Madras High Court
Meenava Thanthai K.R.Selvaraj Kumar vs M/S.Kamarajar Port Limited on 20 June, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MAD 1464
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar, Subramonium Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.06.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.P.No.18355 of 2017
and WMP Nos.19927 & 19928 of 2017
Meenava Thanthai K.R.Selvaraj Kumar,
Meenavar Nala Sangam,
Rep. by its President,
M.R.Thiyagarajan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. M/s.Kamarajar Port Limited,
Rep. by its Chairman,
4th Floor, Super Speciality Diabetic Centre,
(Erstwhile DLB Building),
Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 9.
3. The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur.
4. The Executive Engineer,
Thiruvallur District,
Buildings Construction and Maintenance Division,
Tiruttani Road, Master Plan Complex,
Near Check Post, Tiruvallur.
5.
http://www.judis.nic.in The Commissioner of Police,
2
Chennai City,
Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
6. The Commissioner of Corporation,
Chennai Corporation, Ripon Building,
Park Town, Chennai - 600 003.
7. The Thasildhar,
Thasildhar Office,
Thiruvottriyur High Road,
Thiruvottriyur, Chennai - 600 019.
8. M/s.International Seaport Dredging Private Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director
Chennai.
9. K.Kuppan
10. M.Kannan
11. H.Nithyanandham
12.P.Aravindan .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to remove the
private road across the Kosasthalaiyar River at Ennore, encroached by
respondents 1, 8 to 12.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For Respondents : Mr.E.Manoharan (for 1 to 6)
Additional Government Pleader
No appearance (for R7)
ORDER
(Order of this Court was made by S.Manikumar, J.) Instant writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus, Writ of Mandamus, directing the Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Chennai, 2nd respondent to remove the private road across the Kosasthalaiyar River http://www.judis.nic.in at Ennore, encroached by respondents 1, 8 to 12. 3
2. Short facts leading to the filing of writ petition, are as follows:
(i) Petitioner Association-“MEENAVA THANTHAI K.R. SELVARAJKUMAR MEENAVAR NALA SANGAM” has been established for the welfare of the fishermen community living along the coastal stretch of Tamil Nadu, as well as for conserving the coastal resources and to do social services with great sincerity as a mode of service towards the upliftment of fishermen community.
(ii) Petitioner association is formed and registered for the upliftment of the downtrodden people especially the fisherman communities and also to protect, to save and to promote the seashore environment and other places connected therewith like creek, river, foreshore places, mangrove forest, canal etc. This association is continuously taking all sorts of efforts for the welfare and improvement of the living standard of the ecosystem people in and around the sea shore.
(iii) According to the petitioner the 1st respondent's action regarding the mis-handling of dredging materials particularly the sand causing pollution in CRZ zone and also in Kosasthalaiyar river. Further the activities of the 1st and 8 to 12 Respondents is severely hampering the fishing profession and destroying their livelihood. The fishing communities, who were self- sufficient are now depending on exploitative low paying factory jobs. The communities have been http://www.judis.nic.in 4 protesting all types of illegal activities like polluting, encroaching the sea shore areas. Further the Kosasthalaiyar River with the Bay of Bengal, is an important aquatic ecosystem. However, the encroachment and pollution caused have led to regular depletion of biodiversity in the region. The increasing pollution levels have affected the marine life, adversely affecting the livelihood of the fishing communities.
(iv) According to the petitioner the Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Chennai, the 2nd respondent is the overall authority of Tamil Nadu for Water Resource Department in the state and other related issues in respect of the said Department. District Collector, Thiruvallur, is the District Administrative authority of Thiruvallur District to implement all the welfare programs as well as to look over the health hazard and other related issues. Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, the 5th respondent is head of the Police department for Chennai City and to establish department policies and procedures and also responsible for coordinating the activities of various divisions, such as patrol services, criminal investigations and code enforcement, and overseeing the performance of the department's sworn officers and civilian staff etc. and other related issues. Commissioner of Corporation, Chennai, the sixth respondent is an authority to take necessary action against illegal construction of Buildings, Theatres, Companies, unauthorized encroachments etc. http://www.judis.nic.in 5
(v) Grievance of the petitioner is that the 8th respondent has taken a project work in the name of capital dredging phase III from the Kamarajar Port Limited, 1st respondent herein. All the dredging materials, sand shall be disposed off only through tender, or auction or in any other manner, which is beneficial to the Public and Government. Now this sand collected from the Kamarajar Port through dredging work is given to Mr.Kuppan Ex.M.L.A the 9th respondent without following any norms. The value and worth of the sand will be approximately Rs.2,00,00,000 (2 Crores). If the dredging sand is sold out through auction, the Government will get the benefit of Rs.2,00,00,000 (2 Crores) which can be utilized for any public purposes. Now this sand is given to Mr.Kuppan (9th Respondent) for his personal benefit without collecting even a single pie. A public road is connecting Athipattu to Ennore. There is a long bridge over the Kosasthalaiyar River. Though this bridge restricts the free flow of river, the same was constructed with the approval of the competent authority for public purpose. Being so on a private road is being formed by Mr.Kuppan Ex.M.L.A, Mr.M.Kannan (Nettukuppam), Mr.P.Aravindan (Nettukuppam), Mr.H.Nithyanandham (Nettukuppam) and their associates along with the bridge at the down blocking the entire Kosasthalaiyar River to develop their private lands on the other side of the river.
(vi) Petitioner reliably came to know that Mr.Kuppan has got large extent of private lands in the name of his binamidars. Now they are taking speedy http://www.judis.nic.in 6 action in laying such big road without any approval from the competent authority particularly from the authority of Public Works Department. At any extent blocking the free flow of Kosasthailaiyar River and forming the road by the private person with his political power and money for his personal gain cannot be allowed for the public interest.
(vii) There is eminent need and urgency in preventing or restraining the private persons from forming such road blocking the river. The natural flow of water is that during the rainy seasons the rain waters captured from Thiruvallur district, North Madras have to reach the ocean only through this river and no other alternative way. Now the rainy season is started and the scientist expected for this reason heavy rain. If this happens, the entire North Madras will be floated with the water and there is endanger to the lives of the people, animals, organisms etc. Huge disaster may occur.
(viii) In this regard, petitioner has sent a representation to authorities respondents through registered post which were received by them 14.06.2017 respectively. However till date no action is taken. Since there is eminent threat to the lives of the people, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition, for the relief stated supra.
3. On notice, Respondents, 1, 6, 8 and 9 have filed their respective http://www.judis.nic.in 7 counters. (enclosed as separate sheet) xxxxx
4. On this day, when the matter came up for further hearing, Mr.K.Soundararajan, learned counsel for the Commissioner of Corporation, Greater Chennai, 6th respondent submitted that the project itself has been shelved and the approach/private road removed.
5. Placing on record the above averments and contentions, no further directions are required to be issued in this writ petition. Hence the instant writ petition is closed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.M.K., J.] [S.P., J.] 20.06.2019 Index: Yes/No. Internet: Yes Speaking / Non-speaking Order ars http://www.judis.nic.in 8 To
1. The Secretary, State of Tamilnadu, Animal Husbandry, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2. The District Collector, Collector Office Complex, Semmandalam, Cuddalore District.
3. The Managing Director, Animal Husbandry, DMS Complex, Teynampet, Chennai.
4. The Joint Director, Animal Husbandry, Pudhu Palayam, Cuddalore District.
5. The Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Melbuvanagiri, Buvanagiri Taluk, Cuddalore District.
6. The Sub Divisional Officer, (Construction and Maintenance) Public Works Department, Railway Feeders Road, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9 S.MANIKUMAR, J.
AND SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
ars W.P.No.18355 of 2017 and WMP Nos.19927 & 19928 of 2017 20.06.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in 10 WP No.18355 of 2017
(a) Counter affidavit of the Chairman, M/s.Kamarajar Port Limited, Chennai, reads thus.
(i) 1st Respondent has not directly or indirectly involved in laying road in and across the Kosasthalyar River as alleged by the Petitioner. Further it is learnt that the road was formed by TNEB/ TANGEDCO/ETPS to use as a temporary approach for the construction of coal conveyor and the 1st Respondent Port is no way connected, to the alleged activities of laying of road across the River.
(ii) 1st Respondent has not given/handed over any dredged sand to Mr.Kuppan, Ex.M.LA as alleged by the % petitioner. Further, the 1st Respondent has no connection / relation to the said road formation work. 1st Respondent is neither directly nor indirectly involved in any of the allegation leveled in this petition.
http://www.judis.nic.in 11
(b) Counter affidavit of the DRO, Zonal Officer, Chennai Corporation, on behalf of 6th respondent reads thus.
(i) TANGEDCO a subsidiary of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is establishing Ennore Thermal Power Station Expansion Project in the vacant land of the existing Ennore Thermal Power Station, Ennore. Project has been awarded to Lanco Infra Tech Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana. For the said project, Coal has been used which was imported through the 1st Respondent Port and sent to the Project Site by way of Coal Pipe Conveyor from North Chennai Thermal Power Station to Ennore Thermal Power Station which would cross the Highways Bridge constructed at Ennore Creek, Ennore Creek backwater, Buckingham Canal and Chennai Howrah Railway Track.
(ii) For constructing Coal Pipe Conveyor for a length of 3720 Metres with a width of 8 Metres as per the Agreement, the Lanco Infra Tech Limited has to form a temporary approach road inside the Buckingham Canal near ETPS boundary and Ennore Creek Korattalaiyar River along the pipe conveyor alignment to facilitate foundation work and erection of Coal Pipe Conveyor System for the above said project.
(iii) In the Agreement it was also agreed that after completion of the work, the materials used for the construction like any cross bunds formed inside the water body should be removed completely at the cost of the Lanco Infra http://www.judis.nic.in 12 Tech Limited. This temporary road is laid only for the purpose of laying the Coal Pipe Conveyor System for which necessary approvals has been obtained from the 2nd respondent Department and it is not a private road as alleged by the Petitioner. Even the Lanco Infra Tech Limited also not completed the project since they become bankrupt and, therefore, finally the temporary road laid by the Contractee has been removed by the Ennore Thermal Power Station under the directions given by the 3rd Respondent herein before the onset of monsoon. http://www.judis.nic.in 13 C) Counter affidavit of the Managing Director, International Seaport Dredging Private Limited, Chennai, the 8th respondent reads thus.
(i) They have not laid any private road in and across the Kosathalaiyar river.
(ii) Deny the allegation that the activities of this Respondent are hampering the fishing profession and destroying their livelihood. Such a sweeping allegation has been made without any substance. It is submitted that they are dumping the dredged material either within the Port in the area allocated by their Employer namely the 1st Respondent herein or dumping the material at offshore at the designated dumping ground allocated by their employer for which all necessary permits have been secured by the 1st Respondent and this Respondent has no role to play independently in this regard. All the activities in connection with the dredging materials are being carried out by this Respondent as per the provisions of the contract with the 1st Respondent and there is no mishandling of the dredged material by this Respondent
(iii) This Respondent has been awarded the contract for Capital Dredging, Dredging Phase III by the 1st Respondent. As per the provisions of the Contract, material up to +0 level have to be dry excavated and transported to the area on shore ear marked by the 1st Respondent. The said material belongs to the 1st Respondent and this Respondent has no owner ship of the same. This Respondent had engaged subcontractors for dry excavation and transported the http://www.judis.nic.in 14 excavated material after following due internal process. This Respondent has no knowledge of any sand given to Mr.Kuppan as alleged by the Petitioner.
(iv) This Respondent is not aware of any private road and this Respondent has no role to play in this regard.
(v) This Respondent is not aware of any laying of private road or the private lands of Mr.Kuppan as alleged by the Petitioner.
(vi) All the operations connected with the dredging are being executed by this Respondent as per the provisions of the contract with the 1st Respondent. The responsibility of this Respondent ends with the transportation of the dredged materials to the place as instructed by the 1st Respondent. This Respondent has no hold over the excavated materials and the related activities. This Respondent further submits and assures that the dredging activities earned on by this Respondent are being done after following all the procedures and they are not causing any pollution to the environment. http://www.judis.nic.in 15
d) Counter affidavit of Mr.Kuppan, the 9th respondent reads thus.
(i) that the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of Mandamus by directing the 2nd respondent to remove the private road laid across the Kosasthalaiyar River at Ennore. The entire allegations and averments made in the writ petition are totally misconceived.
(ii) that the above Public Interest Litigation has been filed for an oblique motive and for extraneous reasons. The writ petitioner and his associates have used the above PIL with a view to coerce and extract money from the private respondents. Absolutely, there is no bonafideness in filing the above PIL and there is no public interest or public cause is involved. Above all, this respondent has been purposely arraigned as 9th respondent with a view to tarnish my image and reputation in the public life. Hence, pray this Hon'ble court to dismiss writ petition with heavy costs.
(iii) Allegations and averments made in Para Nos. 1 to 9 of the affidavit are specifically denied as false and frivolous. Further the allegations made in Para No. 10 to 12 of the affidavit that the 1st respondent has given the dredging work to me without following any norms, and that the removal of sand worth Rs.2 crores has been given for my personal benefit without collecting any paise, and that this respondent along with Tvl. M. Kannan, P. Aravindan and H. Nithiyanandam, have formed a private road by blocking the River, and that this respondent have purchased larger extent of private lands in the name of my binamidars, are all stoutly denied as false and cantankerous allegations made http://www.judis.nic.in 16 without any iota of truth in it.
(iv) that this respondent is no way concerned with the road formed by TANGEDCO as a temporary approach for the construction of coal conveyor to the Port. From the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1, 6 and 8, came to know that TNEB is carrying on expansion of Ennore Thermal Power Station in the vacant land available nearby with the help of the contract given to LANCO Infra Tech Ltd., Gurgaon, Haryana. In fact, the 8th respondent has also filed his counter affidavit dated 02.11.2017 inter alia narrating the award of contract given for dredging work. The counter affidavits filed by the respondents 1, 6 and 8 would ipso facto prove the frivolous allegations made in the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner.
(v) that the writ petitioner Sangam has been in the habit of giving some fictitious petition/representations/complaints to the authorities with a view to harass and coerce the contractors and other public functionaries to extract money. In fact, after knowing the above dredging work being carried out for public purpose, the writ petitioner and his associates have impleaded me as one of the respondents with an oblique motive to get unfair and unjust monitory gain. This respondent is not a contractor or beneficiary in the above project being carried out by the official respondents, but, I have been unnecessarily impleaded and imputations have been casually made with a view to tarnish my public image.
http://www.judis.nic.in 17
(vi) that the allegations made in Para No. 12 that this respondent have purchased large extent of lands in the name of binamies is a blatant lie. This respondent have been in public life for the past 25 years and this respondent's integrity is well known to the public at large. However, the writ petitioner Sangam has filed the above frivolous writ petition, without any iota of truth in it.
http://www.judis.nic.in