1. Krishna Nagar and Kennedy Valley Welfare Association and various other residents of the area filed bunch petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Madras seeking mandamus that the stone-crusher and stone-quarries operating in close vicinity to the residential area be directed to be closed.
2. Learned Single Judge of the High Court appointed an Expert Committee consisting of Dr. S. Narayan, IAS., Secretary to Government, Environment and Forests Departments, Madras, Mr. N.S. Tiwana, Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board and Mr. Desigavinayagam Pillai, Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to inspect the area and submit a Report.
3. The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court accepted the Report of the Committee and allowed the Writ Petition in the following terms.
As a result of my discussion, as above, lam satisfied that it is a fit case in which a direction must issue to the respondent-State of Tamil Nadu to implement the recommendations of the Expert Committee dated 3.7.1991 on stone quarrying and crushing operation at Kennedy Valley and Krishna Nagar in Thirusoolam area, submitted before this Court pursuant to the order of this Court dated 30.11.1990 and not to allow any quarrying or crushing operation close to the residential area and within 500 meters of the residential area. Accordingly, all the existing crushers must be stopped from operating within 500 meters of the periphery of the Kennedy Valley and Krishna Nagar residential quarters. They, however may be considered for such license/permission only if they operate within the safe zone and thus not within 500 meters of any residential area and adopt pollution control measures recommended by the National Productivity Council. New Delhi, that is to say, enclosing the jaw crusher and the screens so as to contain dust and noise and making arrangements for suppress dust as well as air pollution control measures to the satisfaction of the Pollution Control Board. No quarrying of blue metal shall be permitted within 500 meters of the residential area and permitted only if they are beyond the limit of 500 meters of the residential area and strictly follow the procedures required by the Mines and Safety regulations. Such quarrying, however, can be allowed by the respondent-State only at such- places and in such area which do not in any manner endanger human life and if there is any likelihood of danger to any grass or plant. In such cases the state Government after satisfying about the requirement of the community at large may surrender the need of the environment to a limited extent.
I have not been able to appreciate why the respondent Collector of the District and the state Government have not shown necessary concern for granting licence/ permit for quarrying operation, when the owner thereof have indicated that they would abide by all the conditions that may be imposed and that they will not violate the norms indicated above. If there is any loss of revenue on that account and the need of the community is not fulfilled, the responsibility shall be entirely that of the Government of the State. It will thus be in the interests of the public that such applications are immediately attended and disposed of as early as possible in accordance with law. It is accordingly directed that any application for stone quarrying pending with the state Government shall be disposed of as quickly as possible but not later than I month from the date of service of a copy of this order.
In the result W.P. Nos. 14930 and 14931 of 1989 are allowed in the terms as above. There shall be no order as to costs.
4. The Writ Appeals filed by the Quarry-owners against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the ban so far as it related to the operation of quarries was reduced from 500 meters to 50 meters. This appeal by the residents of the locality are against the Judgement of the Division Bench.
5. We have examined the recommendations of the Committee, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge rightly accepted the report of the Committee and issued the directions banning operation of Stone-Crushers and quarries within the radius of 500 meters of the residential area. The Division Bench was not justified in reducing the area restriction from 500 meters to 50 meters in respect of the quarries. The Division Bench also issued further directions in modification of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge which were not warranted in the facts of the case.
6. We, therefore, allow the appeal to set-aside the impugned Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and restore that of the learned Single Judge. No costs.