BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

Application No.211 of 2015 (SZ)

In the matter of

. A. Iyappan
S/o. Arumugam,
5/137, Uthu Kattu Amman Koil Street,
Sadraskuppam, Kalpakkam,
Thirukazhukundram,
Kancheepuram-603 102.

..... Applicant(s)

Vs

1. The Secretary,
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Chaange,
Govt. of India, India Habitat Center,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.

2. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority and
the Secretary to Government,
Department of Environment and Forest,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

3. The Member Secretary,

Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority and
the Director of Environment,
Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.

4. The Member Secretary,

Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board,
76, Anna Salai, Guindy,
Chennai-600 032.

5. The District Collector,

Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.

6. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Chengalpet,
Kancheepuram District.

7. The Tahsildar,
 Thirukazhukundram,
Kancheepuram District.
.... Respondent(s)

Counsel appearing for the applicant:

M/s. M. Radhakrishnan,
P. Pugalenthi and
P. Sundararajan.

Counsel appearing for the Respondents:

Mr. M.R. Gokul Krishnan for R-1

M/s. M.K. Subramanian and
P. Velmani for R-2, R-3, R-5 to R-7
Mrs. H. Yasmeen Ali for R-4.

ORDER
PRESENT:

HON’BLE SHRI DR. P. JYOTHIMANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

HON’BLE SHRI P.S. RAO, EXPERT MEMBER

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -

DATED: 26th MAY, 2016

- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

Whether the Judgement is allowed to be published on the Internet – Yes/No

Whether the Judgement is to be published in the All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No

We have heard the counsel for the applicant as well as the respondents. The

applicant is seeking for a permanent injunction against the respondents 5 to 7 from

undertaking any construction activity in Survey No.141 of 76, Saduranga Pattinam

Village, Thirukazhukundram Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

The case of the applicant is that the distance between the proposed construction

site and the Olive Ridley Turtle Nesting Ground is about 10 meters and it is located

in the ecologically sensitive area and therefore it is classified under CRZ-I as per the
Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2011. The applicant has also given

various particulars about the details of egg laying and hatching activities at the

Turtle Nesting Ground to substantiate his contention that in the said area such

construction activity is prohibited.

The counsel for the applicant would further submit that even if it is taken as it is

stated in Clause 3 under CRZ Notification 2011 under the caption prescribed within

the meaning of Explanation which is given under CRZ Notification in 3(i)(a) as

follows:

“ Prohibited activities within CRZ- The following are declared as prohibitied

activities within the CRZ,

(i) Setting up of new industries and expansion of existing industries except,-

(a) Those directly related to water front or directly needing foreshore facilities;

Explanation: The expression “foreshore facilities ” means those activities

permissible under this notification and they require water front for their operations
such as ports and harbours, jetties, quays, wharves, erosion control measures,
break waters, pipelines, lighthouses, navigational safety facilities, coastal police
stations and the like. “

It can be only read along with the permissible activities provided the same is notified

as contained under Clause 8 of the CRZ Notification, 2011. This is the legal

position as on date under the CRZ Notification, 2011.

However, it is an admitted fact that as on date there is no proposal of any

construction including the Coastal Police Station. Mr. M.R. Gokul Krishnan, the

counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that even though at the time of filing

reply dated 10.3.2016, no application has been received under the CRZ Notification,

2011, subsequently, on 27.4.2016 there has been an application for the purpose of
establishing a Costal Police Station and this is under consideration.. He would also

fairly submit that as on date no construction activity is going on. We make it clear

that in the event of authority namely the 3 rd respondent taking a decision in

accordance with the CRZ Notification, 2011 either permitting or not permitting the

activity, the 3rd respondent shall issue a copy of such proceedings to the applicant

so as to enable the applicant to work out his remedy in the manner known to law.

We are of the considered view that the above observation will serve to render

substantial justice to the relief claimed in this case. This Tribunal has already granted

an order of injunction on 18.12.2015 and the said order shall continue till the 3rd

respondent Costal Zone Management Authority passes appropriate orders

indicating the same to the applicant. Accordingly, the application is disposed of. No

cost.

Justice Dr. P. Jyothimani

Judicial Member

P.S.Rao
Expert Member