National Green Tribunal
S John Fernandez vs The Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution ... on 7 July, 2022
Bench: K Ramakrishnan, K. Satyagopal
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 278 of 2017 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
S. John Fernandez,
S/o. Susai,
Inayam,
Inayam Post,
Kanyakumari District
....Applicant(s)
Versus
1. The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
No. 76, Mount Road, Guindy,
Chennai
2. The Member Secretary
TNSCZMA & Director of Environment,
No.1, Jennies Road,
Panakal Building, Ground Floor,
Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015
3. The District Environment Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
No.3/8, 46-A, Water Tank Road,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District
4. The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District,
At Nagercoil - 629 001
5. The Superintendent Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Ltd.
Parvathipuram,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District
6. The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.
Pudukkadai,
Kanyakumari District
7. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Padmanabhapuram,
Thuckalay,
Kanyakumari District
Page 1 of 36
8. The Special Officer,
Painkulam Village Panchayat,
Painkulam Post,
Kanyakumari District
9. The Village Administrative Officer,
Thengaipattinam Village,
Vilavancode Taluk,
Kanyakumari District
10. The Deputy Director,
Sanitary Department,
Krishnankoil,
Kanyakumari District
11. M/s. Nanjil Sea Foods,
Rep. b y its Proprietor,
Mr. G. Antony Kenselin,
S/o. Gabriel,
No. 24/251, Mulluthurai,
Araiyanthoppu,
Thengaipattanam P.O.,
Kanyakumari District
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): None
For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R1 and R3
Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R2, R4 & R7
to R10
Mr. A.Maheshnath for R11
Judgment Reserved on: 21.04.2022
Judgment Pronounced on: 07.07.2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
Whether the Judgement is allowed to be published on the Internet - Yes
Whether the Judgement is to be published in the All India NGT Reporter - Yes
JUDGMENT
Delivered by Justice K. Ramakrishnan, Judicial Member.
1. The grievance in this application was regarding the illegal operation of sea food processing unit run by 11th Respondent in the Page 2 of 36 name and style of M/s. Nanjil Sea Foods in a three storied building with a basement floor at No.24/251, Mulluthurai, Araiyanthoppu, Thengaipattanam Post, Kanyakumari District. According to the Applicant the unit is situated in seashore and on the High Tide line. It is a non development zone and no construction or any activity could be possible within that area.
2. The 11th Respondent is running the unit without obtaining necessary clearance under CRZ Notification 2011 and also licence and other requisite consents from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and other authorities. Though complaints were made to the authorities regarding the illegal activities done by 11th Respondent, no action was taken by the authorities.
3. Further, they are also obtained electricity connection meant for a dwelling unit and carrying on processing of Jelly Fish containing toxic substance, which is normally used in the preparation of narcotic substances and carrying on the processing activities round the clock manner for the past seven years. They also dug an underground pipeline for the flow of wastage into the sea.
4. The sea food processing unit of the 11th respondent is at the end of the fishing hamlet and more than 3000 dwelling houses are situated in that hamlet. In the rear side of the Unit, Al-Amin Matriculation High School is functioning with more than 600 students. Due to regular fish processing in the unit, unbearable odour is emanating from the unit and polluting the entire village. The outgoing wastages mingle with the sea water and pollute the Page 3 of 36 water for about 5 km radius and causing health hazard and also affecting the normal life of fishermen in that area. The unhygienic and improper maintenance of the unit leads to flies and mosquito menace and contagious diseases in the locality. Certain students were affected on account of the pollution caused due to the operation of this unit.
5. On the basis of the request made regarding the functioning of 11th Respondent unit, the applicant made application under the Right Information Act and on 22.02.2017, the Public Information Officer of the District Environment Engineer's Office issued a letter stating that the unit of 11th Respondent was inspected on 26.01.2017 and found that no such fishing processing and ice plant is functioning there. However, an advice was given to 11th Respondent to get approval from the Coastal Zone Management Authority. On 24.02.2017, the Member Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority issued an advice to the District Collector and District Environment Engineer to inspect the site and take suitable action on the issue and if violation is noticed under the Coastal Zone Regulation Notification, 2011, they were directed to take penal action against the 11th Respondent and send details of the action taken to the Director and to the applicant. But no action was taken by the authorities and the 11th respondent was still illegally carrying on the Jelly Fish processing activities in that area. That prompted the applicant to file this application seeking the following reliefs.
i) Grant permanent injunction restraining the 11th Respondent from running an illegal jelly Fish Processin Unit in the name Page 4 of 36 and style of M/s. Nanjil Sea Foods, at No. 24/251, Mulluthurai, Ariyanthoppu, Thengaipattanam P.O., Kanyakumari District.
ii) Direct the Respondents 1 to 10 to initiate appropriate action against the 11th Respondent for violating the provisions of the Environmental Prote4ction Act, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 1991 and Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act.
iii) Direct the 11th Respondent to pay compensation towards the affected people for causing wide spread pollution and for the people affected by viral infection and skin diseases.
6. Respondents 1 and 3 filed reply affidavit contending as follows:
"Based on the complaint petition filed by the applicant against the 11th Respondent unit, that unit was inspected on 16.03.2017 by the officials of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and during inspection they observed the following:
(i) The unit was not in operation;
(ii) No ice Plant/Fish Processing activities were noticed inside
the unit's premises;
(iii) It was reported that earlier an ice plant was established
and operated in the said premises, however, during inspection it was observed that the machineries were found to be dismantled and corroded;
(iv) Residential houses are located in the vicinity of the unit and sea shore is located on the western side."
7. The observations made in the inspection was informed to the applicant vide letter No.DEE/TNPCB/NGL/ F.Tech.06(145)/16 dated 17.03.2017. The 11th respondent has submitted application seeking Environmental Clearance under CRZ Notification 2011 for the proposed fish processing unit cold storage and ice plant at Survey Field No.478/4C Part, Painkulam Village, Mulluthurai, Thengapattinam Post, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District Page 5 of 36 and the subject was placed before the District Coastal Zone Management Authority in its 76th Meeting held on 14.05.2018 vide Agenda No.76-09.Since part of Survey Field No.478 falls in CRZ-1 (between HTL <L) and part of Survey Field No.478 falls within 200 meters from HTL, the District Coastal Zone Management Authority resolved to request the Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Tirunelveli to verify the classification by carrying out field survey and to furnish report with detailed FMB Sketch.
8. Accordingly the Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Tirunelveli has been requested to take action to furnish the report with detailed FMB sketch of the site to ascertain the exact CRZ area/zone vide DEE, Nagercoil Lr. No.F.NGL-CRZ-1(245)/18 dated 31.05.2018 and vide Lr. No.F.NGL-CRZ-1(245)/18 dated 16.10.2018, the unit was also requested to contact the Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning and to furnish detailed FMB sketch with CRZ Markings vide DEE Nagercoil Lr. No.DEE/TNPCB/NGL-Tech/06/145/16 dated 04.06.2018 and 16.10.2018.No details were received so far. After receipt of the detailed FMB sketch with CRZ markings, the DCZMA will take final decision regarding the issue of Environmental Clearance under CRZ Notification.
9. The 11th Respondent unit namely M/s. Nanjil Sea Food located at D No.24/251, Mulluthurai, Araiyanthoppu (Survey Field No.478/4C Part) PainkulamVillage, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District has not filed any application seeking the consent of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board under Water Page 6 of 36 (Prevention &Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 as amended from time to time and the AIR (Prevention &Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as amended, so they prayed for accepting their contentions and passing appropriate orders in the matter.
10. After a long time, the 11th respondent filed a reply contending as follows. Because of the lockdown due to pandemic situation, they could not pursue the legal remedy before this Tribunal. The applicant had approached this Tribunal with unclean hands, the averments in the application are not correct and the same has been made with ulterior motive to mislead this Tribunal and cause injustice to the 11th respondent. The applicant is not residing in the address mentioned in the application and he is a native of Chennai. Subsequently, the applicant passed away on 24.05.2020. They denied the allegation that there was an effluent discharge and that there was protest or agitation in the locality against 11th respondent as alleged in the application. He denied the allegation that there was jelly fish processing in 11th respondent facility they also denied the allegation that the unit is situated within 5 meters from the shore line. In fact, their facility has not caused any nuisance to the local community, the Thoothur Fish Merchant Community as they have not operated any facility at any point of time, when they could not get necessary permission to establish the entity with supply. None of the schools namely Church of St. Lawrence and St. Lawrence Primary School have not made any complaint against the 11th respondent as alleged. He had constructed the facility for the purpose of ice plant after obtaining prior approval from the Page 7 of 36 Panchayat by order dated 12.03.2012. Pursuant to the approval obtained from the Panchayat he had put up construction of the facility based on which he had applied for Environmental Clearance before the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Baard, which had forwarded the same to the District Coastal Zone Management Authority, Kaniyakumari District by Proceedings dated 09.05.2017. He had sent several reminders for the purpose of processing the application and during the pendency of the application, he had not operated the units and he could not operate the unit without obtaining necessary electricity. There was no activities related to fish processing, ice plant or cold storage being conducted in the building.
11. The 11th respondent facility was granted with commercial electricity connection based on the Panchayat approval. The 11th respondent made request to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to increase the voltage upto 30000 volts and same was rejected by order dated 18.11.2019, without high voltage supply of electricity it was not possible for him to operate the facility of ice plant. 11th respondent facility was only being used as office space for facilitating sale of fish by local fishermen for the purpose of export. The Thangapattinam Harbour was expanded during the year 2015 and after expansion of the harbour all the fishing related activities have been facilitated inside the harbour. He has not received any notice regarding the present application pending before this Tribunal. They came to know about the proceedings only when the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board inspected the area on Page 8 of 36 16.03.2017 and even from the reply it is clear that none of the activities mentioned by the applicant were being carried out in the building at the time of inspection.
12. He entered appearance through Counsel before this Tribunal and he received a notice of inspection from the Joint Committee and he had facilitated their presence for inspection. He had not received the copy of the report but he came to know about the observation made by the Committee that no action will be done on the basis, but he had perused Joint Inspection Report from the order passed by this Tribunal on 18.08.2020 and the Committee has noted the following:
(i) Unit was in an operational condition
(ii) Unit has not obtained Environmental Clearance, permission under the Water (P&CP) Act, 1974 and the AIR (P&CP) Act, 1981
(iii) Unit falls under Coastal Regulation Zone-3 as per Coastal Regulation Map-4 issued by the Department of Environment.
13. The Committee has recommended the closure of the unit and also levy compensation. This is contrary to the report submitted by the Pollution Control Board earlier.
14. He denied the allegation that part of the facility is between the high tide line and low tide line in CRZ-1 and part of the facility in CRZ-3. The committee itself was found that there is an existing road operating between 11th respondent premises and the shoreline. It is strictly populated area with residential buildings, schools and religious institutions. No part of the facility is falling under CRZ-1. The compensation as raised is also high. They had also reiterated Page 9 of 36 the contentions raised by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board regarding the processing of application filed by 11th respondent for getting clearance under CRZ notification.
15. When he received the notice from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board imposing Environmental Compensation he filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench as WP (MD) No.15819/2020 and the Hon'ble High Court by order dated 21.04.2021 disposed the matter by observing that it is only the consequential order pursuant to the order passed by this Tribunal and he will have to agitate the same before this Tribunal.
16. The order of closure and compensation are consequential to the Joint Committee Report and he had not availed any opportunity to submit his reply to the Joint Committee Report. He constructed the building after getting approval from the Panchayat and when he applied for additional loan, the same was rejected. Initially he filed an application for the purpose of fish processing and ice plant and ice storage unit. He is not going to use the building for any purposes, he received an order of demolition by the Panchayat dated 09.03.2022, stating that the building was unauthorizedly constructed and cannot be regularized as a fish processing unit, as the same is restricted activity in Coastal Regulatory Zone. He has not received any Show Cause Notice regarding the same. During the pandemic he could not carry out any business and he had closed the unit in lieu of the orders passed by this Tribunal and the Pollution Control Board. He undertakes not to operate the premises for fishing activities that are prohibited under CRZ Notification. So Page 10 of 36 he prayed for reviewing the order of imposing compensation and demolition of the building. He prayed for passing appropriate orders in their favour.
17. As per order dated 11.12.2019, this Tribunal after considering the pleadings available at that time appointed a Joint Committee consisting of the District Collector, Kaniyakumari District, Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority and Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to inspect the area in question and ascertain as to whether the construction if any is in violation of CRZ Regulations and if any action is required and what is the action taken in this regard, if the unit was functioning earlier without getting necessary clearance in the CRZ Notification and other permission to the authorities and assess compensation applying Polluter Pay Principle on the basis of directions of the Principal Bench and guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board in this regard and accordingly the application was disposed of and the Committee was directed to file the factual as well as the action taken report within a period of two months and posted the case to 18.02.2020 for further consideration of the action taken report.
18. Thereafter the matter was adjourned at the request of the authorities to file their report or by notification.
19. The matter was taken up on 18.08.2020 on that day, this Tribunal considered the Joint Committee Report dated nil received by e-mail dated 18.08.2020 extracted in Para 4 of the order which reads as follows:
"Based on the complaint petition filed by Thiru.John Fernandes, S/o.Susai, Inayam Village & Post, Kanyakumari Page 11 of 36 District, the unit was inspected on 16.03.2017 by the officials of TNPC Board. During inspection the following observations were made:
1. The unit was not in operation.
2. No Ice Plant / Fish Processing activities were noticed inside the unit's premises.
3. It was reported that earlier an ice plant was established and operated in the said premises, however during inspection it was observed that the machineries were found to be dismantled and corroded.
The fact was informed to the Petitioner vide Letter No. DEE/ TNPCB/ NGL/F.Tech. 06 (145)/16 dt.17.03.2017. Topographical features in the vicinity of the unit of M/s.Nanjil sea foods Residential houses are located in the vicinity of the unit and sea shore is located in the western side. There is a commuting road facilitating bus transports between the unit and seashore. Status of CRZ Clearance under CRZ Notification 2011. The unit's location at S.F. No. 478 / 4C Pt., Thengapattinam Village (Old village - Painkulam Village), Killiyoor Taluk (Old Taluk
- Vilavancode Taluk), Kanyakumari District falls under CRZ III as per the approved Map No. 4. However, the unit has not obtained any CRZ Clearance under CRZ Notification 2011. Note: CRZ Clearance under CRZ Notification, 2011 is read by most and perceived as misnomer to Environmental Clearance under EIA Notification,2006. The activity of the unit is not the purview of EIA Notification; whereas its location is attracted under CRZ Notification,2011 and mandates the Unit to obtain CRZ Clearance.
Status of consent of TNPCB The unit has not filed any application seeking consent of the TNPC Board under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 as amended and under the Air (Prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1981 as amended.
It is submitted that the Hon'ble NGT vide their order dated 11.12.19 in Application No. 278 of 2017 filed before the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (SZ), Chennai against the unit, has directed "to appoint a joint committee consists of District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to inspect Page 12 of 36 the area in question and ascertain as to whether the construction if any, is in violation of CRZ Regulations and if any action is required and what action is taken in this regard, if the unit was functioning earlier without getting any environmental clearance and other requisite clearance from authorities..." In this regard, the Joint Committee consisting of the following members inspected the unit's premises on 17.03.2020.
i) Sub Collector, Padmanabhapuram (on behalf of the District Collector, Kanyakumari District)
ii) Dr. Nehru Kumar Vaithilingam, (Expert Member -
TNSCZMA), Director, Centre for Environment, Health & Safety, Annamalai University, Chidambaram (on behalf of Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority) and
iii) The District Environmental Engineer, Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board, Nagercoil.
During the time of inspection, the following observations were made.
1. The unit was not in operation.
2. The unit has established cold storage plant along with the permissible limit of Ammonia storage facility, fish receiving / dispatch hall, office, parking shed etc.
3. The unit is located in Coastal Regulation Zone III as per the approved Map No. 4. However, the unit has not obtained any CRZ Clearance under CRZ Notification 2011.
4. The unit's representative informed that the unit has obtained only 7.63 KW power load under the commercial tariff no. V. The unit has also informed that the cold storage cannot be operated with the sanctioned power load of 7.63 KW.
5. The TNEB's power load is effected on 16.05.11. FINDINGS
1. The unit is established with cold storage plant along with permissible limits of Ammonia storage facility, fish receiving / dispatch hall, office, parking shed etc. and the same are found in operational condition.
Page 13 of 36
2. The unit has not obtained any CRZ Clearance under CRZ Notification 2011.
3. The unit has not obtained any consent under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 as amended and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as amended. I. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLOSURE DIRECTIONS:
As the unit is constructed and found in operational condition (although not being operated) without CRZ Clearance under CRZ Notification 2011 and consent under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 as amended and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as amended, the unit cannot be permitted at the said site and so, the unit shall be issued with closure direction by the Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board.
II. IMPOSING ENVIRONMENTAL COMPENSATION:
The Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (SZ), Chennai vide their order dated 11.12.19 in Application No. 278 of 2017, has directed "to appoint a joint committee consists of District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to inspect the area in question and ascertain as to whether the construction if any, is in violation of CRZ Regulations and if any action is required and what action is taken in this regard, if the unit was functioning earlier without getting any environmental clearance and other requisite clearance from authorities, then apply the Polluters Pay Principle and assess the environmental compensation as directed by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi in similar case."
In this regard, it is submitted that Hon'ble NGT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, vide its order dated 19/02/2019 in O.A. No.593/2017 (W.P)(Civil) No.375 /2012 filed by Parayavaran Samiti &Anr. Against Union of India has discussed on the levy of Environmental Compensation based on the formula:Page 14 of 36
EC= PI x N x R x S x LF Where EC is Environmental Compensation in INR.
PI = Pollution Index of industrial sector N= Number of days violation took place R = A factor in Rupees for EC S = factor of scale of operation LF = Location factor CASE A:
Environmental Compensation was calculated as above which amounts to PI - 30 (This unit falls under Green category 3013-Chilling plant, cold storage and ice making).
N - 3229 days (date of commissioning
16.05.2011 as per TNEB's
additional power load effected
to upto the date of inspection
made by the Joint Committee
on 17.03.2020)
R - 250 (It is suggested to consider R
as 250 as EC in case of
violation)
S - 0.5 (for micro or small)
LF - 1 (LF will be 1.0 in case
population is less than 1
million) Mullurthurai
EC= PI x N x R x S x LF
EC = 30 x 3229 x 250 x 0.5 x 1 = Rs. 1, 21, 08,750/-
CASE B:
Considering the small scale nature of the unit, the
Environmental Compensation on the unit may be revised considering the no. of days from the application dated 02.05.2017 made by the unit for CRZ Clearance under CRZ Notification 2011.
Accordingly, Environmental Compensation is reworked as below.
PI - 30 (This unit falls under Green 3013
- Chilling plant, cold storage and
ice making).
Page 15 of 36
N - 1052 days (from the date of application for
Environmental Clearance under
CRZ Notification 2011 on
02.05.2017 to upto the date of
inspection made by the Joint
Committee on 17.03.2020))
R - 250 (It is suggested to consider R as
250 as EC in case of violation)
S - 0.5 (for micro or small)
LF - 1 (LF will be 1.0 in case population
is less than 1 million)
Mullurthurai
EC= PI x N x R x S x LF
EC = 30 x 1052 x 250 x 0.5 x 1 = Rs. 39, 45, 000/-
Hence an amount of Rs. 1, 21, 08,750/- as per CASE A or Rs. 39, 45, 000 as per CASE B may be claimed from the unit after giving the Respondent (M/s. Nanjil Sea Foods located at D. No. 24/251, Mullurthurai, Araiyanthoppu, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District) an opportunity of being heard on the question of compensation to be imposed in accordance with law within one month.
Necessary approval may be issued by the Board to recover the amount of Rs. 1, 21, 08,750/- as per CASE A or Rs. 39, 45, 000 as per CASE B from the unit after being heard as directed by the Hon'ble NGT."
20. Thereafter this Tribunal passed the following order.
"1. It is mentioned in the report that calculation has been made based on two methods, viz., Case A and Case B and assessed the environment compensation in Case A to the tune of Rs.1,21,08,750/-
(Rupees One Crore Twenty one Lakh Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only) and in Case B to the tune of Rs.39,45,000/-(Rupees Thirty Nine Lakh Forty Five Thousand only).
Page 16 of 36
2. It is not known which method of calculation the Board is going to adopt before issuing show cause notice to the 11th respondent before giving Environment Clearance.
3. When this was pointed out, the learned counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board submitted that they have issued show cause notice and date was fixed for hearing but she had not received any instruction regarding the same from the authority, except the report alone and she wants some time to file a report regarding further action to be taken.
4. It is for the regulating authorities to assess environmental compensation on the basis of the nature of violation and number of days violation on the basis of the formula evolved by the CPCB in this regard and not for the National Green Tribunal to suggest which method of calculation has to be adopted and proceedings will have to be initiated.
5. Pollution Control Board is directed to assess environment compensation as directed by this Tribunal against the 11th respondent unit in accordance with law and submit a further action taken report to this Tribunal within a period of one month."
21. Since the tribunal was not satisfied with the Counter Affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, this tribunal has directed the authorities to file proper action taken report. Thereafter the matter was again adjourned from time to time on several occasions, either by notification or at the request of the Counsel appearing for the regulators.
22. On 03.06.2021, this Tribunal considered the report submitted by the Pollution Control Board dated 03.03.2021 e-filed on 04.03.2021 extracted in Para 3 of the order which reads as follows: Page 17 of 36
ACTION TAKEN REPORT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS-
TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
1. It is respectfully submitted that as per the directions of the Hon'ble NGT dated 08.09.2020 and the recommendations of the Joint Committee, the respondent Board has assessed for levying the environmental compensation of Rs. 39,41,250/- to the unit M/s Nanjil Sea foods, located at D. No. 24/251, Mullurthurai, Araiyanthoppu, Vilavancod taluk, Kanyakumari District.
2. It is respectfully submitted that the respondent Board has issued show cause notice vide Board's proceeding dated 12.10.2020 to levy and recover the Environmental Compensation of Rs. 39,41,250/- for operating the unit without obtaining CRZ clearance required under the provisions of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 2011 made under the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986.
In response to the said show cause notice, the unit vide its letter dated 15.11.2020 informed that the unit has received the said proceeding only on 27.10.2020 and requested 15 days time to furnish its reply.
Further, the respondent Board has issued closure direction and disconnection of power supply to the unit of M/s Nanjil Sea foods vide Board's proceeding dated 27.10.2020.
Board on the direction for closure, EB power supply to the unit was disconnected by the AE (Distribution), TANGEDCO, Puthukadai on 02.11.2020.
3. It is further submitted that, Thiru. Antony Kanselin, Kanyakumari District has filed a writ petition (D) No. 15189 of 2020 before the Hon'ble Madurai bench of madras High Court, Madurai against the issued by the Board vide proceeding No. T1/TNPCB/LAW/NGT/A/Show Cause Notice/2020 dated 12.10.2020 and direction for closure and disconnection of power supply issued by the Board vide proceeding no. T1/TNPCB/F.32895/OS/NGL/W&A/2020-1 dated 27.10.2020.
4. It is respectfully submitted that the Hon'ble NGT has passed order dated 03.02.2021 and directed that "we direct the official respondents as well as the committee to submit their independent response regarding the action taken by them from their side and also further action taken report by the committee respectively to this Tribunal on or before 01.03.2021.
5. It is further submitted that, in pursuance the orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal dated 03.02.2020, the respondent Board has addressed a memo Page 18 of 36 dated 27.02.2021 to the JCEE (Monitoring), Tirunelveli requested to conduct personal hearing with the unit of M/s nanjil Sea food, Kanyakumari District and furnish report to Board.
23. Thereafter this Tribunal passed the following order.
"1. It is seen from the report that they have assessed the environmental compensation of Rs. 39,41,250/- against the unit by name M/s Nanjil Sea foods, located at D. No. 24/251, Mullurthurai, Araiyanthoppu, Vilavancod taluk, Kanyakumari District and this was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench by one Mr. Antony Kanselin as Writ Petition (MD) No. 15189 of 2020. But it was not mentioned in the report as to whether any stay has been granted by the Hon'ble High Court and what is the present stage of proceedings as well. Further, in the case of construction in CRZ zone without obtaining CRZ clearance, then the Coastal Zone Management Authority is expected to take action against that unit not only by closure but also for demolition of the same as the construction was made without any clearance and it is illegal construction. But no such coercive steps have been taken by the authority so far and they have not filed any further action taken report as well. So, the Coastal Zone Management Authority is directed to file a further detailed report regarding the legal action taken by them against the 11th respondent unit, who are conducting the unit without getting necessary clearances under the CRZ Notification, 2011. When this was [5] pointed out Learned Counsel appearing for Pollution Control Board and the State respondents submitted that they will file further report in this regard. They are directed to file the report before this Tribunal on or before 29.06.2021 by e-filling 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.
2. The matter is pending since 2017. Even according to the respondents the violations are writ large, in spite of that no effective steps have been taken by them. That shows the lethargic attitude on part of the regulators who are being vested with the onerous duty of protecting the environment especially coastal environment in enforcing the environment laws. If they did not file the report as directed then they are directed, to appear before this Tribunal on that Page 19 of 36 day to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them. If there is stay granted by Hon'ble High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench in the writ petition mentioned above, they are also expected to produce the order and also the present status of the writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and whether any steps taken by them to expedite the hearing of the matter as it relates to coastal environment.
3. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority, District Collector, Kanyakumari District and the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control [6] Board and also to the Chief Secretary and Secretary for Environment, State of Tamil Nadu for their information and taking further steps in this read as directed by this Tribunal immediately."
24. Thereafter on several occasions, the matter was adjourned as no further reports were filed expressing his displeasure on the part of the State Coastal Zone Management Authority and the District Collector and the Pollution Control Board in not filing proper reports.
25. The matter was again taken up on 31.08.2021 on that day this Tribunal considered the report submitted byTamil Nadu Pollution Control board dated nil e-filed on 07.08.2021 extracted in para 2 of the order which reads as follows.
"REPORT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
1. It is submitted that, subsequently the Hon'ble NGT in its order dated 29.06.2021 directed as follows: "The Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority (TNCZMA), District Collector, Kanyakumari District and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board are directed to file their respective reports as directed by this Tribunal as per order dated 03.06.2021 on or before 16.07.2021." 4. It is respectfully submitted that, earlier Thiru. G. Antony Kanselin, S/o GnanaprahasamGabrail, 24/251, Anbiam 1 to 2 Nanjil Cottage, Thengapattanam Post, Mullurthurai Village, Page 20 of 36 Vilavancode Taluk, Kanniyakumari District (respondent unit) filed a Writ Petition (MD) 15189 of 2020 before the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court challenging the orders issued by the Board vide Board Proc. T1 / TNPCB / LAW / LAIII / NGT / 32895 / NGLIA / Show Cause Notice / 2020 dated 12/10/2020 and directions for closure and disconnection of power supply issued by the Board vide Board Proc. No. T1 / TNPCB / F.32895 / OS / NGL / W&A / 2020-1 dated 27/10/2020. Now, the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court vide their order dated 21.04.2021 has disposed the W.P. (MD) 15189 of 2020 and W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 13257 to 13259 of 2020 as follows. "The impugned order is a consequential order pursuant to the order passed by the National Green Tribunal dated 18.08.2020 in O.A. No. 278 of 2017, in which the writ petitioner is also a party. Therefore, unless and until the order passed by the National Green Tribunal is challenged before the appropriate forum, the challenge to the consequential order passed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board cannot be entertained.
Therefore, the Writ Petition is closed, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum."
2. It is respectfully submitted that with respect to CRZ Clearance, it is submitted that the unit has submitted an application seeking Environmental Clearance under CRZ Notification 2011 for the fish processing unit, cold storage and ice plant at S.F. No. 478 / 4C Part, Painkulam village, Mulluthurai, Thengapattinam (PO), Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari district and the subject was placed before the District Coastal Zone Management Authority in its 76th meeting held on 14.05.2018 vide Agenda No. 76 - 09. Since part of the S.F. No. 478 falls in CRZ-I (Between HTL & LTL) and part of S.F. No. 478 falls within 200 meters from HTL, the District Coastal Zone Management Authority resolved to request the Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Tirunelveli to verify the classification by carrying out field survey and to furnish report with detailed FMB Sketch. Accordingly, the Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Tirunelveli has been requested to take action to furnish the report with detailed FMB Sketch of the site to ascertain the exact CRZ Area / Zone vide Lr. No. F.NGL - CRZ-I (245) / 18 Dt. 31.05.2018 and vide Lr. No. F.NGL - CRZ-I (245) / 18. Dt. 16.10.2018. In this regard, the Assistant Director, DTCP, Nagercoil vide letter dated: 15.04.2021has stated that permission cannot be granted as per the Rule 36 (a), 36 (D) (i)
(ii) Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 and therefore informed that the local body may be requested to take necessary action. 6. It is respectfully submitted that as per the order dated Page 21 of 36 03.06.2021 of the Hon'ble NGT (SZ) in O.A. No. 278 of 2017, the Member Secretary, TNSCZMA & Director of Environment, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai vide Letter R.C. No. P1 / 036 / 2019 dated 25.06.2021 has requested the District Collector & Chairman, DCZMA, Kanyakumari District and the District Environmental Engineer, TNPCB,
3. It is respectfully submitted that, at present the unit is under closure and E.B power supply to the unit was disconnected on 02/11/2020 as per the TNPC Board direction issued vide proceeding dt. 27/10/2020.
4. It is respectfully submitted that the subject on the further action to be taken against the unit of M/s. Nanjil Sea foods, S.F. No. 478 / 40 Part, Painkulam village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District as directed by the Hon'ble NGT order dated 03/06/21 in O.A. No. 278 of 2017 was placed before the District Coastal Zone Management Authority meeting conducted on 20/07/21 at 6.00 PM under the Chairmanship of the District Collector, Kanyakumari District. The District Coastal Zone Management Authority Committee has decided as follows:
"The committee discussed the issue in detail and was observed that the Environment Protection Act, 1986 empowers the District Level Committee to file case in the court which attract imprisonment upto five years with penalty. There are no powers conferred by the Act to demolish the construction. Accordingly, the Committee decided to file case in the court under Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the same to be reported to Tamil Nadu State Coastal Zone Management Authority"
26. Since there was nothing was mentioned about the further action taken by the authorities and the case was adjourned for the purpose of filing such a Report.
27. On 09.09.2021, this Tribunal considered the matter and observed that in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in The Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority versus the State of Kerala, Maradu Municipality and ors. (2018) 2 SCC 203 directed the regulators to take appropriate action and file a report. This Tribunal also considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the Pollution Control Board that they have issued closure notice Page 22 of 36 and disconnection of power supply and that was implemented and the Environmental Compensation was also imposed though it was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench ultimately Madurai Bench dismissed the application holding that they cannot interfere with the same with the action taken by the Pollution Control Board as it was a consequential order passed on the basis of the directions issued by the National Green Tribunal, Southern Bench and remedial the Writ Petition which was challenged the basic order on the basis of which consequential orders were issued.
28. Thereafter this Tribunal directed the State Coastal Zone Management Authority and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to file their respective Action Taken Reports.
29. The matter was again taken up on 23.12.2021 and this Tribunal has directed the State Coastal Zone Management Authority to file report.
30. The matter was again taken up on 24.02.2022 and this Tribunal considered the report submitted by the Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board signed by the Officer on 12.01.2022 e-filed on the same day extracted in Para 3 of the order, which reads as follows:
"REPORT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
1. It is respectfully submitted that the unit of M/s. Nanjil Sea Foods (fish processing unit and cold storage with Ice Plant) at S.F.No.478/4C, Painkulam Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District has already been issued with closure order and power supply was disconnected, and the unit remains under closure since 02/11/2020. In order to comply the Hon'ble NGT order dated 09.09.2021, the subject on the demolition of the Page 23 of 36 unit was discussed in the 90th DCZMA meeting held on 02.12.2021 and the Committee decided to direct the Assistant Director (Village Panchayat) to take necessary action for demolishing the building, considering the fact that sea food processing is a prohibited activity under CRZ Rules, and report the action taken details within 8 weeks to District Coastal Zone Management Authority.
In this regard, as per the decision of the District Coastal Zone Management Authority, the District Collector vide Letter No. F. CRZ 245/2021/ dated 29/12/2021 has directed the Assistant Director, Village Panchayat, Nagercoil to take necessary action for demolishing the said building, considering the fact that sea food processing is a prohibited activity under CRZ Rules, and report the action taken details within 8 weeks time to ensure the compliance of Hon'ble NGT directions.
31. They have also mentioned that a notice was issued giving 15 days time to the 11th Respondent by the Assistant Director of Village Panchayat, giving 8 weeks time and they wanted to file further report after the period is over.
32. The matter was again taken up on 21.04.2022 on that day this Tribunal considered the further report signed by the Officer on 21.03.2022 e-filed on same day extracted in para-3 of the order which reads as follows:
"REPORT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
1. It is further submitted that the unit of M/s. Nanjil Sea Foods (fish processing unit and cold storage with Ice Plant) at S.F.No.478/4C, Painkulam Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari Districth has already been issued with closure order and power supply was disconnected, and the unit remains under closure since 02/11/2020. In order to comply the Hon'ble NGT order dated 09.09.2021, the subject on the demolition of the unit was discussed in the 90th DCZMA meeting held on 02.12.2021 and the Committee decided to direct the Assistant Director (Village Panchayat) to take necessary action for demolishing the building, considering the fact that sea food processing is a prohibited activity under CRZ Rules, and Page 24 of 36 report the action taken details within 8 weeks to District Coastal Zone Management Authority.
In this regard, as per the decision of the District Coastal Zone Management Authority, the District Collector vide Letter No. F. CRZ 245/2021/ dated 29/12/2021 has directed the Assistant Director, Village Panchayat, Nagercoil to take necessary action for demolishing the said building, considering the fact that sea food processing is a prohibited activity under CRZ Rules, and report the action taken details within 8 weeks time to ensure the compliance of Hon'ble NGT directions.
2. It is respectfully submitted that, subsequently the Hon'ble NGT in its order dated 24.02.2022 has directed inter alia as follows:
"... it is seen from the report that as per the minutes of the 90th District Coastal Zone Management Authority (DCZMA) meeting held on 02/12/2021, the Committee decided to direct the Assistant Director, Village Panchayat, Nagercoil to take action for demolition of the building, considering the fact that sea food processing is a prohibited activity under the CRZ Notification and report action taken details within eight weeks to the DCZMA and this was communicated by their Letter No. F. CRZ. 245/2021 dated 29/12/2021.
Considering the circumstances, we feel that some time can be granted to the DCZMA to file a report regarding the further action taken on demolition of building on the basis of the decision taken in DCZMA meeting and directed to file further report".
3. It is further submitted that the District Collector, Kanniyakumari District vide letter dated 17.03.2022 has requested the Assistant Director, Village Panchayat, Kanniyakumari District to furnish the action taken details immediately to the District Collector with respect to demolishing the said building since 8 weeks' time already granted has been expired on 26/02/2022"
33. On that day this Tribunal heard the Counsel appearing for the State Respondents Pollution Control Board and the 11th respondent as Counsel for the applicant was not appearing since long time and no steps have been taken to implead the legal representatives of the deceased original applicant. Since it is a matter of violation of Environmental Clearance once it is established, there is a violation, Page 25 of 36 then no abatement will be caused on account of the death of the applicant. The Tribunal can pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
34. The counsel appearing for the State Respondents including the Coastal Zone Management Authority and the Pollution Control Board submitted that they have already initiated action against the 11th Respondent by issuing closure order and the demolition notice was also issued and as regards the compensation they have also issued notice. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing for the 11th Respondent submitted that they have not conducted any fish processing unit, they have only constructed the building after getting necessary approval from the Village Panchayat and since they did not get any permission they did not conduct any facility or activity but they are only using the same as office space and the compensation assessed is high and application for clearance is pending with the authorities. Only after obtaining necessary permission he will undertake any activity in that area.
35. Considered the pleadings, report submitted by the authorities, the Committee and the Pollution Control Board and also Written Submissions submitted by the 11th Respondent and submissions made at the time of hearing.
36. The points that arose for consideration are:
(i) Whether the 11th respondent had committed any violation of CRZ Notification?
(ii) Whether the action initiated by the authorities is liable to be interfered with?Page 26 of 36
(iii) Whether the amount of compensation assessed by the authorities have to be interfered with for the reasons stated by the 11th respondent?
(iv) What is the further direction,if any, to be issued for protecting environment?
(v) Reliefs and costs. Points:
37. The grievance in this application was that the 11th respondent is conducting a jelly fish processing unit and ice plant in CRZ-1 Zone and CRZ-III Zone without obtaining necessary clearance and those activities are prohibited activities. Though earlier an inspection was conducted by Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on the basis of the directions issued by the State Coastal Zone Management Authority and found that the construction was made in violation of the CRZ Notification, no action was taken. Earlier 12th Respondent though appeared did not file any statement. In the reply statement submitted by the Pollution Control Board, though they admitted the construction of the building in CRZ-III zone without obtaining any permission, since it was intended for user for fish processing and a portion of the property was falling under CRZ-
1, where such activities are prohibited, they directed the 11th Respondent to obtain necessary clearance from the Coastal Zone Management Authority before starting the unit. It is also an admitted fact that the 11th respondent had filed an application during 2018, and there was a direction issued to the Director, Town and Country Planning authorities to produce FMB plan locating the project area to ascertain the extent of the portion falling under CRZ- 1 and CRZ-III. Since no plans were submitted either by the Page 27 of 36 Director, Town and Country Planning Authority or 11th Respondent, the application was not processed further.
38. It was any way admitted by the Pollution Control Board and the 11th Respondent that no permission under the CRZ Notification 2011 was obtained even for the construction of the building as even according to the 11th respondent, the construction was made in 2012 after obtaining permission from the Village Panchayat after coming into the force of CRZ Notification 2011. So, under CRZ Notification of 2019 or under 2011, the Village Panchayat has no power to grant permission for construction in CRZ zone covered under the CRZ Notification. It is for the authority under the notification as to grant permission. Anyway it was admitted that part of Survey Field No.478/4C Part, Painkulam Village, Mulluthurai, Thengapattinam Post, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District where the 11th respondent wanted to establish the unit is falling under CRZ-1, the remaining portion in CRZ-3. Even in the reply statement filed by the 2nd respondent, during 2019, when they inspected the unit on 16.03.2017, it was gathered that an ice plant was established and operated in the premises but at the time of inspection, it was not in operation and the machineries were found to be dismantled and corroded. So, the fact that the 11th respondent had constructed the building in CRZ Zone and conducted some activity without obtaining any consent or clearance is established from the report submitted and also in a way admitted by the 11th respondent himself on this aspect. Page 28 of 36
39. As per the CRZ Notification under CRZ-1 following activities are prohibited.
1. CRZ-I,-
(i) no new construction shall be permitted in CRZ-I except,-
(a) projects relating to Department of Atomic Energy;
(b) pipelines, conveying systems including transmission lines;
(c) facilities that are essential for activities permissible under CRZ-I;
(d) installation of weather radar for monitoring of cyclones movement and prediction by Indian Meteorological Department;
(e) construction of trans harbour sea link and without affecting the tidal flow of water, between LTL and HTL.
(f) development of green field airport already approved at only Navi Mumbai;
(ii) Areas between LTL and HTL which are not ecologically sensitive, necessary safety measures will be incorporated while permitting the following, namely:-
(a) exploration and extraction of natural gas;
(b) construction of dispensaries, schools, public rain shelter, community toilets, bridges, roads, jetties, water supply, drainage, sewerage which are required for traditional inhabitants living within the biosphere reserves after obtaining approval from concerned CZMA.
(c) necessary safety measure shall be incorporated while permitting such developmental activities in the area falling in the hazard zone;
(d) salt harvesting by solar evaporation of seawater; (e) desalination plants;
(f) storage of non-hazardous cargo such as edible oil, fertilizers and food grain within notified ports;
(g) construction of trans harbour sea links, roads on stilts or pillars without affecting the tidal flow of water.
and Rule 3 even construction activities in CRZ except those specified in Para 8 of the Notification are prohibited. Para 4 of the Page 29 of 36 notification deals with regulation of permissible activities. Where housing schemes in CRZ specified in Para 8 of the Notification is a regulating activity under Clause 3 (iii) setting up and expanding fish processing unit including warehousing except hatchery and natural fish drying in permitted areas is a prohibited activity.
40. Para 7 of the Notification deals with classification of CRZ Zones and Para 8 deals with regulation of permissible activities within each zones.
41. In CRZ III, it was defined as area upto 200 mts. from HTL on the landward side in case of seafront and 100 mts. along tidal influenced water bodies or width of the creek whichever is less is to be earmarked as "No Development Zone(NDZ)". No construction shall be permitted under 8A-2 under CRZ-3 no construction shall be permitted within NDZ expect for repairs or reconstruction of existing authorized structures not exceeding the existing Floor Space Index existing plinth area and existing density and for permissible activities under the notification including facilities essential for activities. Construction/ reconstruction dwelling units of traditional coastal management including fisherfolk may be permitted between 100 and 200 meters form HTL along the seafront in accordance with a comprehensive plan prepared by the State Government or Union Territory in consultation with the traditional coastal communities. But certain activities were permissible under Class 8(III)(A)(3) and under B of Class 8 certain activities are permissible between 200 meters to 500 meters and the construction Page 30 of 36 and reconstruction dwelling units is a permissible activity and certain reconstructions.
42. It is clear from the above that no fish processing unit is permissible within CRZ-1 and it is a regulated activity in CRZ-3. For the purpose of commencing a regulated activity the project proponent has to obtain necessary clearance under the CRZ notification 2011. Admittedly even assuming that the area is falling under CRZ-3 and the construction was made by the 11th respondent within that area even then it is an illegal construction made without obtaining prior CRZ clearance as required under CRZ Notification.
43. Further in the decision reported in The Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority v Maradu Municipality &ors. reported in 2018 (2) SCC 205 wherein the Apex Court has directed to demolish the building which was constructed in CRZ-III area without obtaining prior clearance from the authorities under the CRZ Notification 2011.
44. Though the 11th Respondent has filed an application for getting clearance, it may only amount to post facto clearance as construction has already been completed. Whether that can be granted or not it is a disputed question as even the Apex Court had observed in some of the cases expose fact clearance cannot be possible and in some cases it was observed that in exceptional cases can be granted. We are not going to those aspects at present. Since the 11th respondent did not pursued the application pending with the authorities since long time that shows that he had no Page 31 of 36 interest to secure necessary approvals. Further in this case, notice has already been issued by the authorities for demolition of the building as it was constructed without obtaining necessary clearance in CRZ Zone.
45. So, under such circumstances, we feel that the authorities can proceed with the same and if the 11th respondent is aggrieved by the final demolition order issued, he is at liberty to appeal the same before the appropriate authorities and that right is left open.
46. As regards the compensation aspect is concerned, the Joint Committee has assessed the compensation in two different ways
(i) Imposing a compensation of Rs.1,21,08,750/- and in another method calculating the amount as Rs.39,45,000/- and the Pollution Control Board had adopted the second one and decided to assess imposed an environment compensation of Rs.39,41,250/-. Though a show cause notice was issued the 11th Respondent has not filed any objection to the same. Further even before this Tribunal there was no plausible objections filed to come to a conclusion that the amount calculated by the Pollution Control Board applying the guidelines is wrong. So, we don't find any reason to interfere with the compensation assessed by the Pollution Control Board, when the parties have decided to challenge the quantum of compensation assessed before this Tribunal, the Tribunal can go into the question as to whether the quantum of compensation assessed by the authority is Page 32 of 36 right or wrong instead of relegating the matter to be further assessed after getting explanation from the 11th respondent and leaving open the parties to file appeal if they are aggrieved by the same.
(ii) Since this case the matter is pending since 2017 and the
11th Respondent had decided to challenge the
compensation only at a later stage after he has attempted the same before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench, we feel that this Tribunal itself can assess the compensation and direct the 11th respondent to pay the same. So, we direct the 11th respondent to pay the compensation of Rs.39,41,250/- assessed by the Pollution Control Board within six months.
47. As regards the other proceedings are concerned, the authorities who have issued notice for demolition are entitled to proceed with the proceedings and take that to its natural culmination in accordance with law.
48. So, this Tribunal feels that the application can be disposed of as follows.
(i) Since the Pollution Control Board has already issued closure notice and disconnection of electricity and the 11th respondent had already closed the unit and electricity connection was disconnected, we feel that there is no necessity to issue further direction of closure, in this regard. The 11th respondent is restrained from carrying out any activity in the premises or in that area, Page 33 of 36 without obtaining necessary clearance and consent from the authorities.
(ii) The assessment of Environment Compensation of Rs.39,41,750/- assessed by the Pollution Control Board for which proceedings have been initiated is hereby confirmed and 11th respondent is directed to pay the amount within a period of six months in six monthly instalments and if the amount is not paid within that time, then the Pollution Control Board is at liberty to recover the amount, in accordance with law.
(iii) The Assistant Director of Village Panchayat who has already initiated proceedings for demolition of building which is constructed by the 11th respondent in CRZ-III area without obtaining clearance from the authorities is directed to proceed with the proceedings and complete the same to its logical conclusion in accordance with law.
49. The points are answered accordingly.
50. In the result, the application is allowed in part and disposed of as follows:
(i) Since the Pollution Control Board has already issued closure notice and disconnection of electricity and the 11th respondent had already closed the unit and electricity connection was disconnected, we feel that there is no necessity to issue further direction of closure, in this regard. The 11th respondent is restrained from carrying out any activity in the premises or in that area, Page 34 of 36 without obtaining necessary clearance and consent from the authorities.
(ii) The assessment of Environment Compensation of Rs.39,41,750/- assessed by the Pollution Control Board for which proceedings have been initiated is hereby confirmed and 11th respondent is directed to pay the amount within a period of six months in six monthly instalments and if the amount is not paid within that time, then the Pollution Control Board is at liberty to recover the amount, in accordance with law.
(iii) The Assistant Director of Village Panchayat who has already initiated proceedings for demolition of building which is constructed by the 11th respondent in CRZ-III area without obtaining clearance from the authorities is directed to proceed with the proceedings and complete the same to its logical conclusion in accordance with law.
(iv) Considering the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs in the application.
(v) Registry is directed to communicate this order to the District Collector, Kaniyakumari, State Coastal Zone Management Authority, District Coastal Zone Management Authority, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Assistant Director of Village Panchayat for their information and compliance of the directions.Page 35 of 36
51. With the above directions and observations, the Original Application is disposed of.
Sd/-
.....................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) Sd/-
................................E.M. (Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati) O.A. No. 278 of 2017 07.07.2022 SE Page 36 of 36