MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on Friday suspended the Tenkasi collectorate’s construction work undertaken by the Public Works Department (PWD) for a month as the PWD failed to get prior environmental clearance for the project.
A Bench comprising Justices PN Prakash and R Hemalatha further directed the State-level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) to expeditiously dispose of the application given by the PWD on June 15, 2022, seeking environmental clearance.
The directions were issued on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by SP Muthu Raman of Tirunelveli seeking to stop the construction and initiate criminal action against the PWD Executive Engineer who proceeded with the works without obtaining environmental clearance and consent to establish (CTE).
Raman submitted in the petition that as per Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification, 2006, in order to construct a new building measuring between 20,000 and 1.5 lakh square metres, prior environmental clearance and CTE should be obtained from the SEIAA and Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB). But the Executive Engineer of the Building Construction and Maintenance Division of Tirunelveli PWD failed to get the permissions for constructing the Tenkasi collectorate and nearly 75% of the works have been completed so far, he alleged.
A communication submitted by SEIAA on Friday also confirmed the litigant’s allegation. The report said that the construction works began in January this year before obtaining prior approval. Though the board issued a show cause notice to the department in May, the department did not give a reply and continued with the project, the report added.
Hence, the project proposal has been listed as a case involving a violation of the Environment Act, 1986, and a letter has been sent to the State Environment department recommending action against the violation, SEIAA further said.
Recording it, the judges disposed of the PIL with the above directions. With regard to the litigant’s request seeking criminal action against the official, the judges said the court could not issue such an order as alternative remedies are available to the litigant.