Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 515 (MAD)

S. Chendurpandi v. Union of India

2020-03-04

B.PUGALENDHI, P.N.PRAKASH

body2020
ORDER : P.N. PRAKASH, J. PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 8 herein to forbear the 9th respondent from doing any mining operations in the land bearing S.F.No.475/2B1, 475/2C1, 477/2C3A, 2C3A, 2C3C, 2C4B, 2C5B, 2C6B, 2C7, 2C8, 2C9(P), 478/2A1B, 2C3A, 2C3B, 2C3C, 2C3D, 2C3F1, 2C3G1, 2C3H1, 2C3K1, 2C3L, 2C3M, 4,6,8,10 for an extent of 4.96.0 hectares in Erukkandurai Part II Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District by cancelling 9th respondent quarry lease & license in the light of G.O.Ms.No.829 Public Work Department dated 29.04.1991 issued by the 3rd respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel for R1 & R2, the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 3, 5 to 7 and the learned counsel for the respondents 8 and 9. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 had given quarrying license to the respondent No.9 within 2.8 kms. radius of the Nuclear Power Station site at Koodankulam and therefore, the said license requires to be cancelled in public interest. 3. On notice, the respondents have entered appearance and have placed materials before this Court to show that the quarry license was given to the 9th respondent in respect of the area, which is 5.98 kms. from Koodankulam Nuclear Power Project and it is 2.9 kms. from the compound wall of the site. 4. Mr. T. Cibi Chakraborthy drew our attention to G.O.Ms.No.829 dated 29.04.1991 and submitted that whenever any activity is to be permitted by the revenue authorities within 2 to 5 kms. radius around the Nuclear Power Station, permission of the Project Local committee should have to be obtained, whereas, in this case, such a permission has not been obtained. 5. In the opinion of this Court, the necessity to obtain clearance from the Koodankulam Project Local Committee would arise only where the proposed activity falls within the radius of 2 to 5 kms. and not beyond it. 5. In the opinion of this Court, the necessity to obtain clearance from the Koodankulam Project Local Committee would arise only where the proposed activity falls within the radius of 2 to 5 kms. and not beyond it. That apart, the revenue authorities had written to the Project Director of Koodankulam Project seeking his permission, for which, the Project Director, by communication dated 02.12.2019, has stated as follows: “This is to inform you that Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project NPCIL, do not have any objection regarding granting of permission for quarry lease at location mentioned in the letter referred above.” 6. In such view of the matter, this petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed and the interim order of injunction stands vacated. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.