Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Nadu State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, District Environmental Engineer, TNPCB, a member of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), and the Regional Director of Geology and Mining. This committee was directed to personally inspect the areas and submit a report and a report was also submitted. Since action was initiated by the NGT (South Zone), W.P.No.28475 of 2019 was dismissed directing the parties to approach the NGT for assessment of damages. In turn, by order dated 13.05.2022, NGT (South Zone) directed the authorities to determine the damages that had been caused on account of 185 illegally run brick kilns. This order was passed on that very day, the Joint Committee filed a report before the NGT. Within a couple of months, the Chairman, TNPCB, issued notices in exercise of the powers delegated to him under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 calling upon the noticees to show cause why a damage of Rs.32,00,000/- must not be imposed on them. (This figure is more or less common in all the show cause notices). The period for which notices were issued was for 513 days.

5. Taking note of the fact that show cause notices have been issued https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34307 of 2022, etc., batchN.

under Section 5 of The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the NGT (South Zone), directed the authorities to pass orders on the basis of the show cause notices already issued. It directed them to afford an opportunity to the concerned persons before coming to a conclusion on the quantum of damages. This order was passed on 06.09.2022.

(3) he would further submit that even if the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Air Act and Water Act had been violated, the petitioners are not entitled to any benefit as they are violators and the court should not quash the orders as the process has not been followed. In that light, he relied upon a judgement of this court in W.P.(MD) No.22493 of 2022; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34307 of 2022, etc., batchN.

(4) he would state that sealing of an industry is akin to penalty proceedings and therefore,since closure was pursuant to the order of this court, there is no requirement to quash the same.;

(5) he would further add that the petitioners have the benefit of alternative remedy before the NGT pointing out Section 5A of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;