Divisional Railways Manager,
Works Branch,
Chennai- 600 003
4. Divisional Engineer/Highways Department,
Periyar Nagar,
Chengalpattu- 603 001
5. Tahsildar
Kancheepuram Taluk Office,
Kancheepuram
...Respondent(s)
Date of order: 28.03.2022.
1 CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER For Applicant (s): Ms. Meenatchi for Mr. A. Karthikesan For Respondent(s): Dr. D. Shanmughanathan for R1, R2, R4 and R5 Mr. Muthamil Raja for R3 Judgement
1. The grievance in this application is regarding the construction of over bridge along Ponneri lake in Konnerikuppam Village. It is alleged in the application that Konnerikuppam Village is situated between Chennai to Bengaluru National Highway and the Kancheepuram town. The main road connecting the Kancheepuram town to National Highway almost cuts across the water bodies supplying water resources to the Kancheepuram Town and the details of the water bodies and wetland are furnished below:-
Village Survey Type of Water Village / Town Name & Capacity Number body / Wetland 52,67/2 Lake Konerikuppam Ponneri (371.60 Hectare) 68,148/9 Canal " 20 Meter 1280/1 Pool (Kulam) Kancheepuram Vellakulam (47515 Sq.mt) 148/10 & 145/4 Pool (Kulam) Konerikuppam Gurunathasamy Kanna Kulam 148/9 Canal (Kalvai) "
147, 150/1 Canal "
150/6, 133/1 Drain "
150/4 Cesspool (Vaikal) "
152/2 & 134/2 Cesspool (Kuttai) "
75/1, 75/2, 75/3, Lake catchment
"
76, 77 & 78 area
2. Such big and vast nature gifted water bodies are slowly being depleted by encroachment not only by certain unscrupulous people but also by the Government agencies whose duty is to 2 protect them. Kancheepuram Railway station has been located affecting about 30% of the water bodies and wetland. A part of the Ponneri Lake has been encroached for a fish market. Residential houses have started coming in Vellakulam and Gurunathasamy Temple Pond. The entry of water to Vellakulam has already been affected by encroachment. The Konerikuppam lake shore has been encroached. Thus, considerable encroachments in the water bodies or wet land have already been made.
3. It is also alleged in the application that State Highways Department and the Southern Railway have jointly launched a scheme to connect Kancheepuram Town with National Highway through a circuitous route, again across the water bodies. The scheme provides for a long road Over Bridge, construction of subway and widening of road as four lanes. The estimate cost of the project was about Rs.50 Crores. The agreement was signed on 26.04.2017 and the foundation stone was laid on 08.05.2017.
The entire construction works are planned to take it along the Ponneri Lake, which belongs to the State Government with the intention to minimize the need for land acquisition, if alternate route is selected.
4. The respondents have failed to carry out a detailed Environment Impact Assessment stipulated in Rule 4 (a) of Wetlands Conservation and Management Rules. They have proposed to make construction of permanent nature within the mean high level observed in the past 10 years calculated from the date of commencement of the said rules from 04.12.2010. This amounts to violation of the statutory provision.
5. The proposed widening of the road under the project will make an 3 entry into the ancient monumental temples Iravadeeswara & Pravadeeswarar and that too in the prohibited zone of 100 meters. They have not obtained any permission from Archaeological Department.
6. According to the applicant destruction of natural water bodies will cause further depletion of water resources and the ground water level in Kancheepuram Town. So, the applicant filed this application seeking the following reliefs:-
To direct the respondents to refrain from construction of Road Over Bridge, etc in the water bodies and wetlands and their buffer zone;
To pass such further or other orders as may be deemed necessary in the circumstances of the case, and To thus render justice"
7. Third respondent filed a written statement contending that the application is not maintainable. Most of the allegations are relating to the fourth respondent / Highways Department. There was a scheme for General Arrangement Drawing for Road Over Bridge (ROB) across LC No.29 at Km. 35/800-900 which has been approved by State Highways Department to connect Kancheepuram town with National Highway. The Railway portion of Road Over Bridge under construction is in the middle of Kancheepuram station platform and either side columns are constructed in the railway limit only. Therefore, the railway portion Road Over Bridge will not affect any water bodies or wetland in the particular location. This Road Over Bridge shall be utilized by the public and people of Kancheepuram in future. No valid grounds were made out and the application is barred by limitation as it was filed beyond six months as the construction project started in 2012 itself.
4
8. The construction work was carried out as per the General Agreement Drawing approved by the State Highways Department. As the work is already in progress and nearing completion, stopping the work at this stage will lead to wastage of public money already spent on this project.
9. Fourth respondent filed a counter statement contending that the Southern Railway had embarked on a programme to replace the existing Level Crossing (LC) on the Highways under Railway Work Programme either by Road Over Bridge (ROB) or by Road Under Bridge in order to avoid accidents and to ensure free flow of the traffic which was effected earlier at the time of closure of level crossing gate. This ROB proposal was approved under Railway works programme for 2011 - 2012 on a cost sharing basis. Administrative sanction has been approved for Rs.49.42 crores for this construction as per the G.O.(D) No.200/Highways & Minor Ports (HQ 2) Department dated 07.12.2011.
10. The alignment for the above bridge, passing through the existing road (M 066) has been approved by the Alignment Committee on 21.09.2011. During the Land Acquisition process it was identified that the approved alignment was passing through the prohibited area (100 m) of two Centrally Protected National Monuments under the purview of Archaeological Survey of India viz. Sri Pirvanthaneswara Temple (Town Survey No.1281/1) and Sri Iravantheswara Temple (Town Survey No.2165/2 ) exist.
11. The Superintending Archaeologist, ASI, Chennai circle in Letter No.4/193/KPM/2012/M/4407 dated 27.09.2012 has stated that the construction of ROB near the ASI temples cannot be permitted as it will mar the view of the monuments as part of the 5 construction falls in the prohibited area of the monuments, which is not permissible under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and Rules, 1959. The Superintending Archaeologist, ASI, Chennai has further requested to consider the Road Over Bridge on a different alignment. Every area, beginning at the limit of the protected area or the protected monument, as the case may be and extending to a distance of 100 m in all directions shall be the "Prohibited Area" in respect of such protected area or protected monuments as per section 20A of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment & Validation) Act, 2010 amending the said Act, 1958.
12. Due to this objection by the ASI, the Chief Engineer (H), Projects, Chennai in Letter No.1862/W2/2012 dated 21.11.2012 has cancelled the approved alignment and instructed to prepare a new alignment. Keeping in view of ASI‟s objections, fresh alignment without infringing into the „Prohibited Area‟ of the two national monuments was proposed after detailed investigations.
13. The alignment avoiding Konnerikuppam tank will lead to increase in the length of the Road Over Bridge and cost will increase by 3 to 4 times. This alignment will also not be beneficial for the people living in Kancheepuram town and the level crossing gate may not be closed and the very purpose will not be served. The present alignment is only feasible which is just 220 m away from existing LC.
14. The new alignment was approved on 02.05.2013 by the Alignment Committee comprising of team of Superintending Engineers, Highways Department. The Competent Authority ASI (Tamil Nadu) has accorded the "Grant of Permission" for the construction 6 of bridge in the regulated area (100m-300m) of Piravathaneswara Temple at Kancheepuram Taluk on 06.02.2015. This permission is not transferable and it shall be valid for a period of three years only commencing from the date of receipt of the permission.
15. This alignment has been inspected by the Public Works Department (WRD) officials, and necessary concurrence has been obtained. The PWD (WRD) has accorded concurrence subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The bottom level of the Bed Block at the side abutments at entry and exist points of the proposed Road Over Bridge as well as over the piers located in the water spread area of Konnerikuppam Tank should kept at minimum clearance of 0.60m above the Maximum Water Level of Konnerikuppam tank.
(ii) The foundation of the entire bridge pile cap should be placed below the tank water spread area bed level i.e., 0.60m below the existing tank bed level.
(iii) The pile caps, foundation grade beam and other foundation structural components should be (0.60m) below the existing natural bed level of the tank's water spread area.
(iv) Two balancing culverts should be constructed of adequate size at the Ramp portion of the Road Over Bridge to ensure free flow of water within the tank.
(v) Three times the quantity of earth removed from the tank bed for providing pile cap, should be taken and the tank bund from LS 0m to 650m should strengthened by the Highways Department as directed by the field engineers of Water Resources Department. The area for deepening by removing the earth in the foreshore area of the tank for strengthening the tank bund should be done as directed by the field engineer of Water Resource Department.
(vi) During execution and completion of Road Over Bridge Project, the construction waste in the water spread area should be cleared to ensure free flow of water in the tank.
(vii) During construction of Road Over Bridge, the irrigation structures of the tank (i.e.,) sluices, surplus weir and tank 7 bund should not be disturbed in anyway and the hydraulic stands of the existing tank's channel, bunds, etc., should be maintained.
(viii) Caution Deposit amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) should be deposited in favour of the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Lower Palar Basin Division, Kancheepuram, before commencement of the work. This deposit amount will be refunded only after completion of construction of the ROB, if all the conditions laid upon are fully satisfied."
16. The above conditions have been satisfied and incorporated in the design. The Government after detailed examination have issued G.O. 84/Public Works Department dated 13.04.2017 permitting the construction of the Bridge in the Konnerikuppam Lake Area. The construction work is carried out, satisfying the conditions of the PWD without disturbing the capacity and ecosystem of the lake area.
17. The proposed alignment of the Road Over Bridge is a fully elevated structure in the Ponnerikarai (Konnerikuppam) tank water spread area, with 32 piers which occupy only 0.004% of the tank‟s water spread area at FTL/MWL. Further, no land transfer or alienation will be involved in this proposal and as much as public money would not be wasted. Hence, there is no violation of G.O. (Ms.) No.503, Revenue Department, dated 21.09.1999 and G.O. (Ms.) No.186, Revenue Department, dated 29.04.2003.
18. The irrigation structures of the tank i.e., Sluices, surplus weir, supply channel, tank bund and ayacut will not be affected/disturbed at any cost which is ensured by the Highways Department.
19. As reduction in water storage capacity of the tank is very negligible (0.09%), there will be no threat to perseverance of 8 ecology due to construction of the Road Over Bridge in the tank water spread area. However, the storage capacity is proposed to be increased by 0.27% by desilting the tank foreshore area.
20. The Tamil Nadu Protection of Tank and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007 (Tamil Nadu Act 8 of 2007) Part - II Section - 2 (12) states that "The Government may in the Public Interest, alienate any part of the Tank Poramboke land, which is under the control of the Public Works Department without interfering with storage capacity and water quality.
21. This Road Over Bridge serves the public purpose by easing traffic congestion. The reduction in the storage capacity of the (0.09%) is very negligible, even though 3 times loss of water quantity due to prior erection and pile cap shall be increased by removing the earth from the tank bed and utilizing for strengthening of bund. Also, the water quality of tank will not be affected due to the above construction since, this Road Over Bridge is an elevated structure and only the piers are placed in the tank water spread area. Land alienation is not required, because the area occupied by the piers of Road Over Bridge is very less (0.004%). The irrigation supply of water from the tank will not be affected. Therefore, considering the general large public interest, the proposal for construction of Road Over Bridge alignment in the Konnerikuppam tank water spread area cannot be considered as encroachment in the water bodies.
22. Only 8% of tank‟s ayacut (fields that were been irrigated by this tank storage) is now under cultivation (i.e., 29.728 hectare against 371.60 hectare) and major portion has been urbanized. The net water storage capacity of 97.700 Mcft, against the original storage 9 capacity 97.790 Mcft, is more than enough for irrigating 8% of the tank‟s present ayacut area. Now the tank serves for domestic purpose as well as to recharge the ground water in the surrounding area. The reduction in the storage capacity shall be compensated by deepening & desilting the tank bed to an equal quantity and shall be used for strengthening the tank bund as directed by the field engineers.
23. This Road Over Bridge proposal was announced by the Hon‟ble Chief Minister on the floor of Assembly under Rule 110 of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules, during the budget session 2013
- 2014. This Road Over Bridge is very essential for public utility due to increased traffic congestion in the temple town.
24. Since, the existing culverts on the water course are not adequate for the flow of water, two new culverts with adequate drainage capacity has been included in this proposal. Hence, the surplus water from the lake during the flood can be drained out without any destruction.
25. The work is being executed pertaining to the conditions prescribed by the Public Works Department (WRD). Hence, the construction of the bridge in the lake portion will not produce any impact on the capacity and the ecology of the Ponnerikarai Lake.
26. As per Order dated 02.01.2020 this Tribunal has directed the respondents to submit present status of construction along with area of construction inside the water body and how far it affects flow of water in river. Water Resource and Development Department is directed to inspect and submit a report in this regard.
27. Water bodies will have to be protected as they will play a great role 10 in protecting the ecology and environment. Besides providing water source for both drinking and irrigation, it is also required for the purpose of improving the biodiversity which also have some impact in maintaining equilibrium in protecting environment.
28. It is necessary to ascertain whether construction of bridge will have any impact on Ponnerikuppam Lake and whether all necessary precautions have been taken by the authorities for the purpose of protecting the lake and to minimize the impact of free flow of water in the lake. Since the work has already started and reached almost 90% of construction, it is not proper to direct stopping of the project or thinking about alternate route to accomplish the project. Further, it is seen from the written statement by the official respondent that they have considered the alternative routes and found that this is the only feasible and viable route available with minimum impact on environment.
29. The question of construction of road over bridge has been considered by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi in Original Application No.137 of 2014 in Vikrant Kumar Tongad Vs. Delhi Tourism and Transportation Corporation and Ors. and it was observed that construction of bridge and similar activity covering a built up area > 1,50,000 Sq.mtrs. and/or covering an area > 50 hectares would be covered under Entry 8(b) of the Schedule to the Regulations of 2006 and require prior Environmental Clearance (EC) and treated as Category „B‟ Project and directed the SEIAA to consider and to pass an appropriate order within a shorter time line. That was the case where large area has been covered by the construction project and it was constructed without obtaining prior Environmental 11 Clearance (EC).
30. As per order dated 29.01.2020 after considering the pleadings, this Tribunal had appointed a Joint Committee comprising of (1) District Collector, Kancheepuram, (2)Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), (3)Regional Office of Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Chennai, (4)National Environmental Engineering Resource Institute (NEERI), (5)Wet Land Authority, (6)Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai and (7)Senior Officials of the Water Resource Department to inspect the area in question and ascertain the nature of construction, extent of construction in the water body, total built up area and whether it requires any clearance from the authorities and if so whether such clearance have been obtained from the authorities and its impact on the water body and whether it is likely to affect the flow or holding capacity of water in the lake and its impact on ecology and biodiversity of the lake and if there are any further safeguards to be taken to resolve any deficiency in protecting the lake and its buffer zone, then what are all the steps required for this purpose and submit a detailed report showing its observation, impact, suggestions and recommendation for remedying the deficiency in construction of the bridge, if any found, within a period of three months. Water Resource Department was designated as nodal agency for co-ordination and providing necessary logistics for this purpose.
31. As per order dated 19.05.2020, on the basis of the letter received from IIT Madras regarding their inability to depute any officer because of pending matters, where they have been appointed as member of the Committee appointed by this Tribunal, this 12 Tribunal had accepted their request and re-constituted the Committee by substituting in place of IIT Madras with a Senior Scientist or official dealing with Environmental Engineering from Anna University, Chennai and posted the case to 03.09.2020 for filing the report. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned from time to time either by notification or at the request of the parties.
32. The Joint Committee has filed a report dated nil, e-filed on 31.08.2021 which reads as follows:
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
33. The applicant filed counter statement in the form of objection to the Joint Committee report stating that if the surplus water which is now flown to Vellakulam is diverted to a new alignment by constructing a ramp and forming a new canal which takes the water in to Indira Nagar, Karthik Nagar and Kanagadurga Nagar area and this will cause lot of trouble to the residents of the area.
The diverted water will stagnate in the area and it would be proper 39 to allow the surplus water to go in to the Vellakulam instead of residential area. They also raised certain other objections and also made certain suggestions to the Committee which according to them have not been considered and the suggestions given by them were extracted in Para 4 of the objections which reads as follows:
(1V) In the ietter dated 02.03.2020 to the committee, the Appellants made the following suggestions. But the committee failed to examine them:
(a) he area of entry in to and exist from the over bridge which has been raised should be changed in such a way as not to affect the flow of water from Ponneri lake in to the Vellakulam.
(b) The Fish market located, affecting the flow of water in to Vellakulam should be removed from the area and the natural flow of water must be restored.
(c) The area surrounding Vellakulam is occupied by unauthorised constructions which should be removed.
(d) The Konerikuppam Village Canal leading to Gurunathaswamy Kulam in S.No.148/9 should be restored.
(e) The new canal formed so as to carry water in to the Indira Nagar, Karthik Nagar and Kanagadurga Nagar area, should be closed so as to facilitate the entire surplus water flowing in to Vellakulam.
(f) As per the interim orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal and as per the order of the Department of Environment in Rc.No.17/2127/2018 dated 09.08.2018, the permission of the competent authority should be obtained.
34. They have also raised certain other objections which were extracted in Para 5 to 9 which reads as follows:
(v) For the purpose of construction of over bridge permission has been obtained from Archaeological Department, only for a small area of the temple. But the road portion enters in to certain area belonging to the Ervatheeswara temple and Pravatheeswara temple. If the four way road proceeds in the way it is now proposed, it will affect the archaeological site. If heavy vehicles rush in the road its impact will affect the temples. This aspect has also to be examined.
(vi) The committee has observed in its conclusion that this is the man made water body for irrigation purpose, calling this as wetland is not sustainable and Environmental Impact Assessment study is not mandatory. This is not acceptable. The Ponneri Lake is a primitive one and a creation of nature. It is in existence for several decades. So, the environmental impact Assessment Study is indispensable.
(vii) In Kancheepuram town and Konnerikuppam Village, the height buildings should not exceed 9 meters because of existence of eight protected monuments like Kailasanathar temple, Iravatheswarar temple etc and other 5 temples like Ekambeswarar Temple, Varadaraja Perumal Temole Kamakshiamman temple etc. This construction exceeds this limit and from the site of construction, the view to he Bkambeswarar Temple disappears. This aspect has also to be considered.
40 (Viii)The Committee has not considered the impact on the ecology and biodiversity of the lake.
(ix) There are five alternate roads to connect the Kancheepuram town with the National Highway via Enathur, Vellagate, Keelambi, Vayavur and Arrakonam. Of which the Enathur-
Thomalvar Street, & Arrakonam-Oli Mohammed Street will be best suited. But, these have not been considered, on the pretext that these would be more expensive. It may not be proper to avoid the alternate routes on this ground because the present proposal destroys the lake area and also affects the monumental buildings.
35. On the objection filed by the applicant, this tribunal had directed the Joint Committee to consider the objection and file a further report. Accordingly the Joint Committee has filed a further report dated nil, e-filed on 17.02.2022 which reads as follows: 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
36. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that in the short term measures and long term measures, it was specifically mentioned that certain steps will have to be taken by Commissioner, Kancheepuram Corporation to ensure the Vellakulam tank free from encroachments and also recommended to restore the Vellakulam tank and Highway Department was also directed to provide a channel to ensure free flow from Konnerikuppam tank to Vellakulam tank while making the construction. They will be satisfied if such directions are implemented and avoid the diversion of surplus water to 49 residential area but only to Vellakulam tank and if it is not done, the right of the applicant to come to this Tribunal may also be left open.
37. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that they are not filing any independent objections provided, the recommendation made by the Joint Committee are implemented by the authorities to avoid inundation being caused in the residential area due to construction of the bridge.
38. Heard the Learned Counsel for the applicant and other respondents.
39. The grievance in this application was that on account of the construction of the proposed road over bridge, there is a possibility of obstruction of free flow of water into the water body and it is likely to affect the life of people in that area. In order to ascertain the same, this Tribunal had appointed a Joint Committee and the Joint Committee filed a detailed report which was extracted above wherein it was specifically mentioned that there is no possibility of any environmental impact on account of construction of the bridge and the free flow of water will not be affected on account of the same. Since certain other objections were raised by the applicant as those things were not considered, the Tribunal had directed the Joint Committee to go into those objections and file further report and the Joint Committee had filed further report after considering the objections which was also extracted above and they have suggested certain short term remedial measures and long term remedial measures which reads as follows:
50
40. In view of the fact that certain long term and short term measures were suggested to be implemented by certain authorities for the purpose of redressing the grievances raised by the applicants which are likely to cause adverse impact on account of the proposed road over bridge. Considering the question of 51 Sustainable Development and also necessity for improving the transport facilities which are required for both economic and sustainable development and the Joint Committee has taken into consideration grievances of the applicants and suggested certain remedial measures, we feel that the application can be disposed of by giving certain directions:
i. Since, recommendations both short term and long term were made to be carried out by the Revenue Department, Highways Department, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and also Kancheepuram Corporation so as to remedy the situation and since, some of the departments, namely, Kancheepuram Corporation, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department are not party to the proceedings, the Chief Secretary, Tamil Nadu is directed to supervise the implementation of the recommendations by the respective departments and ensure that free flow of water is not obstructed and there is no diversion of the water to the residential area as apprehended by the applicants and the implementation of the directions to be ensured by the respective departments. ii. The Highways Department and the District Collector, Kancheepuram are directed to identify the encroachments and remove the same on the side of the road and the canal and also form a new earthen canal after evicting the fish market in the right side of the surplus weir and also to provide concrete lining to the earthen channel and to increase the number of vent in the right side of the bridge to ensure flow from Konnerikuppam tank to Vellakulam tank. 52 iii. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is also directed to form the necessary canal leading to Gurunathaswamy Kulam in S.F. No. 148/9 as per the revenue records.
iv. The Revenue Department is also directed to survey the surrounding area in every point of fly over and restore the canal, if any, existed as per the original revenue records with the coordination of the concerned departments. v. The Kancheepuram Corporation is also directed not to dump any garbage or discharge sewage into the water body and for monitoring the same provide CCTV cameras at the hotspots. vi. The Commissioner for Municipal Administration, the respective Secretaries of Highways, the Revenue and Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, the Additional Chief Secretary for Environment and the Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu are directed to supervise the implementation of the recommendations made by the Joint Committee and the Additional Chief Secretary, Water Resources Department is directed to file the consolidated periodical report on behalf of the Chief Secretary of compliance of the recommendations made by the Joint Committee to resolve the issue permanently once in six months to this Tribunal by e-filing in the form of Searchable PDF/OCR Supportable PDF and not in the form of Image PDF along with necessary hardcopies to be produced as per Rules.
vii. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is also directed to supervise the implementation of the Solid Waste 53 Management Rules, 2016 in that area and see that garbage is not dumped in the water body and untreated sewage is not let into the water body and if there is any violation found, they are directed to take appropriate action against the person who are responsible for the same in accordance with law.
viii. The office is directed to place the report as and when received before the Bench for consideration and passing further directions, if any, required.
ix. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Commissioner, Kancheepuram Corporation, District Collector, Kancheepuram, Chairman, Pollution Control Board, Commissioner of Municipal Administration, concerned Secretaries of the Revenue, the Highways Department and Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, the Additional Chief Secretary for Environment, Forest & Climate Change, the Additional Chief Secretary for Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu for their information and compliance of the directions. x. Considering the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs in the application.
41. With the above observations and directions, the application is disposed of.
....................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) ...............................E.M. (Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati) O.A. No. 207 /2017(SZ) 28th March, 2022-AM 54