The Madras High Court recently observed that public interest litigation, at times, are filed for a different purpose than what they are meant for and especially when it is taken up against the industry, even issuance of notice may have repercussion.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed a PIL filed by one G.Raman seeking a direction on the respondents to close the sugar mill situated at Kalaiyanallur Village, Sankarapuram Taluk, Kallakurichi District for protecting waterbodies in different survey numbers.
S.Mohamed Ansar , counsel for the petitioner submitted the tenth respondent running the sugar mill in violation of the Government Order dated 8.5.1998, thus, should be closed to protect the environment.
While considering the PIL the Court held that though learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the Government Order dated 8.5.1998, but has failed to refer the relevant para which is offended by the tenth respondent.
The Court noted that it is not the allegation of the petitioner that the tenth respondent is discharging polluted water in the water bodies. It is also noted by the Court that the tenth respondent has established the industry in the year 2007 and at that time the petitioner did not raise any objection. How the petitioner is raising objection now after the delay of more than 15 years remained unexplained.
“The public interest litigation, at times, is filed for different purpose than the purpose which is meant and especially when it is taken up against the industry, even issuance of notice may have repercussion. The petitioner has not disclosed even otherwise source of his income, but has shown to be a social activist only”, observed the High Court.
Taking the overall facts into consideration and finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed by the Bench.