The Hindu : Tamil Nadu News : Petition against public hearings on Sethu project dismissed

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Dec 18, 2004

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu

Petition against public hearings on Sethu project dismissed

By A. Subramani

CHENNAI, DEC. 17. The Madras High Court today dismissed a writ petition against public hearings on the Sethusamudram Shipping Channel Project as premature and directed Collectors of six coastal districts to complete the hearings expeditiously.

The petition by the Coastal Action Network sought to declare the hearings as "not in compliance with the requirements of law." The First Bench comprising the Chief Justice, Markandey Katju, and Justice N.V. Balasubramanian said: "This writ petition is premature and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The public hearings were going on when this petition was filed, and no adverse orders have yet been passed against anyone. A cause of action arises only when an adverse order has been passed or some action is taken adversely affecting someone's right. Since no adverse orders have been passed nor action taken against anyone as yet, we fail to understand how this writ petition can be entertained at this stage. The petitioner has rushed to this court to block a project which is in national interest."

The judges further said, "it is evident that the project would be of great benefit to the country, because at present ships have to go around Sri Lanka to reach the Bay of Bengal. By dredging a canal in the Palk Strait, huge expense and a lot of time would be saved. The distance, time and money, which will be saved by the shipping industry, can certainly augment business and traffic in the Tuticorin Port and other coastal areas."

Fiat to Collectors

Disposing of the other petition filed by the Tuticorin Port Trust for early completion of public hearings in the six coastal districts, the judges said: "This prayer is an appropriate one. We direct that the public hearings as contemplated in IV Schedule of the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification dated January 27, 1994, as amended, be completed expeditiously, if not already completed. And the reports with the minutes be sent to the Ministry of Environment and Forests. We direct that further action be taken forthwith by the authorities concerned, in accordance with law, so that the project can be completed as expeditiously as possible."

`No conflict'

The Bench observed that in the name of environment protection, scientific and technical progress of the country should not be obstructed. "No doubt environment has to be protected, but at the same time, we must never overlook the basic aim of our country, which is to make India a powerful and modern industrial State."

Decrying the attitude that the "environment must be protected, even by closing down industries," the Bench said, "there is no conflict between industrialisation and environment protection." Pointing out that rivers, air and water in industrialised nations were less polluted, the Bench said, "industrialisation not only creates wealth necessary for preserving and protecting environment, but also creates the modern mind in which protecting the environment is instilled in childhood."

The judges made it clear that restrictions and regulations were necessary to protect environment from greedy forest contractors, unscrupulous businessmen and hazardous industries. "Our main aim must be to rapidly industrialise. Protection of environment must be regarded only as incidental to this main aim. The massive unemployment in our country can also be eradicated by rapid industrialisation," they said.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Tamil Nadu