http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  411 of 2007

PETITIONER: Parthiban Blue Metal Etc.

RESPONDENT: The Member Secy. T.N. Polln.Cont. Bd. & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/02/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 19774-19782 of 2005)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.  

Leave granted.         In these appeals challenge is to the order passed by a  Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the writ  petitions filed by the appellants.           Background facts as projected by the appellants are as  follows:         Various stone crushing units were being operated by the  appellants in Trisoolam Village, Kanjipuram District, Tamil  Nadu. According to the appellants they had obtained "no  objection certificate" from the Tehsildar, Divisional Fire Officer  and the Panchayat Union for the purpose of running the units.   After Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (in  short the ’Water Act’)] and the Air (Prevention and Control of  Pollution) Act, 1981 (in short the ’Air Act’) came into force  appellants applied for consent from the concerned authorities  under these Acts.  Considering the applications the District  Environmental Engineer called for some particulars and  appellants were required to remit a sum of Rs.1750/- each  towards consent fee under the Acts, which was also paid.   Appellants were granted permission by the Commissioner,  Panchayat Union for construction of a shed and installation of  25 HP Electric Motor to run the units and as per the approved  plan the shed was constructed and business was being carried  out. The Principal Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control  Board  (in short the ’Board’) issued notice to each of the  appellants requiring shifting to alternative sites since the units  were located at about 325 meters from the residential colony.   Appellants gave their reply stating that the units were  operating since 1972 and in fact they were located in the non- urban zone.  Some writ petitions were filed by the Krishna  Nagar Welfare Association and Kennedy Valley Welfare  Association. Since there were various reports, which were  somewhat contradictory to each other, Civil Appeal No. 6742  of 2001 and W.P. (C) 2594 of 1999 were disposed of by this  Court with certain directions. The Industries Department of  the State Government issued G.O.Ms.  No. 13 dated 22.1.2002  wherein it was declared as follows:         "In the order first read above, in adherence to  the Supreme Court Order in C.A. No. 10732/95,  the Government issued amendment to Rule  36(1) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession  Rules, 1959 to the effect that no quarrying shall  be done within a radial distance of 500 metres  from inhabited site.  The position was also

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

informed to Supreme Court of India in  connection with S.L.P.(C) No. 13564/98."

The District Environmental Officer issued a notice to  each of the appellant observing that their units were located  within 500 meters from the residential area and therefore,  penal action was called for.  A Writ Petition (Writ Petition No.  35855 of 2003) was filed before the High Court alleging  pollution because of the activities of the stone crushing units.   The appellants challenged the notices/orders issued by the  Board.  The High Court dismissed the same holding that the  action initiated by the Board was justified.   During the hearing of the cases on 13.11.2006, the  following order was passed:         "Our attention has been drawn to the notice  dated 11 March, 1994 issued to one of the  petitioners, M/s. Rathnam Blue Metals, which  states that the units is located at about 325  meters from Krishna Nagar against  the limit of  500 meters from residential area. The contention   of the petitioners is that now the limit has been  reduced to 300 meters and, therefore,  their  unit  is located within the permissible distance.  It is  further submitted that all the units are  in  adjoining  sites and are beyond the distance of  300 meters from residential area.  The  respondent-Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board  is directed to verify the factual scenario and file  an affidavit within four weeks."

An affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondent  Nos.1 & 2 Board annexing a map and giving the following  details. Name of the Nine Stone Crushing Units and its Distance  from Approved Habitation: Sl.No. NAME DISTANCE 1. PARTHIBAN BLUE METAL 330 M 2. GEETHA BLUE METAL 352 M 3. VETRIVELAN BLUE METAL 379 M 4. RATHNA BLUE METAL 386 M 5. LOGANAYAKI BLUE METAL 376 M 6. STAR BLUE METAL 442 M 7. ADHILAKSHMI BLUE METAL 447 M 8. VASUPEVAN  BLUE METAL 454 M 9. SIVA BLUE METAL 510 M

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears  that the factual position was not examined in detail by the  High Court.  The affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1 & 2  alongwith the map before this Court throw some light on the  controversy.  In the circumstances, we think it appropriate to  remit the matter to the High Court to consider the effect of the  affidavit and the map.  It goes without saying that the parties  shall be permitted to place materials in support of their   irrespective stand so that the High Court can consider the  issues involved.  We make it clear that we have not expressed  any opinion on the merit.  The appeals are accordingly  disposed of without any orders as to costs.