PARTHIBAN BLUE METAL ETC.versusTHE MEMBER SECY. T.N. POLLN. CONT. BD. AND ORS.

A                    PARTHIBAN BLUE METAL ETC.
                                    v.
             THE MEMBER SECY. T.N. POLLN. CONT. BD. AND ORS.

                                  FEBRUARY I, 2007

B                 [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]


          Environmental Law:

          Protection of environment-Stone crushing units-Claiming their units
C situated at a distance beyond the prescribed limit-Affidavit giving details
    and map filed-Held, factual position having not been examined in detail by
    High Court, matter remitted to it/or considering the effect of the affidavit and
    the map.

          Appellants were running stone crushers in a village in Tamil Nadu by
D installing 25HP electric moter. The District Environmental Officer issued a
    notice to each of them stating that their units were located within 500 meters
    from the residential area and, therefore, penal action was called for. The stone
    crushing units challenged the notices before the High Court, which dismissed
    their petition holding that the action initiated by the authorities was justified.
E         In the appeal filed by the stone crushing units it was contended on their
    behalf that the limit having been reduced to 300 meters and their units being
    beyond the said limit were not in violation of the norms. The Court by an
    interim order directed the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to verify the
    factual scenario and to file an affidavit. The affidavit was filed annexing a
F   map and giving details of distance of the various units.

          Disposing of the appeal, the Court

        HELD: It appears that the factual position was not examined in detail by
  the High Court The affidavit filed by the respondent alongwith the map before
G this Court throws some light on the controversy. In the circumstances, matter
  is remitted to the High Court to consider the effect of the affidavit and the
  map. The parties shall be permitted to place materials in support of their
  respective stand so that the High Court can consider the issues involved. It
  is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit.
H [Para 8) (127-E-F)
                                        124
 PARTHIBAN BLUE METAL ETC. v. MEMBER SECY. TN. POLLN. CONT. BD. [PASA YAT,ll J25

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 411 of2007.                   A
      From the Final Judgment and Order dated 16.9.2005 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in W.P.Nos. 12874,12875,12876,12877,12878,8542,
12862, 16623 and 16624/2004.

      Arun Jaitely, K.V. Viswanathan and V. Mohana for the Appellant.              B
     R. Mohan, A.S.G., V.G. Pragasam, S. Vallinayagam and B.D. Sharma for
the Respondents.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Leave granted.
                                                                                   c
      2. In these appeals challenge is to the order passed by a Division Bench
of the Madras High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants.

      3. Background facts as projected by the appellants are as follows:           D
       Various stone crushing units were being operated by the appellants in
Trisoolam Village, Kanjipuram District, Tamil Nadu. According to the appellants
they had obtained "no objection certificate" from the Tehsildar, Divisional Fire
Officer and the Panchayat Union for the purpose of running the units. After
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (in short the 'Water         E
Act')] and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (in short
the 'Air Act') came into force appellants applied for consent from the concerned
authorities under these Acts. Considering the applications the District
Environmental Engineer called for some particulars and appellants were required
to remit a sum of Rs. I 750/- each towards consent fee under the Acts, which       F
was also paid. Appellants were granted permission by the Commissioner,
Panchayat Union for construction of a shed and installation of 25 HP Electric
Motor to run the units and as per the approved plan the shed was constructed
and business was being carried out. The Principal Secretary, Tamil Nadu
Pollution Control Board (in short the 'Board') issued notice to each of the
appellants requiring shifting to alternative sites since the units were located    G
at about 325 meters from the residential colony.

       4. Appellants gave their reply stating that the units were operating
since I 9.72 and in fact they were located in the non-urban zone. Some writ
petitions were filed by the Krishna Nagar Welfare Association and Kennedy
                                                                                   H
    126                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2007] 2 S.C.R.

A Valley Welfare Association. Since there were various reports, which were
    somewhat contradictory to each other, Civil Appeal No. 6742 of200 I and W.P.
    (C) 2594 of 1999 were disposed of by this Court with certain directions. The
    Industries Department of the State Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 13 dated
    22.1.2002 wherein it was declared as follows:

B              "In the order first read above, in adherence to the Supreme Court
           Order in C.A. No. 10732/95, the Government issued amendment to
           Rule 36(1) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 to the
           effect that no quarrying shall be done within a radial distance of 500
           metres from inhabited site. The position was also informed to Supreme
           Court of India in connection with S.L.P.(C) No. 13564/98."
c
          5. The District Environmental Officer issued a notice to each of the
    appellant observing that their units were located within 500 meters from the
    residential area and therefore, penal action was called for. A Writ Petition
    (Writ Petition No. 35855 of 2003) was filed before the High Court alleging
D   pollution because of the activities of the stone crushing units. The appellants
    challenged the notices/orders issued by the Board. The High Court dismissed
    the same holding that the action initiated by the Board was justified.

         6. During the hearing of the cases on 13.11.2006, the following order        •
    was passed:
E
                 "Our attention has been drawn to the notice dated I 1 March, I994
            issued to one of the petitioners, Mis. Rathnam Blue Metals, which
            states that the units is located at about 325 meters from Krishna Nagar
            against the limit of 500 meters from residential area. The contention
            of the petitioners is that now the limit has been reduced to 300 meters
F           and, therefore, their unit is located within the permissible distance.
            It is further submitted that all the units are in adjoining sites and
            are beyond the distance of 300 meters from residential area. The
            respondent-Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is directed to verify
            the factual scenario and file an affidavit within four weeks."

G        7. An affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. I & 2
    Board annexing a map and giving the following details.

         Name of the Nine Stone Crushing Units and its Distance from Approved
    Habitation:
H
      PARTfllBAN BLUE METAL ETC. v. MEMBER SECY. T.N. POLLN. CONT. BD. [PASAYAT,J.J J27
-t
        SI.No.    NAME                                             DISTANCE               A

        I.        PARTHIBAN BLUE METAL                             330M

       2          GEETHA BLUE METAL                                352M
                                                                                          B
       3.         VETRIVELANBLUEMETAL                              379M

+      4.         RATHNA BLUE METAL                                386M

       5.         LOGANAYAK.I BLUE METAL                           376M
                                                                                          c
       6.        STAR BLUE METAL                                   442M

       7.        ADHILAKSHMI BLUE METAL                            447M

       8.        VASUPEVAN BLUE METAL                              454M                   D

       9.        SIVA BLUE METAL                                   510M

           8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the
     factual position was not examined in detail by the High Court. The affidavit
     filed by respondent Nos. I & 2 alongwith the rnap before this Court throw            E
     some light on the controversy. In the circumstances, we think it appropriate
     to remit the matter to the High Court to consider the effect of the affidavit
     and the map. It goes without saying that the parties shall be permitted to
     place materials in support of their irrespective stand so that the High Court
     can consider the issues involved. We make it clear that we have not expressed        F
     any opinion on the merit. The appeals are accordingly disposed of without
     any orders as to costs.

     RP.                                                        Appeal disposed of.