Judgment :- W.P.No.34517/2012: 1. This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records relating to : (1) the order of second respondent in Na.Ka.No.2715/2011-Sema-3, dated 04.11.2011; (2) the order of first respondent in Na.Ka.No.3113/2011/Uooni-1, dated nil/06/2012 signed on 15.06.2012 and (3) the consequential resolution of third respondent, dated 28.09.2012, in respect of item No.16 according building permission to fourth respondent and to quash the same. 2. Facts : 2.1. Perunkurichi village is wholly depending on agriculture and cattle promotion and the agriculture is being done in about 300 acres of fertile agricultural land from Amman Water Irrigation scheme, through Cauvery River. There are more than 300 peacocks (National Birds) living in the locality; two Government Schools and a Christian School are functioning, which cater and impart education to the entire school going children in and around the village panchayat. The petitioner, being the President of the Panchayat is fully conscious of having the prime duty to safeguard and protect people from health hazards and particularly to safeguard agriculture, fertile agricultural lands and the natural water resources (ground water) from the pollution to be caused if the fourth respondent is allowed to set up an industry in the village. 2.2. Fourth respondent industry is proposed to be set up in the petitioner village panchayat to produce 4500 tons per month ingots by melting waste/scrap iron in electrical inductor furnace and to produce 4500 tons per month of steel rods from the ingots. As such, the industry would emit highest degree of heat and air apart from iron power and iron dust mixed in the air, water resources and deposited in the fertile agricultural lands resulted in causing severe health hazard and the soil to become unfit for agriculture. 2.3. Fourth respondent had originally applied to the petitioner village panchayat seeking for building permission to construct a steel industry in S.No.100/2 and 100/3A. The said application was placed in the meeting of Village Panchayat on 07.08.2009 and the Panchayat and its members thought that the unit would provide job opportunities and revenue to the villagers and thereby originally granted permission by passing a resolution on 08.08.2009 unmindful of the fact that the industry would cause pollution resulting in severe health hazard and agricultural lands and ground water would be severely affected. Thereafter, when the process of construction pursuant to the permission started to carry on, the entire village public objected and there was wide agitation by the public and representations were given to the first respondent and to the petitioner panchayat to cancel the building permission granted in favour of the fourth respondent. The objections and complaints of the public and neighbourers of the project site were placed in the meeting of the Panchayat held on 23.04.2010 in which right to life being the paramount consideration and motto of the Panchayat was to protect the people and safeguard fertile agricultural lands and water resources, it was resolved to cancel the building permission granted to the fourth respondent industry, which was intimated to the fourth respondent by a letter dated 07.06.2010. 2.4. As against the resolution dated 23.04.2010 and he intimation dated 07.06.2010, the fourth respondent filed a Writ Petition before this High Court in W.P.No.12137 of 2010 and this Court was pleased to originally grant stay, which was modified on 12.01.2011 as status quo. The said Writ Petition was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner therein, who is the fourth respondent herein, to approach the authority concerned viz., Village Panchayat, seeking for fresh approval. 2.5. Pursuant to the order passed in the above Writ Petition, the fourth respondent submitted an application for building permission before the petitioner Village Panchayat. The Village Panchayat, considering the importance of the safety and life of the public and to protect the fertile agricultural lands, has passed a resolution in its meeting held on 18.04.2012, resolving to reject the application for granting building permission to the fourth respondent. As against the said resolution, the fourth respondent filed an appeal under Rule 29 (2) of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules,1997, before the first respondent, whereupon the first respondent passed an order of rejection of appeal, directing the fourth respondent to approach the third respondent for obtaining building permission. Accordingly, the fourth respondent approached the third respondent for building permission under Section 160 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, whereby the third respondent, by a resolution dated 28.09.2012, accorded building permission to the fourth respondent. 2.6. Peeved at the above developments, the petitioner is before this Court, for the reliefs stated supra. 3. First respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating as under: 3.1. 2.6. Peeved at the above developments, the petitioner is before this Court, for the reliefs stated supra. 3. First respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating as under: 3.1. The then District Collector, Namakkal, conducted a Public Hearing Meeting on 23.03.2010, in which the public of Perunkurichi Village Panchayat gave representations to cancel the building plan permission given to the fourth respondent and not to allow the industry to be established, as it causes great health hazards to the surrounding area people. As the Unit will cause health hazards to the poor villagers and affect the agricultural activities, the then District Collector had decided not to recommend for environmental clearance for the unit. 3.2. The High Court at Madras passed an order dated 08.03.2012 in W.P.No.12137 of 2010, directing the fourth respondent to once again approach the competent authority by way of an application, seeking for fresh approval. Accordingly, the fourth respondent submitted an application for building plan approval and the Perunkurichi Village Panchayat, in its meeting held on 18.04.2012, resolved to reject the application for granting building plan approval to the industrial unit of fourth respondent. Against the said resolution, the fourth respondent preferred an appeal to the first respondent. 3.3. In letter No.SEIAA/TN/EC/3(a0/F-271/20/11, dated 09.02.2011, the Director of Environment and Member Secretary, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Tamil nadu, Chennai, had granted environmental clearance with specific and general conditions by stating that all emissions, liquid and solid waste are proposed to be treated with adequate control measures to meet the prescribed standards. Therefore, there is no scope for any adverse effect on the health of the surrounding villages and farm operations in the village around the unit. The District Collector who presided over the public hearing has expressed himself against the project based on the opinions expressed during the public hearing and not based on any scientific or assessment of the project and control measures proposed. 3.4. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai, has accorded consent in letter No.17/TNPCB/F.10318/RL/NML/A/2011, dated 10.10.2011 for establishment of the unit in Perunkurichi Village. The Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services Department and the Deputy Director, Town & Country Planning Authority, Salem Division have also granted necessary No Objection Certificate and permission for establishment of the unit. 3.5. 3.4. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai, has accorded consent in letter No.17/TNPCB/F.10318/RL/NML/A/2011, dated 10.10.2011 for establishment of the unit in Perunkurichi Village. The Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services Department and the Deputy Director, Town & Country Planning Authority, Salem Division have also granted necessary No Objection Certificate and permission for establishment of the unit. 3.5. Since as per Section 160 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,1994, Panchayat Union Council is the competent authority, the first respondent directed the fourth respondent to approach the Kabilarmalai Panchayat Union Council for getting necessary approval for the unit. Accordingly, the fourth respondent has approached the third respondent and got permission. 4. Second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating as below: 4.1. The President of Perunkurichi Village Panchayat, Kabilarmalai Panchayat Union, Paramathy Velur Taluk, Namakkal District, had applied for permission for installation of Raasi Industries India Private Limited in S.No.100/2 and 100/3A with his recommendation. This respondent obtained all the documents and particulars as per the check list and scrutinized the file and the site was inspected by this respondent on 01.11.2011. As per G.O.Ms.No.161, dated 09.09.2011, Infrastructure and Amenities Charges were calculated as Rs.9,12,500/-and the applicant was requested to pay the amount. Accordingly, the applicant paid the said amount by Treasury Chalan on 02.11.2011. The Installation Approval (Technical Clearance) was given as per Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules,1997; G.O.Ms.No.754, RDLA Department, dated 07.05.1979, and Section 3 (1) (c) of Factories Act,1945, vide Office letter Roc.No.2715/2011 SR3, dated 04.11.2011, with a condition that the applicant should obtain a no objection certificate from the Pollution Control Board and the approval drawings were sent to President Perunkurichi Panchayat on 09.11.2011 for his final approval. 4.2. The applicant again applied to the office of this respondent on 09.07.2012 along with the proceedings of the Collector, Namakkal District, vide Lr.Roc.No.3113/2011/Uooni-1, dated 15.06.2012, with a request to obtain the approval drawings from the Perunkurichi Panchayat and to send the approval drawings to the Kabilarmalai Panchayat union for obtaining final approval. 4.3. In the proceedings of the Namakkal District Collector, it has been stated that the Perunkurichi Village Panchayat, in its resolution dated 09.08.2009, resolved to approve the industry and the said approval was later cancelled by the very same Panchayat by its another resolution dated 23.04.2010. 4.3. In the proceedings of the Namakkal District Collector, it has been stated that the Perunkurichi Village Panchayat, in its resolution dated 09.08.2009, resolved to approve the industry and the said approval was later cancelled by the very same Panchayat by its another resolution dated 23.04.2010. After refusal for grant of approval, the applicant approached the High Court of Madras by filing W.P.No.12317/2010 and the High Court ordered to get fresh orders from the competent authority according to law. As per the High Court order, the applicant applied to this respondent and got permission as per law and rules and applied to Perunkurichi Panchayat for final approval on 29.03.2012. By its resolution, dated 18.04.2012, the Perunkurichi Panchayat refused to give permission. Against the said resolution, the applicant preferred an appeal to the Namakkal District Collector as per Rule 29 (2) of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules 1997. The District Collector has ordered that as per Section 160 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, any construction or installation may be started after obtain permission from Panchayat Union Council and hence the industry may apply for permission to Kabilarmalai Panchayat Union and get proper orders as per law. 4.4. After obtaining all the proceedings, drawings and the approval already granted by the Perukurichi Village Panchayat were sent to Kabilarmalai Panchayat Union by this respondent on 13.08.2012 for final orders. Thereafter, Kabilarmalai Panchayat Union, vide its resolution dated 28.09.2012 in respect of item No.16, granted building permission to the industry. 5. Respondents 3,4 and 5 have filed counter affidavits on similar lines with that of first respondent. 6. Mr.R.Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that third respondent has not considered the objections of the villagers with regard to pollution and disorders before passing the resolution dated 28.09.2012, approving Planning Permission for the fourth respondent industry and, therefore, the impugned orders of respondents 1 and 2 and the consequential resolution of the third respondent are ex-facie illegal, arbitrary, unsustainable in law, against the interest of the public and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. 7. On the other hand, Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, would submit that the Planning Permission was given to the fourth respondent by the second respondent as per law and rules and, after verifying all the documents, the same was duly approved by the third respondent by the resolution dated 28.09.2012 and, hence, the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity. 8. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the parties and also gone through the records. 9. At the outset, it is to be stated that the fourth respondent industry is proposed to be set up in the petitioner Panchayat, namely, Perunkurichi Village Panchayat to produce 4500 tons per month ingots by melting waste/scrap iron in electrical inductor furnace and to produce 4500 tons per month of steel rods from the ingots, for which purpose, it has originally applied to the petitioner Panchayat, seeking for building permission to construct a steel industry in S.No.100/2 and 100/3A. The said application was placed in the meeting of Village Panchayat on 07.08.2009 and the Panchayat and its members thought that the unit would provide job opportunities and revenue to the villagers and thereby originally granted permission by passing a resolution on 08.08.2009. Thereafter, when the process of construction, pursuant to the permission, was underway, the village public objected to the same and there was a widespread agitation by the public. Representations were also given to the first respondent, namely, the District Collector and to the petitioner Panchayat to cancel the building permission granted in favour of the fourth respondent. The objections and complaints of the public and neighbourers of the project site were placed in the meeting of the Panchayat held on 23.04.2010, in which, right to life being the paramount consideration and motto of the Panchayat was to protect the people and safeguard fertile agricultural lands and water resources, it was resolved to cancel the building permission granted to the fourth respondent industry and the same was intimated to the fourth respondent, by a letter dated 07.06.2010. As against the resolution, dated 23.04.2010, and the intimation dated 07.06.2010, the fourth respondent filed a Writ Petition before this High Court in W.P.No.12137 of 2010 and this Court originally granted stay, which was subsequently modified on 12.01.2011 as status quo. As against the resolution, dated 23.04.2010, and the intimation dated 07.06.2010, the fourth respondent filed a Writ Petition before this High Court in W.P.No.12137 of 2010 and this Court originally granted stay, which was subsequently modified on 12.01.2011 as status quo. The said Writ Petition was ultimately disposed of with liberty to the petitioner therein, who is the fourth respondent herein, to approach the authority concerned viz., Village Panchayat, seeking for fresh approval. Pursuant to the order passed in the above Writ Petition, the fourth respondent submitted an application for building permission before the petitioner Village Panchayat afresh. The Village Panchayat, considering the significance of safety and life of the public and to protect the fertile agricultural lands, has passed a resolution in its meeting held on 18.04.2012, resolving to reject the application for granting building permission to the fourth respondent. As against the said resolution, the fourth respondent filed an appeal before the first respondent under Rule 29 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules,1997, in short, "the Rules", whereupon the first respondent passed an order of rejection of the appeal, directing the fourth respondent to approach the third respondent for obtaining building permission. Accordingly, the fourth respondent approached the third respondent for building permission under Section 160 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, in short, "the Act", thereby, the third respondent, by a resolution dated 28.09.2012, accorded building permission to the fourth respondent. 10. In this connection, it is useful to refer to Section 160 of the Act, which reads as under : "160. Permission for construction of factories and the installation of machinery.:-No person shall, without the permission of the Panchayat Union Council in Panchayat Villages and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such permission,- (a) construct or establish any factory, workshop or workplace in which it is proposed to employ steam power, water power or other mechanical power or electrical power, or (b) install in any premises any machinery or manufacturing plant driven by any power as aforesaid, not being machinery or manufacturing plant exempted by the Rules." 11. Before delving the above provision, it is noteworthy to mention some important developments, which transpired in this case. Before delving the above provision, it is noteworthy to mention some important developments, which transpired in this case. In letter No.SEIAA/TN/EC/3(a)/F-271/20/11, dated 09.02.2011, the Director of Environment and Member Secretary, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Tamil Nadu, Chennai, had granted Environmental Clearance with specific and general conditions by stating that all emissions, liquid and solid waste are proposed to be treated with adequate control measures to meet the prescribed standards and, therefore, there is no scope for any adverse effect on the health of the surrounding villages and farm operations in the village around the unit and also that the District Collector who presided over the public hearing has expressed himself against the project based on the opinions expressed during the public hearing, but not based on any scientific or assessment of the project and control measures proposed. Similarly, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai, has accorded consent in letter No.17/TNPCB/F.10318/RL/NML/A/2011, dated 10.10.2011, for establishment of the industry. Also, the Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services Department and the Deputy Director, Town & Country Planning Authority, Salem Division, also have granted necessary No Objection Certificate and permission respectively, for establishment of the industry. 12. It is also pertinent to state that the impleading petitioner in W.P.No.12137 of 2010, namely, A.S.Mani filed an appeal before the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi, questioning the environmental clearance granted by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority of Tamil Nadu in Appeal No.5 of 2012, which came to be dismissed on the ground of delay, as the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to condone the delay of 90 days of grant of such environmental clearance certificate. In addition, challenging the very same environmental clearance certificate, one of the local villagers by name Karthi filed a Public Interest Litigation in W.P.No.13443 of 2011 before this Court, which was dismissed, directing the petitioner therein to approach the Green Tribunal, pursuant to which, he filed an appeal before the National Green Tribunal in Appeal No.42 of 2012, which also came to be dismissed by referring to its earlier order. 13. 13. Now, coming to the provision under Section 160 of the Act, no person shall, without the permission of the Panchayat Union Council in Panchayat Villages, construct or establish any factory, workshop or workplace in which it is proposed to employ steam power, water power or other mechanical power or electrical power, or install in any premises any machinery or manufacturing plant driven by any power. 14. Keeping the above provision in mind, if we see the present case, when the appeal was filed by the fourth respondent before the first respondent against the resolution of the petitioner Panchayat, rejecting the building permission, the first respondent passed an order, rejecting the appeal and directing the fourth respondent to approach the competent authority, namely, the third respondent for obtaining building permission. Accordingly, the fourth respondent approached the third respondent/ Kabilarmalai Panchayat Union Council, and the said Council, in its meeting held on 28.09.2012, taking into account the various factors viz., the Environmental Clearance given by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, the Pollution Clearance as to water and air given by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, the Building Plan Approval accorded by the Office of the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Salem, and also the No Objection Certificate issued by the Divisional Office of the Tamil Nadu Fire & Rescue Services Department, passed a resolution vide item No.16, according permission and final approval for establishment of the fourth respondent industry under Section 160 of the Act. 15. Since the fourth respondent has obtained Environmental Clearance, Pollution Clearance, Building Plan Approval and No Objection Certificate from the appropriate authorities as stated above, he has approached the third respondent and got final approval for establishment of the industry. Therefore, the impugned orders, in the considered opinion of this Court, are perfectly in order and in accordance with law, thereby giving no scope for any interference. 16. Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 are closed. Therefore, the impugned orders, in the considered opinion of this Court, are perfectly in order and in accordance with law, thereby giving no scope for any interference. 16. Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 are closed. However, this order shall not prevent the petitioner from approaching the authorities concerned and also the fourth respondent, seeking for a scheme of providing whatever protection, benefits and other facilities to the local residents and also to the petitioner panchayat by the fourth respondent, in which event the authorities and the fourth respondent shall consider the same humanely in the interest of the villagers, as a goodwill measure, and also in the interest of the company to have a peaceful atmosphere in around the industry. It may be done after inviting the petitioner association for talks and, on hearing their views, the above scheme may be formulated, pursuant thereto, the fourth respondent shall proceed further in the matter. CONT.PET.No.300/2013 : 17. This Contempt Petition has been filed by the writ petitioner to punish the first respondent, who is the fourth respondent in the Writ Petition, for his disobedience of the order, dated 20.12.2012, made in M.P.No.2 of 2012 in the above Writ Petition viz., W.P.No.34517 of 2012, wherein the parties were directed to maintain status quo. 18. According to the petitioner, when the Writ Petition was listed for admission before this Court on 20.12.2012, this Court ordered notice regarding admission returnable by 04.01.2013 and directed the parties to maintain status quo as on 20.12.2012 till 04.01.2013; the order of status quo was served on the respondent by the petitioner on 22.12.2012 and, in view of the order of status quo, the respondent should have stopped further construction activities, however, the respondent continued to proceed with the construction; the petitioner, being the President of the Panchayat, asked the respondent in person not to proceed further to develop the property so as to comply with the order passed by this Court and, left with no other option, the petitioner issued a telegraphic contempt notice through his counsel to the respondent on 04.01.2013 to stop the construction of the building so as to avoid initiation of contempt proceedings. It is his further case that when the Writ Petition was listed for hearing on 04.01.2013, this Court extended the interim order of status quo till 20.01.2013 and directed to list the case on 21.01.2013, but, despite the order of status quo passed by this Court as early as 20.12.2012, which was extended by an order on 04.01.2013, the respondent, without complying with the same, continued to proceed with the development of the property for construction, which is a clear, wilful, deliberate and intentional act of disobedience and non-compliance of the order passed by this Court and, thereby, the respondent is liable to be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act,1971. 19. In the above connection, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner had not served any notice of the interim order passed by this Court immediately but notice was served upon him by the District Collector, Namakkal, on 04.01.2013 and it is false to state that the petitioner had served the order of status quo, dated 20.12.2012, passed by this Court upon this respondent on 22.12.2012. It is further stated that this respondent came to know about the order of status quo by way of information from one of the local villagers on 31.12.2012 and verified about the same with the Registry of this Court on 02.01.2013 and, after finding that there was an order of status quo granted on 20.12.2012, immediately, stopped the construction activities and filed the counter affidavit along with vacate stay petition; there was no construction activity after 02.01.2013 to till-date and the same has been stopped even before the notice from the District Collector and the Registry of this Court and that the respondent, having stopped the construction activities as early as 02.01.2013 and not proceeded with further construction since then, has not disobeyed the orders of this Court. 20. In view of the stand taken by the respondent in the counter affidavit as above coupled with the dismissal of the Writ Petition, no case is made out for entertaining the Contempt Petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.