National Green Tribunal
Meenava Thanthai K R Selvaraj Kumar ... vs The Director Ministry Of Environment ... on 15 February, 2021
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan
Item No.07:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 234 of 2017 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF:
MeenavaThanthai
K.R. Selvarajkumar
MeenavarNala Sangam ...Applicant(s)
Versus
The Director,
Ministry of Environment, Forest &
Climate Change,
New Delhi and Ors.
...Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 15.02.2021.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): Mr. Stanley Hebzon Singh.
For Respondent(s): Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1, R2.
Mr. D.S. Ekambaram through
Mrs. Jayalakshmi for R3.
Dr. V.R. Thirunarayanan for R4 to R6, R9, R10.
Mr. C. Kasirajan through
Ms. Kothai Muthu Meenal for R7.
Mr. P. Saranath for R12.
Page 1 of 10
ORDER
1. As per order dated 27.01.2020, after considering the pleadings, this Tribunal had constituted a Joint Committee to go into the question and directed them to submit a report and posted the case to 31.08.2020 for that purpose. On 31.08.2020, the matter was adjourned to 12.09.2020 by notification and on 12.09.2020, this Tribunal had considered the report filed on 11.09.2020 by the 12th respondent which was extracted in Para 4 of the order which reads as follows:-
"Report on M/s. St. Peter & Paul Sea Food Exports Private Ltd. No.11A, New Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Royapuram, Chennai - 600 013. A case was filed before the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai, vide Original Application No.234 of 2017 (SZ) by Meenava Thanthai K.R. Selvaraj Kumar, Meenavar nALAR Sangam represented by its President, M.R. Thiyagarajan, office at No.48, First Floor, East Madha Church Street, Royapuram, Chennai - 600 013 with the grievance that the unit M/s. St Peter & Paul Sea Food Exports Pvt. Ltd. is conducting a sea food export industry at No.11A, New Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Royapuram, Chennai - 600013, which is within the CRZ area without necessary clearance from the CRZ authority, dumping the sea food waste in that area and also extracting ground water without getting necessary permission from the consent authorities. These activities cause air as well as air pollution.
Hon'ble NGT (SZ) in order dated 27.01.2020 in O.A. No.234 of 2017 (SZ) "Constituted a committee comprising of District Collector, Chennai, State Coastal Zone Management Authority and the Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board (TNSPCB) to look into the allegations made in the application and submit a report after making necessary inspection as to whether the allegations are true and if so what is the action taken by them against the violators to this Tribunal within a period of two months".
Based on the orders of the Hon'ble NGT (SZ), Chennai, a joint committee comprising the following members was constituted to inspect and file the report:-
1) Revenue Divisional Officer, Chennai North, Chennai District (Representing District Collector, Chennai) Page 2 of 10
2) Director, Institute of Remote Sensing, Anna University, Chennai - 25 / Member TNSCZMA (Representing TNSCZMA, Chennai)
3) District Environmental Engineer, TNPCB, Chennai.
It is submitted that, Thiru. M.R. Thiyagarajan, President, Meenava Thandai K.R. Selvakumar Meenavara Nala Sangam had filed complaint petition to the TNPCB regarding water pollution caused by the unit during September 2017. During inspection, it was observed that, the unit M/s. St Peter & Paul Sea Food Exports Pvt. Ltd located at No.11A, New Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Royapuram, Chennai - 600 013 was in operation without consent of the Board and the waste water generated by the unit was discharged into the underground drain without any treatment. The unit was advised to produce the land document of the unit in order to verify the applicability of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification.
As the unit had not submitted the CRZ Clearance for that activity from competent Authority and operated without consent of the TNPC Board, direction for closure and disconnection of power supply to the unit was issued vide Proc. dated 06.07.2018 under Section 33A of the Water (P&CP) Act, 1974 as amended and under Section 31 A of Air (P&PC) Act, 1981 as amended. The EB service connection of the unit Ac. No.002-009-415 Tariff -V, was disconnected on 14.08.2018 as informed by TANGEDCO vide letter dated 18.08.2018. The unit was not in operation and no activity was carried out in that premises.
It is submitted that as per the orders of the NGT (SZ) the committee inspected the site on 18.07.2020. During committee inspection, the following were observed:
1) The building comprises of G+2 floor and terrace floor was found at that location. In one portion of the ground floor the unit has stored Empty Plastic drums and the another portion was kept idle. 1 st and 2nd floor are provided with rooms and used as rest house and terrace floor provided with Water Tank & Toilet facility.
2) The ground floor was under closed condition and observed that, the unit was not in operation and no activity was carried out.
3) It was found that, EB service connection Ac. No.002-009-415 has been disconnected. However, the unit has provided with another 2 number of EB service connection in the ground floor.
4) A team from Institute of Remote Sensing, Anna University, Chennai - 25 has conducted a filed survey on the said location, to find out the co-ordinates of the Page 3 of 10 site so as to superimpose in the existing CZMP (Coastal Zone Management Plan) maps to verify whether the site is located in CRZ area or not.
5) As per the field survey and the superimposition of the unit in the CRZ map, it is ascertained that the site is located in CRZ-II area wherein the activity of sea food processing is prohibited in that area. (Copy of IRS map is enclosed) During inspection, no violation were noticed as there was no activity carried out in that site, as the unit was closed vide TNPCB order dated 06.07.2018."
2. Thereafter, this Tribunal on 12.09.2020, passed the following order:-
"6. It is seen from the report and also even from the pleadings that the unit was functioning in that area since 2014 and complaints were received regarding the same.
7. Further, it is also seen from the report that closure order was issued by Proceedings dated 06.07.2018 and electricity was disconnected on 14.08.2018. That shows that the activity was not in conformity of the environmental laws and also against the CRZ Notification, 2011 as the construction was made in that area which is a regulated area without getting prior permission from the Coastal Zone Management Authority (CZMA) and the activity which was said to have been conducted by the unit was a prohibited activity in the CRZ Zone.
8. Inspite of this, no action was taken by the Coastal Zone Management Authority (CZMA) even today either for removal of construction made without clearance in a regulated area and no attempt was made to recover the environmental compensation against that unit for conducting an unauthorized activity in a illegal manner in the prohibited zone.
9. However, the report shows that since there was no violation noticed on the date of inspection, no environmental compensation has been imposed. They have not considered the question of imposing environmental compensation for the past violation which is recognized under law as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in several decisions by applying the "Polluter Pays" principle to recover the compensation against those persons who are illegally carrying out their operation in the prohibited zones.
10. When this was pointed out, the learned counsel appearing for the Coastal Zone Management Authority (CZMA) submitted that he will come with a further report regarding the action taken in this regard. They are expected to follow the principle of natural justice while initiating Page 4 of 10 proceeding against the persons who have committed the violation and they should not proceed with the initiation, without following the procedure under the cover of the direction to implement the law issued by this Tribunal.
11. The committee is also directed to revisit the question of compensation for past violation as directed by this Tribunal in several cases of this nature applying the formula evolved by the Central Pollution Control Board in this regard and also taking into the consideration the nature of damage caused to the coastal zone on account of such activities and the amount required for restoration of the same to its original position.
12. The committee can co-opt any expert member for the purpose of assessing environmental compensation if they feel and submit the report in this regard to this Tribunal.
13. In the mean time, Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority is also directed to come with the action taken report for the violation noted in the report in accordance with law.
14. The committee as well as the Coastal Zone Management Authority are directed to submit the report as directed by this Tribunal on or before 26.11.2020.
15. We also feel that a Scientist from Central Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Chennai can be added to the committee so that it will be helpful for the committee to assess the environmental compensation as directed by this Tribunal. So, the committee is reconstituted including a Scientist/Officer from the Central Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Chennai as well."
3. Thereafter, the case was posted to 26.11.2020 for filing further report and the matter was again taken up on 08.01.2021 and this Tribunal passed the following order:-
"4. We have received a letter from Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Coastal Zone Management Authority (TNSCZMA) seeking some more time for filing their additional counter statement as directed by this Tribunal.
5. It is quite unfortunate that though responsible officers are included in the committee who are expected to protect environment, there is no effective cooperation coming from such officers to enable the Tribunal to dispose of old cases which are pending for more than 3 to 4 years. Though the Act provides a maximum time limit of six months for Page 5 of 10 disposal of the cases, it is due to the non cooperation of the regulating authorities that this tribunal is handicapped from disposing the cases within the time frame provided as without such reports no effective orders can be passed by this Tribunal.
6. However, considering the request made, with great reluctance, we are granting some more time to the committee to submit the report. The committee as well as the authorities who have been directed to file their independent reports are directed to comply with the direction.
7. They are directed to file the respective reports on or before 15.02.2021 by e-filing along with necessary hard copies to be produced as per rules and serving advance copy to the counsel appearing for the applicant and other respondents.
8. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the members of the committee and the official authorities as mentioned above and also to the Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu indicating the inaction on the part of the State machinery in not complying with the directions issued by this Tribunal by e-mail immediately, so as to enable them to comply with the direction."
4. The case was posted to today for consideration of reports to be filed.
5. When matter came up for hearing today through Video Conference, Mr. G. Stanley Hebzon Singh represented the applicant. Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff represented respondents 1 & 2, Dr. V.R. Thirunarayanan represented respondents 4 to 6, 9 & 10, Mr. D.S. Ekambaram through Mrs. Jayalaksmi represented 3rd respondent, Mr. C. Kasirajan through Ms. Kothai Muthu Meenal represented 7th respondent and Mr. P. Saranath represented 12th respondent.
6. We have received an additional reply filed by the respondents 5 & 6 said to be signed during January-2021 without date, received on 27.01.2021, wherein, they have reiterated what was stated by them in their earlier reply Page 6 of 10 statement submitted during the December-2017 before this Tribunal, stating that letters have been addressed to authorities for taking action. That shows that irresponsible attitude of the responsible officer while filing such reports before this Tribunal, without even understanding the directions given by the Tribunal and nature of reply giving before this Tribunal, except sending a letter to the District Authority to take action and also to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and the Greater Chennai Corporation for taking further actions vide their letter dated 11.11.2017.
7. This Tribunal had specifically mentioned that if the district level authorities were not taking action, it is for the State Level Authorities to take action to comply with the direction issued by this Tribunal, whenever coastal zone violations were brought to their notice.
8. Further, the MoEF&CC is also expected to take a proactive role when the State machineries who are expected to implement these rules are not following the same in its letter and spirit.
9. Further, in the decision reported in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs. Union of India & Ors.1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has come heavily on the regulators for non implementing the provisions of the environmental laws in its letter and spirit and observed that non-implementation of the laws will be more dangerous than non enacting laws itself. If the regulators fail to 1 1996 (5) SCC 281 Page 7 of 10 implement the laws to protect the environment, then it will create anarchy and it may even affect the rule of law as such.
10. Further, in the decision reported in Ansari Kannoth Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.2, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court has held that even if the MoEF&CC had delegated the power under the CRZ Notification, their power to proceed against the violators to the State authorities is not taken away, if the State authorities are not implementing the same in its letter and spirit. But inspite of all these directions by the Hon'ble High Court and Apex Court, the regulators are shutting their eyes against the violation and not taking proper action against such persons.
11. Further, in the recent decision of Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority Vs. State of Kerala Maradu Municipality & Ors.3, the Hon'ble Apex Court has come down heavily on the regulators for not taking action against the violators in accordance with law and the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed the authorities to demolish the building and supervise the same till its implementation. Inspite of all these decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts, the regulators are not raising to the occasion to fulfil their obligation of protecting environment and implementing the environmental laws in its letter and spirit, as they are obliged to do as a party to the international covenants as providing clean 2 2011 (1) KLT 1043 3 2019 (7) SCC 248 Page 8 of 10 environment is part of Right to Life as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and also there is a mandate under Article 48 (A) of Constitution of India on the State Government to protect environment.
12. The District Collector, Chennai who is the Chairman of the District Coastal Zone Management Authority has to take action against the violation as per the notification mentioned by the Environment Department and is directed to come with an action taken report in this matter as to what is the nature of action taken by them to remove the illegal construction made by the 12th respondent in violation of the provisions of the CRZ Notification, 2011 as such a violation has been found by the committee.
13. The District Collector, Chennai is also directed to submit a report to this Tribunal before the next hearing date, failing which, he will have to appear before this Tribunal through Video Conference on the next hearing date to explain as to why action should not be taken against him under Section 25 & 26 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 for non-compliance of the direction and non implementation of environmental laws and not exercising his powers to implement the same in its letter and spirit for protecting coastal environment as is expected from a responsible administrator.
14. So considering the circumstances, we feel that one more opportunity can be given to the regulators to come with a proper action taken report before this Tribunal on or before 24.03.2021 by e-filing in the form of Searchable Page 9 of 10 PDF/OCR Supportable PDF and not in the form of Image PDF along with necessary hardcopies to be produced as per Rules.
15. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the District Collector, Chennai, MoEF&CC, Regional Office, Chennai, State Coastal Zone Management Authority, Chennai, National Coastal Zone Management Authority, New Delhi, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu by e-mail immediately for their information and compliance of the direction.
16. For consideration of further action taken report, post on 24.03.2021.
Sd/-
....................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) Sd/-
..............................E.M. (Shri. Saibal Dasgupta) O.A. No.234/2017, 15th February, 2021. Mn.
Page 10 of 10