Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2009
  6. /
  7. January

M.Sadayappan vs The District Collector

Madras High Court|16 September, 2009

JUDGMENT / ORDER

(Made by S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J.) The public interest litigation relates to sand mining in the river Palar. The allegation of indiscriminate sand mining in different villages, particularly Gurumancheri and Sathanancheri Villages, Uthiramerur Taluk, Kancheepuram District has been made. It is stated that in spite of representation made by Self Help Group on 2.3.2009, no step has been taken by the State authorities to stop illegal sand mining.
2. The respondent District Collector has taken a plea that the requirements of the public in and around Chennai Metropolitan City and neighbouring areas for the construction of houses and other works, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Lower Palar Basin Division, Kancheepuram, was permitted to open a new sand quarry outlet in Survey No.2661 of Palur village in Collector's proceeding No.243/2008-Q3 dated 4.3.2009. Accordingly, the Public Works Department has opened a sand quarry and in the said area, quarry operation has been carried out in the permitted area in Palur Village. The villagers of Sathanancheri and Gurumancheri, Uthiramerur Taluk have represented before the Grievance forum on 2.3.2009 that the Public Works Department indulged quarry operation in Palar river beyond permitted depth resulting serious hazards to the environment, inasmuch as the discriminate quarrying of the sand of Palar river would deplete the ground water table and would adversely affect the environment. Further, there are illicit quarry operation in the Palar river bed within the limit of Gurumancheri, Sathanancheri villages. Therefore, they have requested to take immediate action.
3. From the affidavit, it appears that some direction has been issued for joint inspection, consisting of certain Officers of one or other department, which was conducted on 22.7.2009 and during the course of inspection, the following facts were brought to light.
(a) It was found that the quarry operation is being carried out in the permitted area of Palur village. A temporary road has been formed to approach the sand quarry site parallel to the Southern boundary of the quarry site within the Palur village boundary abutting the northern side of Sathanancherry village by using JCB. In view of the objections raised by the villagers of Gurumancheri the quarry operation has been stopped in that area and the formation of pathway has also been abandoned.
(b) The quarry operations are being carried out by the Public Works Department in the demarcated area already marked. There is no violation of rule noticed. The permitted area in which the quarry operation has to be carried out has also been measured by the surveyor and the public works authorities have also been instructed to carry out quarry operation only in the permitted area."
4. Though such statement has been made, it has not been made clear,
(i) whether the Public Works Department is carrying out sand mining beyond permitted limit?
(ii) whether any illegal sand quarry has been made by individual? and
(iii)whether the sand mining is affecting the availability of potable drinking water, water for agriculture and maintenance of ecology?
For example, the Public Works Department may be making its sand mining in the demarcated area. But, under the law and guideline, the department cannot sand mine beyond a particular depth, which may ultimately affect the availability of potable drinking water, water for agriculture and may also affect the ecology finally.
5. In fact, similar questions fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.Nos.657 of 2006 and analogous cases - order dated 21.7.2008 [G.Neelammal Govindaraj and another v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009 and seven others]. In that cases also, it was alleged that indiscriminate sand mining in different villages had been made by the Public Works Department in the Palar river. In that case, the Court noticed an order dated 6.7.2007 made in W.P.(MD)No.9042 of 2006 and analogous cases [C.K.Chinnasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu]. In the said case, it was informed on behalf of the State that a Committee has been constituted by the State Government in each District and that the said Committee would look into all the problems as suggested by the Expert Committee. It was informed that the State Government constituted the Committee with the following members in each District:
(1) District Collector;
(2) Superintendent of Police;
(3) Deputy Superintendent of Police of the area;
(4) Revenue Divisional Officer of the area;
(5) Tahsildar of the area;
(6) Executive Engineer, PWD of the particular division; and (7) Assistant Director of Geology and Mining having jurisdiction at the particular place.
On the basis of the report, it was stated that correctional measures should be taken and so far as measures to be taken immediately against illegal mining and excessive mining by the State or individual is concerned, the following order was passed:
"So far as measures to be taken immediately such as illegal mining or excessing mining by the State or individual or by any department of the State or any authority of the State is concerned, the petitioner, its members or villagers of the concerned village or panchayat, instead of moving before this Court at the first instance, are given liberty to bring such activity to the notice of the concerned Tahsildar and if such report is received, the Tahsildar, without waiting for the meeting of the District Level Committee, will enquire and submit a report before the District Collector, who, in consultation with the Superintendent of Police, will take immediate action to stop illegal sand mining or excessive sand mining, if done in violation of the government Orders/guidelines. But in case of change of place of mining or stoppage of mining at a particular place, which has already been decided by the State or its authorities, the matter has to be decided by the District Level Committee, which will ensure maintenance of potable drinking ground water level, water for irrigation, ecology and ensure that no sea water intrusion takes place in the river bed or adjoining areas of the Vaigai river nearer to the sea.
So far as sand mining is concerned, the State Government may proceed with such mining at appropriate places without disturbing the ground water level, water for irrigation and ecology and will ensure that no sea water intrusion is made. If for one or other reason excess sand has been deposited in the river bed of Vaippar or Vaigai River, which may affect the storage capacity and may prevent the free flow of water to the rain-fed tanks, or for improving irrigation facility in the downstream, as reported by the expert committee in respect of Vaippar river, the State Government and its officials will take immediate steps for removal of such sand from the river bed. Interim orders as were passed in these two cases with regard to Vaippar and Vaigai rivers are vacated subject to correctional measures as required to be taken by the State and its officials in respect of Vaigai river."
In the said case, direction was also given to remove the road formed on the river bed as was noticed by the Court. Following the aforesaid order dated 21.7.2008 made in W.P.Nos.657 of 2006 and analogous cases, we also direct the respondents to remove the road, if any constructed on the bed of Palar river at the place as mentioned in the counter affidavit. So far as illegal and excessive sand mining is concerned, the writ petition is disposed of with same and similar term and direction as given in the order dated 21.7.2008 made in W.P.Nos.657 of 2006 and analogous cases supra and part of which is quoted above. Hereinafter, if there is any grievance for any person with regard to illegal sand quarry, such person may bring the same to the notice of the Tahsildar, who, in his turn, will enquire into the matter and place before the District Collector, who will take appropriate measures, after placing the matter before the Committee constituted by the State, of which reference has been given in the preceding paragraph.
The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and directions. There shall be no order as to costs.
kpl To The District Collector Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

M.Sadayappan vs The District Collector

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
16 September, 2009