Madras High Court
M/S. Vlb Trust vs The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on 22 December, 2023
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 30.11.2023 & 01.12.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 22.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.Nos. 6241, 9182, 10781, 12111, 12190, 12499, 14660,
15563, 15572, 17323, 17326, 24125 & 31654 of 2014
8463, 8464 & 18137 of 2016 and 2498 of 2017
M.P.No.1 of 2014 (13 Nos.) M.P.No.2 of 2014 (3 Nos.)
Crl.M.P.Nos. 4411 to 4413, 8611 of 2016 and 1752 & 1753 of 2017
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 :-
1. M/s. VLB Trust,
Rep. by its Chairperson and
Managing Trustee,
S.Malarvizhi,
Kovaipudur,
Coimbatore – 641 042.
2. S.Malarvizhi,
W/o. Late S.Venkatram,
Chairperson and Managing Trustree,
M/s.VLB Trust,
Kovaipudur,
Coimbatore – 641 042.
3. K.P.Muruganantham
Authorized Singatory,
M/s.VLB Trust,
Kovaipudur,
Coimbatore – 641 042. ... Petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 26
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
Vs.
The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Rep. by its District Environmental Engineer,
Coimbatore (South)
K.Ravichandran,
42-D, S.N.R.College Road,
Peelamedu, Coimbatore – 641 004.
Coimbatore District. ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records connected with the
proceedings of C.C.No.46 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.VII of Coimbatore and quash the same.
For Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.
6241 of 2014 : Mr.E.K.Kumaresan
For Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.
10781 of 2014 : Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel
For Mr.M.S.Ramachandran
For Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.
12111 of 2014 : Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel
For Mr.R.Karthikeyan
For Petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.
9182, 12190, 12499, 14660,
17323, 24125 of 2014
and 8463 & 8464 of 2016 : Mr.R.Saravanakumar
For Petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.
15563 & 15572 of 2014 : Ms.M.Sneha
For Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.
31654 of 2014 : Mr.R.Thirunavukarasu
For Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.
8611 of 2016 : Mr.AR.M.Arunachalam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2 of 26
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
For Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.
2498 of 2017 : Mr.R.Mohan
For Respondent
in all Crl.O.Ps : Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram
Advocate General
Assisted by
Mrs.Shanmugavalli Sekar
Standing Counsel for TNPCB
COMMON ORDER
These petitions have been filed to quash the complaints
lodged as against the petitioners in all the petitions, for the offences under
Sections 15 r/w. 16 & 19(a) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
2. Since the issues raised in all these petitions are common and
the petitioners preferred these petitions for similar prayer, this Court is
inclined to pass common order.
3. The crux of the complaint in all the petitions is that as per
the notification S.O.No.394(E) published in Gezette No.185, dated
16.04.1987, the State Pollution Control Boards are authorised to take
legal action for the indicative violation under the provisions of the
Environment Production Act. All the jurisdictional environmental
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
engineers are authorised to launch prosecution on behalf of the Tamil
Nadu Pollution Control Board. Further, the Ministry of Environment and
Forest, Government of India, vide its Environment Impact Assessment
Notification, dated 14.09.2006, mandates that on and from the date of
publication, the required construction of new projects or activities or
expansion or modernization of existing projects or activity listed in the
schedule to its notification entailing capacity addition with change in
process and or technology shall be undertaken in any part of India only
after the prior environmental clearance from the central government or as
the case may be, by the State level environment impact assessment
authority.
4. The petitioners in all the petitions are involved in the
construction of residential/commercial buildings and in the course of their
business, they commenced construction to develop housing
unit/commercial complex of more 20,000 square metre. The petitioners
projects involve construction of residential/commercial building area of
more than 20,000 square meters and it requires prior environmental
clearance, as per the notification dated 14.09.2006. The construction of
all the petitioners are categorized as Category B project as per Schedule
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
8(a) of the said notification dated 14.09.2006. Therefore, it is mandates
that the petitioners ought to have been obtained prior environmental
clearance for their projects/ constructions.
5. Further, the petitioners submitted their applications to the
Tamil Nadu State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority
(hereinafter called as “SEIAA”) for obtaining environmental clearance for
the proposed projects. It was placed before the Environment Assessment
Committee and the same were pending before the SEIAA. However, the
petitioners had commenced the constructions and substantial progress
have already been put up without any prior environmental clearance.
6. On inspection, the respondent found that though the
petitioners itself being aware of the above said mandate as contemplated
in the notification dated 14.09.2006, they commenced construction and
made substantial progress in their construction activity without getting
any prior environmental clearance from the authority concerned.
Therefore, the petitioners are in violation of the provisions of the
notification and they are liable to be punished for the offences under
Section 15(1) r/w Sections 16(1) of the Environment (Protection) Act,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
1986. Therefore, the respondent issued notice to the petitioners for
violation of the provisions under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
All the petitioners submitted their respective reply for the notice issued by
the respondent, thereby admitted that they commenced the constructions
without prior environmental clearance. Hence the complaints.
7. The learned Senior Counsel and other learned counsel
appearing for the respective petitioners in all the petitions submitted that
prior commencement of construction, the petitioners duly applied for
necessary clearance and approval from the Director of Town and Country
Planning and Commissioner of Corporation. All of sudden, the SEIAA
informed that the petitioner ought not to have commenced construction
without getting prior environmental clearance, for which they sought for
apology from the petitioners to proceed their construction further. In fact,
draft apology letter was also prescribed by them. Though the petitioners
submitted their apology letter, their application for prior environmental
clearance was not considered. On receipt of the notice, they had promptly
replied about the fact. Further after construction, the petitioners were
issued environmental clearance certificate on payment of necessary fees.
Therefore, no prosecution can be initiated as against the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
7.1. They further submitted that insofar the educational
institutions are concerned, by way of subsequent Office Memorandum
dated 09.06.2015, it was clarified with regards to existing notification
No.S.O.3252 (E) dated 22.12.2014, on applicability of Environment
clearance. Accordingly, Forest and Climate change has exempted the
school, college and hostel for educational institution from obtaining prior
environmental clearance under the provisions of the Environmental
Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 (EIA) dated 14.09.2006 subject to
Sustainable Environmental Management. Subsequently, by the Office
Memorandum dated 19.05.2022, it was further clarified with regard to
applicability of SEIAA notification for educational institutions.
Accordingly, exemption provided for educational institutions by the
Ministry's Notification No.S.O.3252 (E) dated 22.12.2014 shall be
applicable to all educational institutions covered under the definition of
educational institution as mentioned in Noise Pollution (Regulation and
Control) Rules, 2000.
7.2. In fact, the petitioners were also paid the fine and obtained
environmental clearance certificate. In support of their contention, they
relied upon the following judgments :-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
(i) 2022 SCC Online Mad 3850 – TRIL Info Park Limited, rep. by
its authorised signatory Vs. Tamil Nadu Pollution Controal Board
(ii) 2023 SCC Online Mad 4358 – Voorna Property Developers
Private Limited and anr Vs. Tamil Nadu Pollution Controal Board
(iii) 2022 SCC Online SC 362 – Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd., and anr
Vs. Dastak NGO and ors.
(iv) (2023) 6 SCC 615 – Electrosteels Steels Limited Vs. Union of
India & ors.
8. The respondent filed counter and the learned Advocate
General appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent is a
competent person to initiate prosecution as against the petitioners.
Without any prior environmental clearance, the construction/physical/
operation activities relating to the projects have been started at the sites
and it amounts to violations under the Environment (Protection) Act. In
order to deal with such cases, the Ministry has issued guidelines in the
official memorandum stating that the State Government will need to
initiate credible action on the violation by invoking powers under Section
19 of the Environment (Protection) Act, for taking necessary legal action
under Section 15 of the Act. Therefore, the respondent rightly initiated
prosecution as against the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
8.1. He further submitted that the Central government vide
notification No.934(E) dated, 16.04.1987, authorized the Chairman or
the Member Secretary of the State Pollution Control Board or the
Regional Officers of the State Pollution Control Board, who has been
authorized under delegated powers under Sections 20, 21 and 23 of the
Water (P&CP) Act. Accordingly, the powers has been delegated to the
District Environmental Engineers, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
by the B.P.MS.No.264 dated 04.01.1989 and B.P.Ms.No.3 dated
21.01.1983. Therefore, the District Environmental Engineers are
authorized to initiate prosecution vide B.P.Ms.No.58 dated 04.09.2013.
8.2. Further B.P.No.58 of 2013 is a comprehensive board
resolutions which within its sweep includes provides authorization to
initiate prosecution to the District Environmental Engineers or Assistant
Environmental Engineers against the construction projects violations
under the Environment (Protection) Act, for commencing construction
work without obtaining prior environmental clearance under
Environmental Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006.
Therefore, there is no necessity to obtain any separate authorization or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
sanction to initiate prosecution as against the petitioners. Mere issuance
of an apology would not amount to compounding of an offence and in
any event, there are no documents to substantiate that the offence has
been compounded in any manner. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of these
petitions.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the material placed before this Court.
10. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had put up
construction more than 20,000 square meters without prior environmental
clearance certificate, though they had submitted application for prior
environmental clearance before the SEIAA. After inspection, notice was
issued to the petitioners and also received reply from them. Thereafter, on
payment of fee, the environmental clearance certificate was also issued to
the petitioners. Therefore, before issuance of prior environmental
clearance, the petitioners had commenced construction and substantial
progress have been made in their respective constructions sites.
Therefore, it is in violation under the provisions under Section 15(1) r/w.
16(1) of the Environment (Protection) Act. They were served with show
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
cause notice and initiated prosecutions.
11. It is pertinent to note that the National Green Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi, declared the notifications dated 12.12.2012
& 27.06.2013 as ultra vires on the ground that they suffer from the
infirmity of lack of inherent jurisdiction and authority. However, the prior
environment clearance is pertaining to the official memorandum dated
14.09.2006. It was issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest,
Government of India, under the powers conferred upon its by sub-Section
(1) and clause (v) of sub Section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment
(Protection) Act. As per the provisions of the notification, the project or
activities falling under category A of the Schedule require prior
permission from the Central Government while projects and activities
falling under category B require prior permission from the State
Government. These permissions are to be obtained before any
construction work or preparation of the land by the project management
except for securing the land is started on project or activity.
12. Subsequently, another notification was issued on 12.12.2012
by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate change, superseding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
the notification dated 16.11.2010. However, in that notification it was
stated that in case of violation in respect of notification dated 14.09.2006,
it will proceed to verify the veracity of the complaint through the regional
offices and upon such verification, the explanation of project proponent
will be asked for. If the Ministry is satisfied that it is a case of violation,
then before proceeding any further, the authorities would require the
project proponent to submit its environment related policy, plan of action
and a written commitment to ensure that violation will not be repeated
within 60 days in terms of the office memorandum dated 12.12.2012.
13. Therefore, the said order of the National Green Tribunal is
no way connected with the earlier notification dated 14.09.2006. In fact,
for the violation committed by the petitioners, they had paid fine amount
and it is nothing to do with the criminal prosecution initiated by the
respondent for the offence under Section 15 r/w 16 & 19(a) of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Therefore, it would not be presumed
that the criminal prosecution is hit by doctrine of double jeopardy.
14. Insofar as the competency for initiation of prosecution is
concerned, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of this Court reported
in 2022 SCC Online Mad 3850 in the case of TRIL Info Park Limited,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
rep. by its authorised signatory Vs. Tamil Nadu Pollution Controal
Board., which held as follows :-
“19. It is also relevant to note that the complaint
has been filed by the District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. In this regard, it
is useful to refer Section 19 of the Environment
(Protection) Act. The same reads follows:
“Section 19 in The Environment (Protection) Act,
1986:
19 Cognizance of offences:- No court shall take
cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a
complaint made by
(a) the Central Government or any authority or
officer authorised in this behalf by that Government; or
(b) any person who has given notice of not less
than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged
offence and of his intention to make a complaint, to the
Central Government or the authority or officer
authorised as aforesaid.?
19. The above provision makes it very clear that
complaint can be filed by the Central Government or
any authority or officer authorised in this behalf by that
Government, i.e., the Central Government. The
Notification issued by the Central Government in this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
regard reads as follows:
“OFFICERS AUTHORISED FOR TAKING
COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCES NOTIFICATION :-
S.O. 394(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred under
clause (a) of section 19 of the Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986 (29 of 1986). the Central Government hereby
authorises the officers and authorities listed in column
(2) of the Table hereto for the purpose of the said
section with the jurisdiction mentioned against each of
them in column (3) of that Table:
TABLE
Sl.No. Officer Jurisdiction
(1) (2) (3)
1 Any Director, Joint Secretary. Adviser or Whole of India
Additional Secretary to the Government of
India in the Department of Environment,
Forests and Wildlife.
2 The Chairman or Member-Secretary of the Whole of India
Central Pollution Control Board constituted
under section 3 of the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974).
3 The Government of the State (represented by Whole of India
the Secretary to the State Government in-
charge) of environment.
4 The Chairman or Member-Secretary of the Whole of India
State Pollution Control Board constituted
under section 4 of the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974) or
a State Pollution Control Board constituted
under section 5 of the Air (Prevention and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
Sl.No. Officer Jurisdiction
Control of Pollution) Act. 1981114 of 1981).
5 Collector Whole of
Revenue
District
6 Zonal Officers of the Central Pollution Area as laid
Control Board who have been delegated down by the
powers under sections 20,21.23 of the Water Central
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, Government
1974 (6 of 1974) and section 24 of the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act.
1981 (14 of 1981).
7 Regional Officers of the State Pollution Area as laid
Control Board who have been delegated down by the
powers under section 20, 21 and 23 of the State Board
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act. 1974
8 Regional Officers of the State Pollution Area as laid
Control Board who have been delegated down by the
powers under section 24 of the Air State Board
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981.
9 Any Regional/Zonal Officers or a Director in Zonal/Regiona
charge of a Region/Zone of the Ganga l area as laid
Project down by the Ganga Project down by the
Directorate. Ganga Project
Directorate
10 Any Deputy Secretary, Director. Joint Whole of the
Secretary or Additional Secretary to the State in which
Government of India in the Ganga Project the Ganga
Directorate. Action Plan is
under
implementatio
n
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
Sl.No. Officer Jurisdiction
11 Joint Secretary (Legal) in the Department of Whole of India
Environment Forests and Wildlife. Ministry
of Environment & Forests. New Delhi –
110003
12 Chairman or Member Secretary of the Whole of
Committee notified under the Water Union
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, Territory
1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981 in respect of Union
Territories.
Seed Inspector(s) Area as laid
down by the
respective
State Govt. in
the notification
issued under
Clause 12 of
the Seeds
Controller
Order 1983
Note: Principal Notification No SO. 394(E), published
in Gazette No.185. Dt:16 4 1987No.9 and 10 and
entries relating thereto inserted vide $0.2371E1.
dt.29.3.89 published in the Clarette No. 171. dt.
29.3.89. S.N. 11 and entries relating thereto inserted
vide $.0.656(E), d.24.8.1989 published in the Gazette
No 519, dt 21.8.1989.”
21. On a careful perusal of the above notification,
Central Government has authorised the Chairman or
Member-Secretary of the State Pollution Control Board
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
constituted under Section 4 of the Water (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974) or a
State Pollution Control Board under Section 5 of the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1981 (14 of
1981) are competent to file complaint as per Sl.No.4 of
the above Notification. Besides Sl.No.7 and 8 are also
authorised Regional Officers of the State Pollution
Control Board who have been delegated powers under
Section 20, 21 and 23 of the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 24 of
the Air (Prevention and control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
Only 5 categories have empowered under the
Notification by the Central Government to file a
complaint viz., Chairman or Member Secretary of the
TNPCB and State Pollution Control Board constituted
under Section 5 of the Air (Prevention and control of
Pollution) Act, the Regional Officers who have been
delegated powers under Section 20, 21 and 23 of the
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974
and Regional Officers of the State Pollution Control
Board who have been delegated powers under Section
24 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981.
22. The complaint in this case has been filed by
the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Represented
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
by Thiru R.Umaiyakunjaram, District Environmental
Engineer. Such a view of the matter when the Central
Government authorised State Pollution Control Board
to file a complaint, complaint filed by the Board cannot
be faulted and maintainable. Therefore, contention of
the Petitioner Counsel as to the filing of complaint by
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board cannot be
countenanced.”
Thus, it is clear that the respondent has authority to launch prosecution
as against the petitioners and as such the respondent is a competent to
lodge complaint as against the petitioners.
15. Further the grounds raised by the petitioners and the
documents produced before this Court have to be considered before the
trial Court by let in evidence. All the grounds are mixed question of facts
and law and it requires deliberate trial before the trial Court by let in
evidence. Therefore, this Court finds no ground to quash the proceedings
initiated as against the petitioners.
16. Insofar as the petitions in Crl.O.P.Nos.6241 & 15572 of
2014 are concerned, it is relevant to rely upon the Judgment of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2022 7 MLJ 497 (SC) in the
case of D.Swamy Vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and
others, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:-
“41. The EP Act does not prohibit ex post facto
Environmental Clearance. Grant of ex post facto EC in
accordance with law, in strict compliance with Rules,
Regulations, Notifications and/or applicable orders, in
appropriate cases, where the projects are in compliance
with, or can be made to comply with environment norms,
is in our view not impermissible. The Court cannot be
oblivious to the economy or the need to protect the
livelihood of hundreds of employees and others
employed in the project and others dependent on the
project, if such projects comply with environmental
norms.
44. Even though this Court deprecated ex post
facto clearance, in Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs.
Rohit Prajapati and others (supra), this Court did not
direct closure of the units concerned but explored
measures to control the damage caused by the industrial
units. This Court held:-
“However, since the expansion has been
undertaken and the industry has been functioning,
we do not deem it appropriate to order closure of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
entire plant as directed by the High Court.””
17. Therefore, the Environmental Protection Act does not
prohibit ex post facto Environmental Clearance. Similarly, the grant of ex
post facto environmental clearance in accordance with law, in strict
compliance with Rules, Regulations, Notifications and/or applicable
orders, in appropriate cases, where the projects are in compliance with, or
can be made to comply with environment norms, is in our view not
impermissible. As per the notification and subsequent clarification, the
Committee decided and granted environmental clearance subject to the
payment of compensation.
18. It is also relevant to rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.4795 of 2021 dated
25.03.2022 in the case of Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd and others Vs Dastak
NGO and others, wherein it was held as follows:-
“63. Ex post facto environmental clearance should
not be granted routinely, but in exceptional circumstances
taking into account all relevant environmental factors.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
Where the adverse consequences of denial of ex post facto
approval outweigh the consequences of regularization of
operations by grant of ex post facto approval, and the
establishment concerned otherwise conforms to the
requisite pollution norms, ex post facto approval should
be given in accordance with law, in strict conformity with
the applicable Rules, Regulations and/or Notifications.
The deviant industry may be penalised by an imposition of
heavy penalty on the principle of ‘polluter pays’ and the
cost of restoration of environment may be recovered from
it.
64. The question in this case is, whether a unit
contributing to the economy of the country and providing
livelihood to hundreds of people, which has been set up
pursuant to requisite approvals from the concerned
statutory authorities, and has applied for ex post facto
EC, should be closed down for the technical irregularity
of want of prior environmental clearance, pending the
issuance of EC, even though it may not cause pollution
and/or may be found to comply with the required norms.
The answer to the aforesaid question has to be in the
negative, more so when the HSPCB was itself under the
misconception that no environment clearance was
required for the units in question. HSPCB has in its
counter affidavit before the NGT clearly stated that a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
decision was taken to regularize units such as the Apcolite
Yamuna Nagar and Pahwa Yamuna Nagar Units, since
requisite approvals had been granted to those units, by
the concerned authorities on the misconception that no EC
was required.
65. It is reiterated that the 1986 Act does not
prohibit ex post facto EC. Some relaxations and even
grant of ex post facto EC in accordance with law, in strict
compliance with Rules, Regulations, Notifications and/or
applicable orders, in appropriate cases, where the
projects are in compliance with environment norms, is not
impermissible. As observed by this Court in Electrosteel
Steels Limited (supra), this Court cannot be oblivious to
the economy or the need to protect the livelihood of
hundreds of employees and others employed in the units
and dependent on the units in their survival.
66. Ex post facto EC should not ordinarily be
granted, and certainly not for the asking. At the same time
ex post facto clearances and/or approvals cannot be
declined with pedantic rigidity, regardless of the
consequences of stopping the operations. This Court is of
the view that the NGT erred in law in directing that the
units cannot be allowed to function till compliance of the
statutory mandate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
67. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The
impugned order is set aside in so far as the same is
applicable to the units of the Appellants established and
operated pursuant to CTE and CTO from the HSPCB in
respect of which applications for ex post facto EC have
been filed. The Respondent shall take a decision on the
applications of the Appellants for EC in accordance with
law within one month from date. Pending decision, the
operation of the Pahwa Yamuna Nagar Unit and the
Apcolite Yamuna Nagar Unit, in respect of which consents
have been granted and even public hearing held in
connection with grant of EC, shall not be interfered with.”
19. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.6241 & 15572 of 2014, being
the Educational Institutions, are entitled to get the benefit of exemption
from obtaining the environmental clearance for the buildings constructed
even before the notification No.S.O.3252 (E) dated 22.12.2014 and the
subsequent notification dated 19.05.2022.
20. In view of the above, the entire proceedings cannot be
sustained as against the petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.6241 & 15572 of
2014, and the same are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
proceedings in C.C.No.46 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore, and the proceedings in C.C.No.3 of
2014 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Sriperumbudur, are hereby quashed.
21. In result, the Criminal Original Petitions in
Crl.O.P.Nos.9182, 10781, 12111, 12190, 12499, 14660, 15563, 17323,
17326, 24125 & 31654 of 2014, 8463, Crl.O.P.Nos. 8464 & 18137 of
2016 and Crl.O.P.No.2498 of 2017 are dismissed and the Criminal
Original Petitions in Crl.O.P.Nos.6241 & 15572 of 2014 are allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
22.12.2023
Internet: Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.VII,
Coimbatore.
2. The Judicial Magistrate,
Sriperumbudur.
3. The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Coimbatore (South)
42-D, S.N.R.College Road,
Peelamedu, Coimbatore – 641 004.
Coimbatore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2014 etc.,
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
rts
COMMON ORDER IN
Crl.O.P.Nos. 6241, 9182, 10781, 12111, 12190, 12499, 14660,
15563, 15572, 17323, 17326, 24125 & 31654 of 2014
8463, 8464 & 18137 of 2016 and 2498 of 2017
M.P.No.1 of 2014 (13 Nos.) M.P.No.2 of 2014 (3 Nos.)
Crl.M.P.Nos. 4411 to 4413, 8611 of 2016 and 1752 & 1753 of 2017
22.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
