Madras High Court
R.Gunasekar vs The Government Of India on 23 November, 2018
Author: Krishnan Ramasamy
Bench: M.M.Sundresh, Krishnan Ramasamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23-11-2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.P.No.12034 OF 2018
R.Gunasekar .... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Government of India,
rep.by its Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Environment of Forest and Climate Change,
New Delhi.
2.The Government of India,
rep.by its Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Agriculture,
New Delhi.
3.Member Secretary,
Coastal Aquaculture Authority,
12-A, GDR Tower Vanuvampettai,
Madipakkam Post,
Villupuram – 600 091.
4.The Forest Officer,
Tindivanam Forest Circle,
Villupuram Forest Division,
Villupuram.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
5.The Assistant Director of Fisheries,
Villupuram,
No.10, Nithyanandha Nagar,
Vayhudha Reddy,
Villupuram District.
6.The District Level Committee
(Constituted under Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act),
represented by the Chairman/
The District Collector,
Villupuram,
Villupuram District. ... Respondents
(R-5 and R-6 are impleaded vide order
dated 03.09.2018 passed in W.M.P.No.26557/2018)
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for
issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in notification notice, dated
20.09.2017, on the file of fourth respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Rajan
For Respondents 1 to 3 : No appearance
For Respondent 4 : Mr.S.V.Vijayaprasanth,
Addl.Govt.Pleader (Forest)
For Respondents 5 and 6 : Mr.V.Kathirvelu,
Spl.Govt.Pleader.
ORDER
Krishnan Ramasamy,J.
This Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the order of fourth respondent, dated 20.09.2017, in and by which, the petitioner has been restrained from http://www.judis.nic.in 3 setting up of shrimp farm.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows :
He is the owner of the land to an extent of 3 acres and 52.5 cents, bearing Patta No.2444 at Nadukuppam Village, Marakanam, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District. Out of the said land, he has set up a shrimp farm, for which, he has obtained a certificate of registration in Form 2 from the Coastal Aquaculture Authority on 06.09.2017. Therefore, as per the certificate of registration, he is entitled to set up shrimp farm in 1 acre 39 cents and, out of the said 1 acre 39 cents, the authority has granted permission for water spread area to one acre of land. In spite of the same, fourth respondent issued the notice, dated 20.09.2017, restraining the petitioner from taking water and discharging the same in the adjacent Kazhuveli land, and also warning the petitioner that if he violates the said condition, he is liable to be prosecuted.
Challenging the said order, the petitioner, earlier, filed an application before the Green Tribunal, South Zone, Chennai, and the said application was dismissed by the Green Tribunal for want of jurisdiction. Hence, this Writ Petition.
3. The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating as under :
3.1. He, being one of the members of the District Level Committee (DLC), registered his objection in Ref.No.8745/2016 D, dated 04.05.2017, stating that the proposed shrimp farm falls within Kazhuveli wetland and there is an imminent danger http://www.judis.nic.in 4 of drawal and discharge of water from/to the notified Kazhuveli forest area in violation of provisions of The Tamil Nadu Forest Act,1882, The Wildlife (Protection) Act,1972;
and The Forest Conservation Act,1980. Despite the objection raised by him, the District Level Committee recommended the application of the petitioner, subject to the condition that shrimp farmers should not utilise or occupy forest land for laying pipeline or for withdrawal and discharge of water. He also made an objection, stating that discharge of waste water from shrimp farm into Kazhuveli land will affect mangrove ecosystem of India and large volume of water would be required from the wetland and that there is no other source of water except the wetland. In spite of strong objection by the fourth respondent, the District Level Committee granted permission to the petitioner, subject to the condition in paragraph 6 of the minutes of its meeting, dated 04.05.2017, which reads as under :
"The Chairman/District Collector, DLC, has also instructed that the shrimp farmers should not utilize or occupy Forest Department lands for laying of pipeline or for withdrawals or discharge of water"
3.2. Each member of the District Level Committee is from a different field/department and, therefore, the views and objections raised by each member should be dealt with independently. However, the views and objections raised by fourth respondent have been completely ignored by the District Level Committee, by granting permission for the petitioner to set up shrimp farm, which will totally affect the http://www.judis.nic.in 5 mangrove ecosystem in the area.
3.3. He issued notice, dated 20.09.2017, to the petitioner along with 42 other persons, who are running shrimp farms and discharging the effluents into Kazhuveli wetland, notified under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act,1882, in violation of the said Act, to stop any such discharge into Kazhuveli wetland, and also informed that any such discharge of effluents into Kazhuveli wetland is an offence punishable under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and the Wildlife (Protection) Act.
3.4. The only water source available to the petitioner is Kazhuveli wetland area notified under Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act,1882, and allowing the petitioner to take brackish water from the wetland and discharge the same in forest land is in violation of the orders of the Supreme Court and the High Courts and also the National Green Tribunal. There is no provision for the petitioner to carry on the activity of shrimp farm by getting water from his own land and discharging the effluents into his own land. Therefore, the petitioner has to necessarily get water from Kazhuveli wetland and discharge all the effluents into the forest area. Any aquaculture activity, including intensive and semi-intensive, which has the effect of causing salinity of soil, drinking water or wells by the use of chemical feeds, increases shrimp or prawn production with consequent increase in sedimentaion, which, on putrefaction, is a potential health hazard, apart from causing siltation, turbidity of water courses and estuaries with detrimental implication on the local fauna and flora.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 3.5. Setting up of shrimp aquaculture farm right on the boundary of Kazhuveli wetland and construction of ponds and infrastructures thereon is a hazard and would degrade the marine ecology, coastal environment and the aesthetic uses of the sea coast. The land of the petitioner is right on the banks of Kazhuveli and creation of bunds prevents natural flow of water and results in blockage of drain and happening of flood in the village side. Fourth respondent has made objections not only to the petitioner's shrimp farm, but also to those of the other applicants, on the ground that large volumes of water would be pumped from wet land and there is no other source for the farm units except the wetland, which is in violation of rules and the same was recorded in paragraph 2 of the Minutes of the Meeting of the District Level Committee, dated 29.05.2017.
3.6. An area of 5151.60 hectares in Kazhuveli is proposed as a sanctuary under Section 18(1) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act,1972, and the proposal has been forwarded to the Government after duly vetted by the District Collector, Villupuram, on 20.07.2017. Kazhuveli is the second largest brackish water wetland in India. Wetland drains the fresh water flow to the sea at Yedaiyanthittu estuary. A network of more than 160 minor irrigation ponds drains to the sea through Kazhuveli. It has a total area of 74 sq.km., of which, a large part lies in the Vanur Block and a smaller portion in the Marakkanam Block of Tindivanam Taluk. A total of 196 minor irrigation tanks and http://www.judis.nic.in 7 ponds drain into the Kazhuveli wetland. This area is also an important stopover and a breeding ground for a number of migratory species of birds and fish and serves as a major recharge source for the aquifers. There are 22 villages surrounding the lake, of which, 16 villages have their revenue boundaries along the lake. In all, the lake supports about 70,000 people. Nearly, 40,000 birds congregate every year, including numerous migratory birds. The wetland is a unique ecosystem, fostering resident and migratory birds, numbering to 112 species reported so far, including open billed storks, spot billed pelicans, flamingoes, painted storks, plovers and other waders, apart from several species of fishes, including the endangered Indian mottled eel, reptiles, trinkets and mammals, including jackals.
Accordingly, fourth respondent has prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
4. Fifth respondent also has filed a counter affidavit on his belalf and also on behalf of sixth respondent, stating as under :
4.1. As per the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act,2005, the pre-requisite for carrying out coastal aquaculture activities in saline area is quality brackish water from backwaters,canals,creeks,lagoons and seas. In the guidelines of the said Act, it is stated that the State Government/UT Government advise and extend support creation of common infrastructure viz., common water intake and discharge canals for the coastal aquaculture farms. The shrimp farms established in Marakkanam block, Villupuram http://www.judis.nic.in 8 District, and registered under the CCA Act, have right to access and utilise water from Kazhuveli backwater, which is the only water source for shrimp farming, and discharge of shrimp culture waste water to Kazhuveli backwater system is also admissible as per the Guidelines in the Act.
4.2. In Sl.No.5.2 of sub-head of Construction and Preparation of Shrimp Farms, the following guidelines have been prescribed for intake/discharge of water :
'Construction of Intake Reservoirs and Effluent Treatment Ponds :
In areas where the source water is turbid with suspended particles, an intake reservoir for settling the slit is very essential. Similarly, in areas where there is overcrowding of shrimp farms and the intake and outfall are from the same source (i.e., creek, estuary, backwater), the intake reservoir with provision for treatment of water is essential. In areas where the tidal current is swift and tidal amplitude is high, the wastewater from the farm can be directly let out during the low tide. But in areas where the tidal current is very low, it is esssential that the wastewater be treated in an Effluent Treatment Pond (ETP) before it is released into the natural system. An ETP, as a reservoir for holding and regenerating wastewater, is mandatory for farms larger than 5 ha. A minimum of 10 per cent of the total farm area should be reserved for this purpose. It is also necessary that smaller farms that are located in close proximity to each other (farm clusters) should consider setting up of http://www.judis.nic.in 9 common ETP to avoid self-pollution and also release of excess nutrients and suspended solids, which could lead to eutrophication of the receiving water body. For better water management, individual culture units should be within 5 ha. Areas and suitable feeder channel system should be provided within the farm so that the water intake can be effectively managed in all the individual units.' 4.3. In Serial No.6.1 of sub-head of Water Quality and its Management, the following guidelines are prescribed for intake of water :
'Brackishwater/seawater in adequate quantities should be available throughout the year. The water source could be from backwaters, canals/creeks, lagoons or sea. The quality of the water available in the site has a strong influence on the success of the shrimp farm. Water quality parameters like pH, salinity, dissolved oxygen (DO) and the presence of toxicants/pollutants should be ascertained. Low pH water will pose serious problems and similarly wide fluctuation in salinity will also be detrimental to the cultured species. The water will also be detrimental to the cultured species. The water source should be free from any industrial/agricultural pollution.' 4.4. The petitioner has not encroached in the forest land for shrimp farm construction viz., creation of pond, inlet and outlet structure or laying of pipeline. The http://www.judis.nic.in 10 pumping of water from Kazhuveli supply canal through the help of electrical motor/diesel engine fitted with foot valve and hosepipe is a permitted activity for shrimp farming as per the guidelines of the CAA Act,2005. Point No.6 of the DLC Minutes pertains to the utilisation of forest land and it is not applicable for intake/withdrawal of water from backwater ecosystem as per the CCA Act.
4.5. In Serial No.13.3 of sub-head of Wastewater Management, the following guidelines are preseribed :
'Direct output of waste from shrimp farms and hatcheries can alter the water quality along the coastline. The dissolved and particulate nutrients and organic matters including small quantities of chemicals, micro-organisms and detritus can alter the water quality to a great extent and hence have to be properly treated before such wastes are discharged into the open waters or in the drainage canal. Such wastewater could also be used for undertaking secondary aquaculture projects, particularly for culture of mussels, oysters, seaweed, other finfishes etc. Such integrated projects would also offer scope for improving the wastewater quality, reducing the organic and nutrient loss and producing an additional cash crop. In addition to this biological amelioration of wastewater, settlement/sedimentation ponds may be constructed along the drainage canals. The drainage canals may be designed in such a way that they are wide enough to slow down the flow of water from ponds, so as http://www.judis.nic.in 11 to allow the settlement of these suspended solids.' 4.6. The backwater system is the only source of water for shrimp culture farms and usage of ground water is strictly prohibited and, therefore, drawal and discharge of water from/to Kazhuveli backwater is a permitted activity as per the guidelines prescribed by the CAA Act.
Accordingly, respondents 5 and 6 have supported the case of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that once the certificate of registration in Form No.2 is issued by Coastal Aquaculture Authority, no other authority under any other Act can make any objection to the setting up of shrimp farm by the petitioner. He would also contend that the order of fourth respondent does not contain any specific violations under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. Further, according to the learned counsel, Section 27 of The Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act,2005, excludes the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act,1882 and The Wildlife (Protection) Act,1972, even with respect to wetland in forest area. He would take us through Section 27 of the The Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act,2005, which reads as under :
"Section 27. Validation.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or clause (d) of sub-rule http://www.judis.nic.in 12 (3) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forests (Department of Environment, Forests and Wildlife) No. S.O.114 (E)., dated the 19th February, 1991 (hereafter referred to in this section as the said notification), in paragraph 2, after sub-paragraph (xiii), the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted and shall always be deemed to have been inserted with effect from the 19th day of February, 1991, namely:-
"(xiv) nothing contained in this paragraph shall apply to coastal aquaculture.".
(2) The said notification shall have and shall be deemed always to have effect for all purposes as if the foregoing provisions of this section had been in force at all material times and accordingly notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority, no coastal aquaculture carried on or undertaken or purporting to have been carried on or undertaken shall be deemed to be in contravention of the said notification and shall be deemed to be and to have always been for all purposes in accordance with law, as if the foregoing provisions of this section had been in force at all material times and notwithstanding anything as aforesaid and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, no suit or other proceeding shall be maintained or continued in any court for the enforcement of any direction given by any court of any decree or order directing the removal or closure of any coastal aquaculture farm's activity or demolition of any structure connected thereunder which would not have been so required to be removed, closed or demolished if the foregoing provisions of this section had been in force at all material times."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further argue that Kazhuveli land has not been declared as bird sanctuary by the Central and State Governments and http://www.judis.nic.in 13 there is no bird sanctuary situated within the radius of 6 to 8 kms. According to him, the land is only dry land and the nearest agricultural field is located at a distance of more than 100 metres. Accordingly, the learned counsel would strongly contend that fourth respondent has no jurisdiction to issue any notice, preventing the petitioner from carrying on his shrimp farm. Also, he submits that setting up of shrimp farm and drawal and discharge of water into mangroves or creeks will not affect the ecological system, in which regard, a detailed study is conducted in Thailand, where the petitioner has also been carrying on shrimp farm for several years, and it is found that there is no ecological detriment in the area. He would finally submit that when the petitioner has obtained a certificate of registration under the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act,2005, which clearly excludes from making any application for any permission under any other Acts, the impugned order of fourth respondent is non-est in the eye of law and has to be set aside.
7. Conversely, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for fourth respondent would submit that in spite of a strong objection by the fourth respondent, the District Level Committee has granted permission to the petitioner for setting up shrimp culture. He would also submit that fourth respondent has made objections not only to the petitioner's shrimp farm, but also to those of the other applicants, on the ground that large volumes of water would be pumped from wetland and there is no other source for the farm units except the wetland, and, therefore, the http://www.judis.nic.in 14 grant of permission is illegal. The learned Additional Government Pleader has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in S.Jagannath v. Union of India, dated 11.12.1996, and T.N.Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India and Others, (2006) 5 SCC 28, to say that the Apex Court has directed that no shrimp culture pond can be constructed or set up within the coastal regulation zone as defined in the CRZ notification and the same shall be applicable to all seas, bays, estuaries, creeks, rivers and backwaters, including the case of the petitioner herein.
8. However, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 5 and 6 would submit that shrimp farms established in Marakkanam block, Villupuram District, have right to access and utilise the water from Kazhuveli backwater, which is the only water source for shrimp farming, and discharge of shrimp culture waste water to Kazhuveli backwater system is also admissible as per the Guidelines in the Coastal Acquaculture Authority Act. According to him, the backwater system is the only source of water for shrimp culture farms and usage of ground water is strictly prohibited and, therefore, drawal and discharge of water from/to Kazhuveli backwater are permitted activities per the guidelines prescribed by the CAA Act. However, to establish his contention, he has not taken us through any guidelines, which permit such activities. Therefore, the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader cannot be countenanced.
http://www.judis.nic.in 15
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records.
10. It is true, as stated by the petitioner, he has a certificate of registration and also permission issued/granted by the authorities for setting up of shrimp farm. However, it is to be tested whether the said issuance of certificate and grant of permission by the authorities are sustainable in law.
11. It is the case of the petitioner as well as respondents 5 and 6 that a thorough study has been conducted in Thailand and the said study reveals that there is no danger or damage to the mangroves and other species or habitats, due to the setting up of shrimp farms in coastal area. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for fourth respondent would oppose the same with all his vehemence that shrimp farming in Thailand is a traditional form of growing, whereas, in India, it is an artificial form of growing, which will clearly affect the ecological and biological system and also other habitats.
12. In the above connection, we would like to state that converting tidal wet lands for shrimp farms and building roads, dykes and canals to service the farms threatens biodiversity in the tropics. Tidal marshes and mangroves that serve as nursery grounds for marine life are lost through the conversion process. The destruction of http://www.judis.nic.in 16 wetlands has caused dramatic declines in biodiversity, with impacts felt far beyond immediate targeted area, for example, on migratory birds that use the ecosystems at various stages of their life cycles. Wild populations of fish and shrimp decline. Such impacts on fish stocks and other sea culture, even wild populations of shrimp, inevitably, lead to reduced fish catches for local fisherfolk. Further, we are also fortunate to point out here that "Environmental Costs create Social Costs too". The relationship between mangroves and other wetlands with coastal fisheries is complex and not precisely understood. There is a large and growing body of evidence that many marine species use these habitats as nursery areas and for shelter during early development. Their loss has been shown to negatively impact coastal fisheries resources and the livelihoods of coastal communities. Thus, as the removal of mangroves devastates coastal biodiversity, coastal communities are also hurt, economically and socially, as the underpinnings of their society begin to disintegrate.
13. The Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act,2005, also quotes about the functioning of shrimp farms for releasing waste water as follows :
"Such aquaculture activity shall not be carried on without prior approval of the State Government within wetlands as per Rule 4 (2) (i,ii,vii,x) of the Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rules,2010. The functioning of shrimp farms leads to release of waste water without any treatment, which is prohibited under Rule 4 (1) (v & vii) of the said Rules within the wetland and the wetland cannot be converted into a non- http://www.judis.nic.in 17 wetland without satisfaction of the Central Government as per Rule 4 (5) of the said Rules."
14. Setting up of shrimp aquaculture farm right on the boundary of Kazhuveli wetland and construction of ponds and infrastructures thereon are hazardous and are bound to degrade the marine ecology, coastal environment and the aesthetic uses of the sea coast. The land of the petitioner is right on the banks of Kazhuveli and creation of bunds prevents natural flow of water and results in blockage of drain and happening of flood in the village side. Therefore, we agree with the submissioin of fourth respondent in this regard.
15. In the case on hand as well, discharge of waste water from the shrimp farm of the petitioner will severely affect the mangroves, destroy the livelihoods of coastal community and their access to the areas that provide small scale sustainable economic activity, such as, fishing, agricultural and other products. Further, as stated by fourth respondent, the petitioner's shrimp farm in Survey No.676/2B in Nadukuppam village, Vanur Taluk, Tindivanam, falls in Kazhuveli wetland and and an extent of 4722.20.5 Hectares is notified under Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act,1882, as reserved land and enjoys protection under the said Act. His patta land lies within the forest land. Also, an area of 5150.60 Hectares in Kazhuveli is proposed as sanctuary under Section 18 (1) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act,1972. The said proposal has been http://www.judis.nic.in 18 forwarded to the Government after duly vetted by the District Collector, Villupuram, on 20.07.2017 and a notification is awaited from the Government to declare Kazhuveli as a sanctuary under Section 18 (1) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act. As Kazhuveli is the second largest wetland in India, the Government should come out with a notification to declare Kazhuveli as a sancturary as per the proposal forwarded by the District Collector, Villupuram.
16. It is also pertinent to note here that the wetland drains the fresh water flow to the sea at Yedaiyanthittu estuary. A network of more than 160 minor irrigation ponds drains to the sea through Kazhuveli. It has a total area of 74 sq.km., of which, a large part lies in the Vanur Block and a smaller portion in the Marakkanam Block of Tindivanam Taluk. A total of 196 minor irrigation tanks and ponds drain into the Kazhuveli wetland. This area is also an important stopover and a breeding ground for a number of migratory species of birds and fish and serves as a major recharge source for the aquifers. There are 22 villages surrounding the lake, of which, 16 villages have their revenue boundaries along the lake. In all, the lake supports about 70,000 people. Nearly, 40,000 birds congregate every year, including numerous migratory birds. The wetland is a unique ecosystem, fostering resident and migratory birds, numbering to 112 species reported so far, including open billed storks, spot billed pelicans, flamingoes, painted storks, plovers and other waders, apart from several species of fishes, including the endangered Indian mottled eel, reptiles, trinkets and mammals, including jackals. http://www.judis.nic.in 19 Therefore, we cannot accept the contention of respondents 5 and 6, which, supports the case of the petitioner. The said contention of respondents 5 and 6, in our considered opinion, is totally unwarranted and highly condemnable, since, as stated above, the counter affidavit has been filed without taking into account the interest of biodiversity, ecological issues, other habitats, and the bird sanctuary, situated in the nearby area, and, more particularly, when the said stand is without application of mind.
17. It appears, fifth and sixth respondents have filed their counter not to protect the interest of the public but only to protect the interest of the petitioner. We were surprised to go through such a counter. Therefore, we directed the officer, who filed the said counter, to appear before the Court on 12.11.2018 to explain as to on what authority he has filed the counter. Following the said direction, the said officer appeared before the Court and pleaded for ignorance on the pretext that he is a junior officer. We strongly condemn the act of the authority in filing such a counter affidavit in the manner as stated above. Even the petitioner has not pleaded the points as pleaded by respondents 5 and 6, which totally support the case of the petitioner.
18. With regard to the granting of permission by the District Level Committee, the fourth respondent has made a strong objection for setting up of shrimp farm by not only the petitioner, but the other applicants also. Further, the members of http://www.judis.nic.in 20 the District Level Committee are from various departments to protect the interest of the public. Since the members of the Committee belong to various departments, it is just and necessary to take unanimous decisions on all objections made by the members. In other words, unless and until consensus is arrived at on the issues, no decisions should be implemented. Each and every issue should be dealt with independently. It is not the meeting of shareholders or some other election to decide the present issue on the basis of majority, but this is the matter pertaining to the public and all the members of the District Level Committee or the Heads of Departments should have a say. Therefore, before taking any decision, the District Level Committee should apply its mind properly and arrive at a consensus on all the points raised by each member. In the present case, as stated supra, the District Level Committee has not arrived at any unanimity, particularly on the objection raised by fourth respondent. However the District Level Committee granted permission to the petitioner, subject to the condition in paragraph No.6 of the minutes of its meeting dated 04.05.2017 which reads as under:
"The Chairman/District Collector, DLC, has also instructed that the shrimp farmers should not utilize or occupy Forest Department lands for laying of pipeline or for withdrawals or discharge of water"
19. Inspite of the above condition that the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the issues of grant of permission and laid the pipe lines on the forest land illegally and the same was found and registered offence No.7/2017 dated 21.09.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in 21 and the sluice valve of shrimp farm was removed on 05.06.2018.
20. Therefore under the circumstances, the decision taken by the District Level Committee, in our standpoint, is not proper and the permission granted to the petitioner for setting up of shrimp farm should be reconsidered.
21. Coming to the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the permission is granted under the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act,2005, it is not necessary to make any other application under any other Act as per Section 27 of the Act, which excludes the application of any of the provisions of any other Act, to get approval, we are afraid, we do not agree to the said interpretation, as Section 27 does not provide anything for exclusion of the permission to be obtained under any other Act, particularly the Tamil Nadu Forest Act,1882.
22. As adverted to supra, as admitted by respondents 5 and 6, water is drawn from Kazhuveli and also water is discharged from the shrimp farm in Kazhuveli. This activity will clearly affect the mangroves and the wetlands. Any aquaculture activity, including intensive and semi-intensive, which has the effect of causing salinity of soil, drinking water or wells, and the use of chemical feeds increases shrimp or prawn production with consequent increase in sedimentation, which, on putrefaction, is a potential health http://www.judis.nic.in 22 hazard, apart from causing silication, turbidity of water courses and estuaries with detrimental implication on local fauna and flora, which shall not be allowed by the authority at any cost. In other words, due to the feeding of fishes in shrimp farms, chemicals and other dissolvents will develop in the water and discharge of such water will, of course, cause environmental hazards, thereby affecting the very living of the humanbeings and the other habitats as well.
23. As for the petitioner's submission of similar farm being allowed and run in Thailand, it is to be stated that it is a natural and traditional formation of shrimp farm, which is not comparable to the case on hand, as this is an artificial farm.
24. Above all, the only water source available to the petitioner is Kazhuveli wetland area notified under Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act,1882. If at all the petitioner wants to start shrimp business, he has to encroach into Kazhuveli wetland and lay a pipeline for taking brackish water from the wetland, which is in violation of the orders of the Supreme Court and the High Courts and also the National Green Tribunal. In addition, the District Level Committee has granted permission to the petitioner to operate the shrimp farm in para 6 of the Minutes of the Meeting, dated 04.05.2017, as per which, the petitioner should not lay any pipeline in the forest land. Since the petitioner has encroached into Kazhuveli wetland and laid pipeline therein, violating the http://www.judis.nic.in 23 terms and conditions of Certificate of Registration issued based on the recommendation of the District Level Committee, the Tindivanam Forest Range Officer booked an offence against the petitioner for laying pipeline vide offence No.7/2017, dated 21.09.2017, and the sluice valve of shrimp farm was removed on 05.06.2018, after inspection of AGP, Forests, which has become final. It is impermissible to draw water from Kazhuveli and discharge waste water in Kazhuveli. Therefore, in our considered opinion, there is no illegality on the part of fourth respondent to issue the impugned notice, dated 20.09.2017. As such, we do not find any merit in this Writ Petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.M.P.No.14937 of 2018 also stands dismissed.
(M.M.S.,J.) (K.R.,J.)
23-11-2018
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
dixit
http://www.judis.nic.in
24
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Government of India,
Ministry of Environment of Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi.
2.The Secretary to Government, Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi.
3.Member Secretary, Coastal Aquaculture Authority, 12-A, GDR Tower Vanuvampettai, Madipakkam Post, Villupuram – 600 091.
4.The Forest Officer, Tindivanam Forest Circle, Villupuram Forest Division, Villupuram.
5.The Assistant Director of Fisheries, Villupuram, No.10, Nithyanandha Nagar, Vayhudha Reddy, Villupuram District.
6.The Chairman/District Collector, The District Level Committee (Constituted under Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act), Villupuram, Villupuram District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 25 M.M.SUNDRESH,J.
AND KRISHNAN RAMASAMY,J.
dixit W.P.No.12034 OF 2018 23-11-2018 http://www.judis.nic.in