Madras High Court
S. Arul Arockia Mary vs Unknown on 27 June, 2022
Author: P.N. Prakash
Bench: P.N. Prakash, R. Hemalatha
W.P. (MD) No.10677 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 20.06.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 27.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
W.P.(MD) No.10677 of 2020
W.M.P. (MD)No.9395 of 2020 (Injunction Petition)
W.M.P. (MD) No.13139 of 2021 (Vacate Stay Petition)
W.M.P. (MD) No.15066 of 2021 (Amendment Petition)
W.M.P. (MD) No.3357 of 2022 (Petition to raise additional grounds)
S. Arul Arockia Mary Petitioner
v
1 The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
represented by the State of Tamil Nadu
6D Panagal Building
Chennai - 600 015
2 The Secretary to Government
Department of Environment and Forest
St. George Fort, Chennai - 600 009
3 The Director
Department of Environment
Panagal Building
Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015
4 The Chief Conservator of Forests and Trust Director
Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve Trust (GOMBRT)
No.102/26, Retired Army Bungalow I Floor
Ramanathapuram - 623 504
Page 1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (MD) No.10677 of 2020
5 The Wildlife Warden
Gulf of Mannar
Marine National Park
Mandapam Road (Opp. ITI)
Mandapam
Ramanathapuram District - 623 502
6 The Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board
represented by its Chairman
No.31, Kamarajar Salai
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005
7 The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
represented by its Chairman
76, Mount Road
Guindy, Chennai - 600 032
8 The District Environmental Engineer
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
D.No.1-1984 Jothi Nagar Collectorate Post
Sakkarakottai Village
Ramanathapuram
9 Tamil Nadu State Coastal Zone Management Authority
represented by its Chairman
Panagal Building
Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015
10 The Chairman
District Coastal Zone Management Authority
Ramanathapuram Collectorate
Ramanathapuram - 623 501
11 The State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority
represented by its Chairman
III Floor, Panagal Maaligai
No.1, Jeenis Road
Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015
Page 2 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (MD) No.10677 of 2020
12 The District Collector
Ramanathapuram District
Ramanathapuram - 623 501
13 The Tahsildar
Rameswaram - 623 526
Ramanathapuram District
14 The Commissioner
Rameswaram Municipality
Rameswaram - 623 526
Ramanathapuram District Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a
writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from implementing the underground
sewerage scheme, including pipelines, pumping station and sewage treatment for
Rameswaram Town in violation of the CRZ Notification, 2018 and the
Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2016 and to demolish the
construction already made of the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP), pumping station
and removal of pipelines in Survey No.261/1 and 261/6 via Olaikuda Village in
Rameswaram Circle, Ramanathapuram District.
For petitioner Mr. G. Prabhu Rajadurai
for Mr. A. Rahul
For RR 1-5 & 12 -14 Mr. D. Sadiq Raja
Addl. Govt. Pleader
For R6 Mr. Veera. Kathiravan, Addl. Adv. General
assisted by Mr. R. Satheesh
For RR 7 & 8 Mrs. Vijayakumari Natarajan
For RR 9 & 10 No appearance
For R11 Mr. N. Dilip Kumar
-----
Page 3 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (MD) No.10677 of 2020
ORDER
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
This writ petition, in the nature of a public interest litigation, has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from implementing the underground sewerage scheme, including laying of pipelines, construction of pumping station and installation of sewage treatment in Rameswaram Town in violation of the CRZ Notification, 2018 and the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2016 and to demolish the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) and pumping station already constructed and to remove the pipelines in Survey No.261/1 and 261/6 via Olaikuda Village in Rameswaram Circle, Ramanathapuram District.
2 The minimum facts that are required for deciding this public interest litigation are as under:
2.1 It is common knowledge that the holy town of Rameswaram which attracts pilgrims in droves for worship in the famous Ramanathaswamy Temple and to visit the memorial of the late-lamented Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, is an island covering 55 sq. kms. in the Palk Strait. Further, the devout strongly believe that their pilgrimage to Varanasi to have a holy dip in the Ganges and to have the Page 4 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. (MD) No.10677 of 2020 darshan of Lord Vishwanatha will not be complete unless the same is followed by a holy bath in the sea in Rameswaram and darshan of Lord Ramanathaswamy.
2.2 Earlier, a public interest litigation being W.P. No.6793 of 2012 was filed for a direction to the authorities to ensure that the 21 holy wells in the Ramanathaswamy Temple are not polluted by sewage. In the said case, this Court constituted a committee to study the situation in Rameswaram and submit a report.
2.3 In pursuance thereof, the Committee so constituted submitted a report inter alia stating that the construction of underground sewage supply lines is a sine qua non for the preservation of the water in the holy wells.
2.4 Accordingly, a proposal for implementing the underground sewage scheme in Rameswaram Municipality was conceived in the year 2012 and subsequently, it metamorphosed into construction of a Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) for collection and treatment of sewage water and further, for putting the same into use.
2.5 This proposal also faced several hiccups and ultimately, the authorities located a land measuring 5 acres in Survey No.261/6 in Olaikuda Village and concededly, huge amounts were invested for the construction of the sewage lines and STP therein.
2.6 While so, the instant public interest litigation has been filed seeking the aforesaid prayer.
Page 5 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. (MD) No.10677 of 2020 3 On 22.01.2021, this Court passed the following order:
“These pro bonos are to forbear the implementation of the Underground Sewerage scheme in violation of the CRZ Notification.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 10677 of 2020 submitted that notwithstanding the consent issues involved, the construction is going on, without even obtaining permission from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. Reliance has been made on paragraph nos.18 & 5 of the counter affidavits filed by respondents 6 & 14, respectively, in W.P.(MD)No.10677 of 2020.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the 14th respondent in W.P. (MD)No.10677 of 2020 submitted that consent will be obtained at any point of time.
4. Prima facie, we are of the view that the construction activities ought not to have been started without the consent, at least, which is for establishment and thereafter, continued when the papers were returned. An instrumentality of the State is expected to follow the law. In the event of the consent being declined, the entire project would go waste, affecting the public interest. Thus, looking from any perspective, it would only be appropriate to direct the respondents, particularly, the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, to put on hold the construction activities till the appropriate consent has been obtained, which, we hope will be in accordance with law.
5. Registry is to print the name of Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned Counsel for the 11th respondent in W.P.(MD)No.10667 of 2020 and list the matters after four weeks.”
4 On account of the above order, the construction of the STP came to a standstill.
5 After obtaining the necessary consent from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) on 18.08.2021, the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Page 6 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. (MD) No.10677 of 2020 Drainage Board, the sixth respondent herein, has filed W.M.P. (MD) No.13139 of 2021 for vacating the stay order dated 22.01.2021.
6 Further, the writ petitioner has filed W.M.P. (MD) No.15066 of 2021 seeking to amend the prayer in the writ petition, i.e., seeking quashment of the consent order dated 18.08.2021 issued by the TNPCB.
7 One can have no two opinions that sewage water collected from the residences in the island should not be drained into the sea nor could it be left open, as that would undoubtedly pollute the 21 holy wells in the Ramanathaswamy Temple, to bathe in which, pilgrims from all over the world, converge there. Likewise, the sea which holds in its bosom, countless living creatures, should not be polluted.
8 The Government of India had announced the underground sewage scheme for Rameswaram Town under Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Ubran Transformation (AMRUT) and a sum of Rs.52.60 crores was sanctioned as early as 27.04.2018 and the said work was awarded to one Sudakara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad, who were required to complete the collection system by 31.08.2020 and commission the STP by 31.08.2021.
9 According to the respondents, 65% of the work with regard to collection system has been completed and 30% of the STP work has also been completed; while so, the instant public interest litigation has been filed on Page 7 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. (MD) No.10677 of 2020 31.08.2020 and by virtue of the stay order dated 22.01.2021, the remaining works have come to a grinding halt and the costs are escalating; albeit the fact that the TNPCB has given consent as early as 18.08.2021, the authorities are unable to proceed with the work on account of the stay order dated 22.01.2021 passed by this Court.
10 Initially, the STP was proposed to be located in S.No.261/1 in Olaikuda Village. But, in a meeting of the officials of the Government, representatives of political parties and village heads, it was decided to locate it 2 kms. away from the proposed site.
11 Pursuant to the above, now, the authorities are proposing to put up the STP in S.No.261/6 for which the District Collector and other Revenue officials have given the necessary permission and clearance and what remained was only the consent from the TNPCB, which has now been granted as stated above.
12 Mr. Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that S.No.261/1 in Olaikuda Village has been classified in the Revenue records as g[jh;btsp fy;ghiw ePh;j;njf;fk; jhpR which means it is a rocky marsh land and water body, on which, no constructions can be put up. He further contended that the Revenue records do not show any subdivision beyond S.No. 261/4, whereas, the respondents have carved out a separate subdivision in S.No. Page 8 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. (MD) No.10677 of 2020 261 and have classified it as S.No.261/6 for the purpose of erecting the STP which is illegal.
13 The aforesaid allegation is refuted by the sixth respondent contending that S.No.261/1 measures 300 acres and the expression “ePh;j; njf;fk;” found in the Revenue records means during monsoons, water would collect in that place and thereafter, it would get evaporated or drained; out of the 300 acres in S.No. 261/1, an extent of 5 acres which is far away from the earlier proposed site has been earmarked as S.No.261/6, wherein, the STP has been put up and that would, in no way, cause any prejudice to anyone. This is evident from the proceedings dated 21.05.2020 of the Commissioner, Rameswaram Municpality, which has been fairly placed before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the aforesaid contention.
14 Mr. Prabhu Rajadurai further contended that the STP is within 500 metres of the High Tide Line and falls within the Coastal Regulatory Zone and hence, the STP has to be removed. It is his further contention that the expression “STP” would not only include the plant, but would also include the sewage lines, pumping station, etc. 15 Refuting the above contention, it has been stated in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit of the sixth respondent as under:
“It is submitted that the site is not a catchment area and construction can take place, according to the recommendation of Directorate of Town Page 9 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. (MD) No.10677 of 2020 and Country Planning Department, Sivagangai. Also, this place has already been certified by the Tahsildar, Rameswaram, as a superficial area. Also, during the rainy season, the water level rises to 2 feet. The water then evaporates without being absorbed into the ground and dries immediately so this is not the water catchment area. And no one is fishing here. There are no buildings here and all the adjoining places are within the Municipal limits of Rameswaran and the sea is beyond 520 m.”
16 The TNPCB has filed a status report dated 17.06.2022 wherein, at paragraph 5, it is stated as follows:
“It is respectfully submitted that as per the DTCP letter dated 07.07.2020, the proposed site does not come under CRZ Zone, ie 500 m away from HTL. So, no CRZ clearance is needed.” It is worth pointing out that the consent order dated 18.08.2021 given by the TNPCB stipulates that the site in S.F. No.60/1 of Pambam group that has been selected for the disposal of the treated sewage falls within the CRZ clearance and therefore, the treated sewage should be utilized for industrial purpose or for any other purpose. The TWAD Board has accepted this condition and the question of usage of the treated sewage would arise only after the STP is commissioned. The authorities are now exploring the possibility of giving the treated sewage for industrial purposes, as advised by the TNPCB.
17 To satisfy ourselves, we called for the Coastal Regulatory Zone map and pored over the same. We are convinced that the STP does not lie within 500 metres from the sea so as to fall within the Coastal Regulatory Zone.
18 Further, we are unable to countenance the submission that even the underground sewage lines should be located far away, because, fishing villages are Page 10 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. (MD) No.10677 of 2020 located very near the sea and if underground sewage lines have to be laid for their benefit, they would perforce be near the sea. Mr. Prabhu Rajadurai placed before us some photographs to show that the sewage collection wells are located near the sea. Be it noted, the sewage collection wells are concrete structures with concrete basement where the sewage would be collected and it would be pumped to the STP where the sewage water would be treated. Therefore, the allegation that the sewage water would percolate into the ground and pollute the water table is baseless.
19 Mr. Prabhu Rajadurai contended that the environment clearance certificate is required to be given for this project by the 11th respondent, viz., the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority. As a riposte, Mr. N. Dilip Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the 11th respondent, on instructions, submitted that no such clearance is required for the STP in question.
20 Finally, Mr. Prabhu Rajadurai contended that the miscellaneous petition for amendment of the prayer in the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the consent dated 18.08.2021 granted by the TNPCB has to be quashed. It is his further contention that consent has been given only after the filing of the instant public interest litigation and therefore, this Court has the power to adjudicate upon it. We are afraid, we cannot do so, for, an order passed by the TNPCB could be challenged in appeals, both under the Water (Prevention and Page 11 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. (MD) No.10677 of 2020 Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
21 Strong reliance was placed by Mr. Prabhu Rajadurai on the judgment of the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Kehar Singh v State of Haryana1 in support of the proposition that an STP would fall within the meaning of “Common Effluent Treatment Plants” (CETPs) under the notification dated 14.09.2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. However, he also brought to the notice of this Court the order passed by the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai, in the Corporation of Coimbatore v the Appellate Authority, TNPCB, Chennai and 4 others 2, wherein, Kehar Singh (supra) has been distinguished and it has been held that environmental clearance is not required for an STP.
22 Be that as it may, we do not want to go into this contentious issue, because, concededly, against the consent given by the TNPCB, an appeal remedy is provided, after which, there is yet another remedy before the National Green Tribunal and further challenge before the Supreme Court. Thus, when there are efficacious alternative remedies before the expert bodies in the field, it would not be proper for this Court to usurp their jurisdiction and adjudicate upon this issue. 1 Application No.124 of 2013 decided on 12.09.2013 2 Appeal Nos.66 & 67 of 2015 and 44 & 45 of 2016 decided on 24.04.2017 Page 12 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. (MD) No.10677 of 2020 In view of the foregoing discussion, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the interim order dated 22.01.2021 granted by this Court stands vacated. Connected W.M.Ps. stand closed. Costs made easy.
(P.N.P., J.) (R.H., J.) 27.06.2022 cad Page 13 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. (MD) No.10677 of 2020 To 1 The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests 6D Panagal Building Chennai 600 015 2 The Secretary to Government Department of Environment and Forest St. George Fort, Chennai 600 009 3 The Director Department of Environment Panagal Building Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015 4 The Chief Conservator of Forests and Trust Director Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve Trust (GOMBRT) No.102/26, Retired Army Bungalow I Floor Ramanathapuram - 623 504 5 The Wildlife Warden Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park Mandapam Road (Opp. ITI) Mandapam Ramanathapuram District - 623 502 6 The Chairman Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board No.31, Kamarajar Salai Chepauk Chennai - 600 005 7 The Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board 76, Mount Road Guindy, Chennai - 600 032 Page 14 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. (MD) No.10677 of 2020 8 The District Environmental Engineer Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board D.No.1-1984 Jothi Nagar Collectorate Post Sakkarakottai Village Ramanathapuram 9 The Chairman Tamil Nadu State Coastal Zone Management Authority Panagal Building Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015 10 The Chairman District Coastal Zone Management Authority Ramanathapuram Collectorate Ramanathapuram - 623 501 11 The Chairman State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority III Floor, Panagal Maaligai No.1, Jeenis Road Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015 12 The District Collector Ramanathapuram District Ramanathapuram - 623 501 13 The Tahsildar Rameswaram - 623 526 Ramanathapuram District 14 The Commissioner Rameswaram Municipality Rameswaram - 623 526 Ramanathapuram District Page 15 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. (MD) No.10677 of 2020 P.N. PRAKASH, J.
and R. HEMALATHA, J.
cad W.P.(MD) No.10677 of 2020 27.06.2022 Page 16 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis