Wednesday, May 28, 2003
Wednesday, May 28, 2003 |
| Southern States | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Southern States
-
Tamil Nadu
By A. Subramani
Justice P. Sathasivam granted the interim injunction on a petition filed by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority against the April 22 notification and posted it for June 26, to be heard along with other PILs challenging the State Government move to demolish the Queen Mary's College here. (On April 6, a single judge granted an interim injunction restraining the Government from giving effect to its demolition plans announced on April 4. After being transferred to the First Bench, the matter was argued for about three days before the orders were reserved on April 10. Meanwhile, the Centre came out with the impugned notification on April 22 amending the Coastal Regulation Zone Rules. As the Additional Solicitor-General of India brought the notification to the knowledge of the court and sought to make submissions, they were posted for June 25). When the present petition came up today, the Advocate-General, N.R. Chandran, said the notification violated Rule 5 of the Environmental Protection Rules, which required that a public notice should have been published in the gazette along with a brief description and an invitation of objection within 60 days. Though the Centre could dispense with the public notice, when there was a valid reason, the requirement about specifications of the area or reasons for the notification could not be dispensed with, he said. Also, the Rule made it clear that it could apply only in respect of an industry and not for non-industrial operations. The notification was vitiated by malafide, he said, adding that the Union Minister concerned had `misused his power'. Flaying the "timing of the order" and the "haste with which it was issued", Mr. Chandran said the motive was not to protect the environment but to stall the State's plan to construct a Secretariat complex. The order, issued when the matter was in court, would amount to interference with the course of justice. The Additional Solicitor-General of India, V.T. Gopalan, said there was no urgency for an interim injunction and the balance of convenience was absolutely not in favour of the State. Questioning the locus standi of the CMDA, Mr. Gopalan wondered how the implementing authority, created under the statute, could challenge the notification. "If the agency challenges the notification instead of implementing it, then it sounds the death-knell of administration", he remarked. What prejudice would be caused to the State if a stay was not granted, Mr. Gopalan asked. Referring to Mr. Chandran's allegation that the notification was QMC-centric, the ASGI offered to place all relevant documents before the court. To this, the Advocate-General said, "There will be nothing in writing. No fool will keep such things in writing". R. Vaigai, said a stay would have a cascading effect on the national environment scene as the notification covered over 6,000 km of coastal area. Counsel for the Citizen, Consumer and Civic Action Group (CAG), Mohan, said a stay would have a much greater impact, as Tamil Nadu alone had a 1000-km coast line.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
