PICHAIYA Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Mandamus to direct the respondents herein to forthwith shift the Wind Mill Unit of the sixth respondent being erected and commissioned in S. No. 96, situated at Ayyanarkulam Village, Alangulam, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he owns the land measuring to an extent 0.49.0 Hectares comprised in Survey No. 98/2B situated at Ayyanarkulam Village, Alangulam Taluk, Thenkasi, Tirunelveli District. The petitioner has got dwelling house where he lives along with his family. There is also a well and a deep borewell and a pumpset motor with electricity service connection. Adjoining his dwelling house, there is also a land measuring to an extent of 88 cents on the east of Southern Half of S. No. 97 which was purchased by his late father in the name of his elder brother Sankar. There is also even a deep bore well. The sixth respondent had purchased a land in Survey No. 96 adjoining to the petitioner's property and they have been erecting Windmill unit adjacent to the dwelling house. The petitioner has been continuously objecting the same but that has not been heeded to, the petitioner and his family members have filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 210 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi, against the sixth respondent from installing or erecting the Windmill adjacent to their residential house. They have also filed an application in I.A. No. 695 of 2015 for injunction and also filed an application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inspect the distance of Windmill unit and the suit property. According to the petitioner, an Advocate Commissioner was also appointed who had inspected the property and filed a report stating that the suit property is situated in a short distance of 190 feet away from the house. After hearing both sides, the lower Court dismissed the injunction application on 08.09.2015. The petitioner further stated that being an agriculturist, he does not have knowledge about the adverse effect and harm caused to their health because of erection of the windmill and now they have come to know about the study made by a foreigner viz., Dr. Jerry Punch, an audiologist and Professor Emeritus at Michigan State University to the effect that it is hazardous to erect a windmill within a short distance from the house. According to study made in the foreign countries, the minimum distance between the residential area and the windmill is to be at least 2 kilometers. Therefore, the petitioner would mainly contend that the very erection of the windmill is without any proper approval as it is hazardous to the health and the right to life is affected and now that the erection has been completed and the sixth respondent may commission the very windmill. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition as it is not permissible in accordance with law as it is situated nearby the residential house of the petitioner and the respondents have also failed to exercise the power of not stopping the hazardous things to the public at large.

(3.) The second respondent Pollution Control Board has filed a counter stating that the Pollution Control Board does not have any control over the erection or commissioning of the windmill as the windmill does not emit any emission from its operation. The windmill is also not covered under the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2006. Further, the windmill does not generate any waste water from its operations and no sewage is also generated as the windmill does not require continuous manpower to operate the same. Moreover, there is no siting criteria prescribed by Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board with respect to the minimum distance between the wind mill and dwelling house. Therefore, the second respondent is unnecessary party to the Writ Petition.