Begin typing your search...
Court dismisses PIL challenging direction on Environmental Clearance
The Madras High Court has closed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) moved by Voice of Nature (VoN) seeking to quash the direction given by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) to curtail the two-step process of granting environment clearance to one by deeming the environmental certificate as consent to establish (CTE) the industry.
By
migrator
migrator
Chennai
A division bench comprising Justice Vineet Kothari and Justice R Suresh Kumar before whom the plea moved by VoN came up said, “We are satisfied that no cause of action has, actually, arisen to the petitioner or any Public Cause has arisen to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
“The direction of the CPCB appears to have been issued in exercise of powers conferred to the Board under Section 18 of the Act to reduce the delays caused in issuing the Environmental Clearance and CTE under the Pollution Control Enactments, No Statutoryprovisions nor procedural requirements have been cut down by the CPCB, nor in our opinion, it amounts to any amendment of law by CPCB,” the bench said.
It also noted “Since no prejudice is said to have been caused to any public and therefore, no case for invoking the PIL jurisdiction is made out. The Court cannot undertake the academic interpretation of the Statues unless a cause of action is shown to have arisen when a public cause is espoused by any individual or Society.”
“Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and the PIL Writ Petition is dismissed,” the benchadded.
VoN through its PIL had contended that the CPCB’s direction that for industries requiring Environmental Clearance (EC), issuing of consent by TNPCBs/PCCs shall be one step process and Environmental Clearance will be deemed as CTE in such cases.
It was argued that the direction was totally contrary to Section 25 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, which held that no person shall, without the previous consent of the State Board establish or take any steps to set any industry, which is likely to discharge sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well or sewer or on land.
Minimum age limit for district judges: HC refuses to intervene
The Madras High Court has refused to intervene in a plea that sought to quash the prescription of minimum age of 35 years as eligibility to be appointed as district judge by direct recruitment.
The first bench comprising Chief Justice AP Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad was passing orders on a plea moved by S Murugan that sought to quash the age prescription in column 3 in the Schedule to Rule 5 of Tamil Nadu Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007.
It was contended that there was no rational for prescription of minimum age of 35 years, as it clearly discriminates between those who have completed seven years of practice but have not completed 35 years of age and those who have completed seven years of practice and have also completed 35 years of age.
However, the bench cited a Supreme Court judgement regarding prescription of age limit and said,
“We may further add that 35 years of minimum age to us appears to have been fixed keeping in view
the stage of maturity of mind of the person who has to occupy the office of the district judge (entry level).”
Based on this, the bench closed the petition after holding that the age prescription being a matter of policy, there was no such discrimination as pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner.
“In such circumstances, we find no legal infirmity in the light of the judgment of the apex court or any rational infirmity for interfering in the matter of prescription of either minimum or maximum age,” the bench added.
Visit news.dtnext.in to explore our interactive epaper!
Download the DT Next app for more exciting features!
Click here for iOS
Click here for Android
Next Story
