M S SAI KUMAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a public interest litigation filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents from establishing Block Value Station and Pipeline Industry in the river bed area of Godavari of Yanam, Dariyalatippa Village, Adivipolan in T.S.No.F/11/22/1, Union Territory of Puducherry without due process of law as laid down under the Madras River Conservancy Act, 1884.

(2.) GRIEVANCE OF THE PETITIONER: The petitioner as a resident of Yanam apprehends that there will be environmental damage if the project of the 6th respondent is established. The 1st respondent and the 6th respondent entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for the implementation of natural gas development project. The establishment of the station falls within the Union Territory of Puducherry of the coast of Yanam. The petitioner claims that as a resident of Yanam, he is entitled to submit his objections to the establishment of the project which will have negative environmental impact. He has personally visited the area called Dariyalatippa. According to him, 25% of the residents of Yanam are fishermen and they depend on river Godavari for their livelihood and if this project is not halted, then, by virtue of the destruction of coconut plantation and mangrove forests, the possibility of flooding would increase. He further contends that mangrove forests are a rare species of vegetation and they must be protected from destruction. The river and river bed area have to be protected in accordance with the provisions of the Madras Rivers Conservancy Act, 1884. It is submitted by the petitioner that the establishment of the Block Value Station and pipeline Industry ignoring the provisions of the Act must be halted. He has made as parties, The Regional Administrator, O/o the Regional Administrator, Yanam as 3rd respondent, The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Yanam, Puducherry as 4th respondent and The Member Secretary, Yanam Planning Authority, Yanam, Puducherry as 5th respondent who are responsible for giving approval for construction, for inviting public objections if any, for charge of use of land from agriculture to industrial use. According to him, when he knew that the 6th respondent had applied for change of user and he went to the office of the 4th respondent to stop the violation of statutory environmental safeguards, the 4th respondent expressed helplessness. There was a public hearing where he was informed that permission was granted by the River Conservator of Andhra Pradesh. According to him the River Conservator of Andhra Pradesh has no jurisdiction to grant permission for change of land user. He has alleged that originally the plant was to have been installed in Andhra Pradesh, but it has been shifted to Yanam only to avoid payment of higher taxes and with ulterior motive. It is alleged that because of the cutting of trees, the intensity of wind force during cyclone time will increase and will have a disastrous impact on the citizens. The huge trucks used by the 6th respondent for the purpose of construction will weaken the flood bank. According to him, because of the dredging operations of the 6th respondent, the production ring bund around Island No.3 is sinking. It is stated that unless all these activities are stopped, the ecological system will be put to great loss and hardship. Along with the affidavit, the petitioner had produced several photographs to show that the installation of the Block Value Station will result in cutting down of trees.

(3.) THE counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 5 would show that the 6th respondent had purchased lands measuring more than 120 acres in a strip by the side of the Flood Bank in Darialathippa, Yanam. According to the Counter, all the above lands are private holdings and there are no mangroves but only coconut trees. THE mangroves are located in the lands belonging to the Government and these lands have not been taken by the 6th respondent. According to this counter, the 6th respondent with a view to draw gas from the Bay of Bengal established a Block Value Station to control the flow of gas, thereafter to route the gas through pipeline, which stretches nearly 2.50 kms within the Yanam region. THE 6th respondent-s processing facilities and production of any industrial item including effluent landing do not take place within the Union Territory of Puducherry. THEy have been established in Gadimoga in Andhra Pradesh. According to this counter, the proposals of the 6th respondent within the jurisdiction of the Union Territory of Puducherry includes construction of Getty, Sub-station, Block Value Station, Control Cabin Building, Haul Road, Roro jetty, line of gas pipe line etc. According to this counter, the activities are not industrial in nature but only feeders to the main industrial process. On 05.12.2006 vide order No.1-12/2006-Hg/A1 objections were invited from the public. THE petitioner herein also submitted his objection. According to the Puducherry Town and Country Planning Act, a Committee was constituted. THE petitioner was heard. After conducting a spot study, the Committee appears to have over ruled the objections raised by the petitioner and submitted a report to the Government. While the representation for land use conversion was still under consideration of the Government, the 6th respondent filed an appeal to the Town and Country Planning Board requesting to convert the land from agriculture to industrial. THE request of the 6th respondent was placed before the Town and Country Planning Board Meeting held on 19.11.2009 and after deliberations they concluded that since no industrial activity is proposed by the 6th respondent in that area, whatever the 6th respondent proposed to do within the Union Territory of Puducherry can be interpreted as -Petrol and Other Fuel Filling Stations- and the same is permissible in Agricultural zones as per the Puducherry Building Bye Laws and Zoning Regulations.