Madras High Court
S.Thangaraj vs The Principal Secretary on 1 February, 2023
Author: R. Mahadevan
Bench: R. Mahadevan, Mohammed Shaffiq
W.P.No.28511 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.02.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Writ Petition No. 28511 of 2018
and
W.M.P No. 33258 of 2018
---
S.Thangaraj .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Principal Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
George Fort,
Chennai.
2. The District Collector,
Erode District,
Erode.
3. The Director
Municipal Zone
Thirupur
4. The Commissioner,
Puliyampatti Municipality,
Puliyampatti – 638 459. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a
Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents more particularly the 4th
respondent from proceeding with the construction of the fertilizer
manufacturing unit, without any approval from the competent authorities in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.No.28511 of 2018
S.F.No.146/6A Thilai Nagar, Puliyampatti Municipality based on petitioner's
representation dated 04.10.2018.
For Petitioner : Mr. V.P.K. Gowtham
For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran
Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3
Mr. B. Anand for R4.
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by R.MAHADEVAN,J,] The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the fourth respondent from proceeding with the construction of fertilizer manufacturing unit in the land comprised in S.F. No. 146/6A, Thilai Nagar, Puliyampatti Municipality, without any approval from the competent authorities, by considering his representation dated 04.10.2018.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated by the petitioner that he had purchased a plot in an approved layout from his vendor namely Jayanthilal A. Patel. It is further stated that his vendor was the owner of the land measuring 3 acres 96 cents comprised in Survey No. 146/6A, Thilai Nagar and he developed those lands and converted it into housing plots after obtaining approval. It is further stated that at the time of getting approval, his vendor had executed a gift deed dated 22.03.2006 registered as document No. 849 of 2006 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Punjai https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/8 W.P.No.28511 of 2018 Puliyampatti by which he gifted land measuring 12,439 square feet and 4937.50 square feet respectively to the local body for creating a park and play ground for public use. While so, the petitioner learnt that recently, the respondents have devised a plan to set up a fertilizer manufacturing plant in the land specifically earmarked for establishing a park in the approved plan. The grievance of the petitioner is that the proposal to establish a fertilizer manufacturing is contrary to the plan approval obtained by his vendor whereby the land in question was specifically gifted for establishing a park. Further, there are several houses in the locality and therefore, the land identified by the respondents for setting up chemical manufacturing unit will cause health hazards to the residents. When there are several other vacant government lands available in the vicinity in Survey Nos.15/1 and 15/4 measuring 3 acres 6 cents and Survey No.160/1 adequately with larger extent, the respondents are not justified in choosing the land in Survey No.146/6A earmarked for establishing a play ground and park. In this context, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 04.10.2018 to the respondents, but it was not considered, hence, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and submitted that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/8 W.P.No.28511 of 2018 proposal to establish a chemical manufacturing unit in the land earmarked for establishing a park or play ground in the approved plan, should not be permitted. The place where the respondents have proposed to set up a chemical manufacturing unit is in the midst of a residential locality and therefore, the respondents must be restrained from proceeding further in the matter.
4. On the contrary, the learned Standing counsel for the fourth respondent, by placing reliance on the counter affidavit, submitted that due to rapid increase in garbage collection and the quantum of waste generated by different category of waste producers, the demand for setting up of a Micro Composite Centre for disposal of unsegregated waste has been felt. In this context, a Micro Composite Centre has been proposed to be established in the land measuring 4303 square feet out of 17376 square feet. Even though the petitioner made a hue and cry that the land meant for play ground and park is sought to be utilised for the proposed Micro Composite Yard (referred as Chemical Manufacturing Unit by the petitioner), the fact remains that the land earmarked for play ground and park is not properly maintained by the residents themselves. On the contrary, the residents use the aforesaid land only for the purpose of dumping garbage. The compost yard is proposed to be established https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8 W.P.No.28511 of 2018 in the land measuring 4303 square feet out of 17376.5 square feet in the approved layout. The compost yard is also one of the important projects required to be established in the larger public interest. The Government has already issued G.O. Ms. No.816 dated 14.05.2018 and sanctioned Rs.53.60 lakhs for the establishment of micro compost yard. While so, the petitioner, with an ulterior motive has filed this writ petition to stall this important project. It is further stated that establishing Micro Composite Yard in the land in question will not cause any health hazard to the general public as alleged. The compost yard is sought to be established to segregate the garbage in a scientific manner that no hazardous odour will emit therefrom. It is also stated by the learned Standing counsel that WP Nos. 18511 and 30250 of 2018 have also been filed before this Court by some other residents seeking to direct the respondents to forthwith remove the garbage from the land in S.F. No. 197 which is classified as Kuttai and to restore it to the original position. It is further stated that the land earmarked for park is not changed by the municipality for any other purpose. The Municipality will maintain the park in the remaining extent of land by utilising only the land measuring 4303 square feet for developing the Micro compost yard.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/8 W.P.No.28511 of 2018
5. Apart from filing counter affidavit, when the writ petition is taken up for hearing today, the learned standing counsel for the fourth respondent produced a communication dated 01.02.2023 from the fourth respondent, which reads as follows;
“ghu;itapy; fz;Ls;s khz;gik
brd;id cau;ePjpkd;w tHf;F vz;; W.P.
No.28511/2018-y; g[d;bra;g; g[spak;gl;o efuhl;rp thu;L vz; 10 (g[jpa thu;L vz; 03) jpy;iy efu; gFjpapy; g[jpjhf Ez;Zapu; cukhf;fy;
ikak; (Micro Compost Center) fl;l
jiltpjpf;ff;nfhup jpU/j';fuh$; vd;gtuhy;
tHf;F bjhlug;gl;lJ/ jw;nghJ nkw;fz;l
,lj;jpw;F gjpyhf FUk;gghisak; fpuhkk;
ru;nt vz;/355-1y; efuhl;rpf;F brhe;jkhd 2/99 Vf;fu; gug;gst[ bfhz;l ,lj;jpy; nkw;go Ez;Zapu; cukhf;fy; ikak; fl;l xg;ge;jg;g[s;sp nfhug;gl;L. gzp Miz tH';fg;gl;L jw;nghJ gzpfs; ey;y Kiwapy;
eilbgw;W tUfpwJ/”
6. Thus, it is submitted that after filing the counter affidavit in this writ petition, the fourth respondent Municipality has identified an alternative land in Survey No.355/1 measuring an extent of 2.99 acre belonging to the respondent-municipality for establishing the Micro Compost Yard and tenders have also been called for in this regard. Therefore, the learned Standing counsel for the fourth respondent submits that the apprehension raised by the petitioner no longer survives for consideration by this Court and he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/8 W.P.No.28511 of 2018
7. In the light of the above submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent that during the pendency of this writ petition, the fourth respondent Municipality had identified another land in Survey No.355/1 measuring 2.99 acres in Kurumbapalayam Village for establishing the Micro Compost Yard and tenders have also been called for establishing the same, this Court is of the view that no further order is required to be passed in this writ petition. Accordingly, by recording the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent, mentioned supra, this Writ Petition stands closed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
(R.M.D., J) (M.S.Q., J)
01.02.2023
(2/2)
ay/rsh
Index:Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Copy to
1.The Principal Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
George Fort,
Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Erode District,
Erode.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7/8
W.P.No.28511 of 2018
R. MAHADEVAN, J
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J
ay/rsh
3.The Director,
Municipal Zone,
Thirupur.
4.The Commissioner,
Puliyampatti Municipality,
Puliyampatti – 638 459.
WP No.28511 of 2018
01.02.2023
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8/8