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

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 124 · Decided: 01-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

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 J 25 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 411 of2007. 
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. 
A 
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. 
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. 
c 
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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.