K MOHAN Vs. CHENNAI PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (THE Honourable The Chief Justice)Heard Mr. Sriram Panchu, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. V. Achuthan for the petitioner in W. P. No. 23461 of 2009 and Mr. S. Arokia Maniraj, learned counsel for the petitioner in W. P. No. 21315 of 2009. Mr. P. Wilson, learned senior counsel appears on behalf of the Chennai Port Trust; Mr. J. Ravindran, learned counsel appears on behalf of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority; Mr. G. Masilamani, learned senior counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Mani Sundargopal for the third respondent in both the writ petitions; and Mr. R. Ramanlal, learned standing counsel for the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board appears on behalf of the fourth respondent in W. P. No. 21315 of 2009.

(2.) BOTH these writ petitions are concerning nine tanks for storing edible oil which are to be constructed/are being constructed for the first respondent-Chennai Port Trust. The principal submission in both these writ petitions is that these tanks are situated nearby a residential neighbourhood and it would be hazardous to permit them to come up over there. The first of these two writ petitions, i. e. , W. P. No. 23461 of 2009 refers to some seven survey numbers wherein these tanks are supposed to be located, though the first respondent-Chennai Port Trust has pointed out that they are being located only in one of these survey numbers, i. e. , Survey No. 282 of Royapuram, Chennai, and which survey number is a part of the Chennai Port Trust area. The prayer in this writ petition is that the Chennai Port Trust be refrained from putting up these structures contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The second writ petition, i. e. , W. P. No. 21315 of 2009 also makes the same prayer, though the prayer therein is that the first respondent-Chennai Port Trust be restrained from installing these storage tanks to store molasses in the residential area without obtaining prior approval of re-conversion/re-classification of the area from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and prior clearance from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioners that this construction would be governed by the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and the Rules framed thereunder. Reliance is placed on the definition of a 'building' under Section 2 (7) of the Act which covers in sub-clause (b) thereof, even a structure on wheels or simply resting on the ground without foundations and in clause (c), it includes even a ship, vessel, boat, tent, van and any other structure used for human habitation or used for keeping or storing any article or goods. Reference is also made to the definition of the term 'development' coming under Section 2 (13) of the Act, which states that 'development' means the carrying out of all or any of the works contemplated in a regional plan, master plan, detailed development plan or a new town development plan prepared under the Act and which also includes the carrying out of the building, engineering, mining or other operations in, or over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any building or land. Amongst the exclusions from this definition given in the proviso, only temporary works for maintenance, improvement or alteration are excluded under sub-clause (a) of the proviso. It is then pointed out that under Section 47 of the Act, after the coming into operation of any development plan in any area, no person (other than any State Government or the Central Government or any local authority) shall use or cause to be used any land or carry out any development in that area otherwise than in conformity with such development plan. It is emphasised that a 'local authority' as defined under Section 2 (23) of the Act includes the Municipal Corporation of Chennai, or of Madurai, or a municipal council constituted under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 and some of the township committees and panchayat union council specified thereunder. It does not specifically cover the Chennai Port Trust as a local authority. In the section on the extent of application of this Act, i. e. , Section 1, it is stated that it extends to the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu except the cantonments as declared under Section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. Thus, it is submitted that this Act would apply to the area covered under the Chennai Port Trust and the disputed construction.