{"id":30472,"date":"2005-09-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-09-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamatchi-vs-the-chairman-on-22-september-2005"},"modified":"2015-11-22T04:52:21","modified_gmt":"2015-11-21T23:22:21","slug":"kamatchi-vs-the-chairman-on-22-september-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamatchi-vs-the-chairman-on-22-september-2005","title":{"rendered":"Kamatchi vs The Chairman on 22 September, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Kamatchi vs The Chairman on 22 September, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDated: 22\/09\/2005\n\nCoram:\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM\nand\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN\n\n\nWrit Petition No. 4655 of 2005\nWrit Petition No.7020 of 2005\nand\nWPMP No. 4984 and 7625 of 2005\n\n\nKamatchi.\t\t\t.. Petitioner in both W.Ps.\n\n\nVs.\n\n\n1. The Chairman,\n   Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,\n   Chennai.\n\n2. The District Collector,\n   Ramanathapuram District,\n   Ramanathapuram.\n\n3. The District Environmental Engineer,\n   Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board,\n   6\/26, Gangai Street,\n   Madurai Road, Virudhunagar.\n\n4. M\/s. Regency Power Corporation Ltrd.,\n   Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033,\n   Andhra Pradesh.\n\n\n                      .. Respondents in W.P.No.4655\/2005.<\/pre>\n
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
\n   represented by its Secretary,
\n   The Environment and Forest Department,
\n   St. George Fort, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Member Secretary,
\n   Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
\n   Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
3. The District Collector,
\n   Ramanathapuram District,
\n   Ramanathapuram.\n<\/p>\n
4. The District Environmental Engineer,
\n   Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board,
\n   6\/26, Gangai Street,
\n   Madurai Road, Virudhunagar.\n<\/p>\n
5. M\/s. Regency Power Corporation Ltrd.,
\n   Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500 033,
\n   Andhra Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n
                     .. Respondents in W.P.No.7020\/2005.\n<\/p>\n
                Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
\nof India (i) to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from
\npermitting the 4th respondent to commission the power plant at Kalugooranii
\nvillage, Ramanathapuram District, without conducting public hearing afresh in
\naccordance with G.O.Ms.No. 487 Environment and Forest (EC III) dated 22-12-1997
\nso as to enable the residents of the village to put forth their objections; and\n<\/p>\n
(ii) to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order
\npassed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings L.R.No.T11\/TNPCB\/f.792\/RMD\/2005
\ndated 28-06-2005 granting no objection certificate for setting up of Thermal
\nPower Plant and quash the same as illegal.\n<\/p>\n
!For petitioner in both WPs\t: \tMr. M. Ajmal Khan.\n<\/p>\n
^For respondents\t\t:\tMr. A.L. Somayaji, Senior counsel
\n\t\t\t\t\tfor Mrs. Rita Chandrasekar for Pollution Control
\n     \t\t\t\t\tBoard.\n<\/p>\n
                        \t\tMr. S. Karthikeyan for R-5
\n\t\t\t     \t\tin Writ Petition.7020\/2005, and for R-4 in
\n\t\t\t     \t\tWrit Petition.4655 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t                        Mr. C. Selvaraj, Govt.,Advocate
\n     \t\t\t\t\tfor R1 and R3 in W.P.7020\/2005; and for R-2 in
\n     \t\t\t\t\tW.P.No.4655\/2005.\n<\/p>\n
:COMMON ORDER<\/p>\n
(Order of Court was made by P. Sathasivam, J.,)<\/p>\n
              By consent of all the parties, these writ petitions are taken up
\nfor disposal.  In W.P.No.4655\/2005 one Kamatchi, an agriculturist and resident
\nof Kalugoorani village, Ramanathapuram District seeks to issue a writ of
\nMandamus forbearing Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, District Collector and
\nDistrict Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
\nVirudhunagar from permitting Messrs. Regency Power Corporation Ltd., to
\ncommission power plant at Kalugoorani village, Ramanathapuram District without
\nconducting public hearing afresh in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 487 Environment
\nand Forest (EC III) dated    22-12-1997 so as to enable the residents of the
\nvillage to put forth their objections.\n<\/p>\n
          2. The very same petitioner in W.P.No.7020\/2005 challenges the order
\npassed by Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai in his
\nproceedings L.R.No.T11\/TNPCB\/f.792\/RMD\/2005 dated 28-6-2005, granting no
\nobjection certificate for setting up of Thermal Power Plant and quash the same
\nas illegal.\n<\/p>\n
                 3. The case of the petitioner in both the writ petitions are
\nbriefly stated hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
     According to him, Kalugoorani is a small village situate on the
\nRamanathapuram-Rameshwaram Road in Ramanathapuram District.  The entire village
\ndepends on agriculture.  The village has a plenty of good ground water.  The
\nvillagers have come to know of setting up of Thermal power plant by M\/s. Regency
\nPower Corporation Limited, a private limited company at Kalugoorani village.
\nThe District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
\nVirudhunagar published a public notice in the Newspaper for a public hearing
\nscheduled to be held on 15-4-2005 in the Office of the District Collector. The
\nsaid public notice invited objections, if any from the general public against
\nsetting up of power plant at Kalugoorani village.  M\/s. Regency Power
\nCorporation Limited appears to have purchased land to an extent of 7.99 hectares
\nin various survey numbers at Kalugoorani village, Ramanathapuram Taluk with an
\nintent to set up natural gas based Thermal Power Plant in the said village.  The
\nproposed site for Thermal Power plant situates within the vicinity of
\nresidential locality,  thus exposing danger to the residents of Kalugoorani
\nvillage.  In the event of allowing to set up power plant, the agriculture, the
\nonly occupation of the villagers will be affected. Hence, the petitioner and
\nother residents of that village attended the public hearing on 15-3-2005.
\nHowever, on account of protest from the villagers leading to a mess, the
\nDistrict Collector closed the public hearing abruptly and announced the
\nparticipants that no decision will be taken against the interest of the
\nvillagers.\n<\/p>\n
                 4. The public hearing is mandatory in so far as the industries
\nor projects covered in Schedule (I) of Environmental Impact Assessment
\nNotification, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as EIA Notification).  The State
\nGovernment in furtherance of the said notification issued in G.O.Ms.No. 487
\nEnvironmental and Forest (EC.III) dated 22-12-1997 constituting a public hearing
\npanel for Ramanathapuram District.  The panel consists of Joint Chief
\nEnvironmental Engineer\/District Environmental Engineer, District Collector,
\nDeputy Secretary\/Under Secretary to Government (Environmental and Forest
\nDepartment) and Director of Environment and 5 persons including M.L.A. and the
\nPresident of Panchayat.  In the public hearing conducted by the District
\nCollector on 15-3-2005, the District Collector, Director of Environmental
\nEngineer and 3 persons from the locality alone were participated and the
\nDirector of Environment and the Deputy Secretary to the Government being members
\nof the public hearing panel were conspicuous by their absence.  Further, the
\npublic hearing was terminated immediately on the protest from the villagers.
\nHowever, the Government and the Pollution Control Board were influenced by the
\nRegency Power Corporation for issuance of clearance certificate.  At this state,
\nthe petitioner filed W.P.No. 4655\/2005.  Pending disposal of the said writ
\npetition, the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai in
\nhis proceedings dated 28-6-2005 granted no objection certificate for setting up
\nof Thermal Power Plant with capacity 58 M.W. To produce Electrical Energy at
\nKalugoorani village.  Questioning the same, the petitioner has filed the
\nsubsequent writ petition, namely, W.P.No. 7020\/2005.  Though the District
\nEnvironmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board\/4th respondent in
\nW.P.No.7020\/2005 submitted a report dated 28-03-2005 that if the Thermal Power
\nPlant is put up at the same location without any modification, it shall give
\nhindrance to the public life.  The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution
\nControl Board has chosen to issue no objection certificate to Regency Power
\nCorporation. The Pollution Control Board has not complied with the Government
\nOrder in respect of public hearing and granted permission to locate the power
\nplant which is situated in residential locality of Bharathidhasan Nagar; hence
\ngrant of no objection certificate without considering the village of the public
\nis illegal and liable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
                5. Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has
\nfiled a counter affidavit for himself and for Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution
\nControl Board in W.P.No. 4655\/2005 wherein it is stated that the Unit of M\/s.
\nRegency Power Corporation Limited, Kalugoorani, Ramanathapuram Taluk is a
\nproposed Natural Gas based Power plant. The unit has applied for the consent of
\nthe Board on 03-01-2005 and furnished the additional particulars on 10-02-2005.
\nSince the Unit is a Thermal power plant with investment of Rs.185.40 crores, it
\nattracts the provisions of the EIA Notification, 1994.  As per the said
\nnotification amended on 10-4-1997 public hearing has been made as mandatory for
\nthe projects attracting the EIA Notification.  As per the procedure, the Tamil
\nNadu Pollution Control Board caused notice for environmental public hearing
\nwhich was published in two news papers viz., Indian Express and Dinathanthi on
\n12-2-2005.  The public hearing meeting was held on     15-3-2005 at 3.30 P.M. at
\nDistrict Collector’s chamber, Ramanathapuram. The Government of Tamil Nadu in
\nits G.O.Ms.No. 487 Environment and Forests (EC-III) Department dated 22-12-1997
\nand Government letter No. 75 E and F (EC-3) Department dated 21-3-1998 had
\nconstituted public hearing panels for each districts in Tamil Nadu. The
\nGovernment of Tamil Nadu in its G.O.Ms.No. 37 Environment and Forests Department
\n(EC-3) dated 18-2-2002 constituted the revised Committee for Public Hearing
\nPanel for Ramanathapuram District among other districts in supersession of the
\norders issued in G.O., dated 22-12-1997 and Government letter dated 21-3-1998.
\nThe public hearing on 15-3-2005 for the unit of M\/s. Regency Power Corporation
\nLimited was conducted by the Public hearing panel reconstituted vide G.O., dated
\n18-2-2002.  The public hearing panel has completed the said public hearing and
\nfurnished the minutes of the said hearing to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control
\nBoard.  The public hearing was conducted and completed as per the procedure
\nstipulated in the EIA Notification.  The subject to grant of ‘NOC’ to the said
\nunit was placed before the Board along with the minutes of the public hearing in
\nits meeting on 22-6-2005.  The Board resolved to approve the grant of NOC to the
\nunit subject to the conditions and one of the conditions is that the unit shall
\nleave a buffer zone of 150 metres from the Bharadasan Nagar and Kalugoorani
\nhabitation. As per the EIA Notification as amended on 10-4-1997, the unit has to
\nobtain environmental clearance from the State Government.  Consent for
\nestablishment will be issued to the unit only after the unit obtains the
\nenvironmental clearance and furnishes the same to the Board and hence consent
\nfor establishment has not been issued to the unit.\n<\/p>\n
                6. Member Secretary, Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai-
\n32 has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the Pollution Control Board and
\nDistrict Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
\nVirudhunagar in W.P.No. 7020\/2005.  Apart from the information furnished in the
\ncounter filed in W.P.No. 4655\/2005, the Member Secretary has stated that  the
\npublic hearing was conducted for the unit of M\/s. Regency Power Corporation
\nLimited on 15-3-2005 by the public hearing panel panel reconstituted vide G.O.
\nDated 18-2-2002.  In the said meeting, Thiru K. Sellamuthu, I.A.S., District
\nCollector, Ramanathapuram, Thiru C. Muthukani, District Environmental Engineer
\nin-charge Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Virudhunagar, Dr. T. Aravindaraj,
\nThiru M. Jeyakumar, Municipal Councillor, Ramanathapuram, Thiru S.P. Kalimuthu,
\nChairman, Kamudhi Panchayat Union and Thiru M.K.K. Thangamarakkayar alias Se-Ku,
\nAbdul Kadar, Chairman, Mandapam Town Panchayat participated. The unit requires
\n245 KLD of water for its activities.  It had identified a water drawal source at
\nS.No. 60 Achundavayal village which is about 14 KM away from the project site.
\nThe Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Ground Water Division,
\nKaraikudi has recommended that the said source is suitable for bore location.
\nThe unit has been stipulated to provide mechanical evaporator to dispose the
\nR.O. Reject.  The unit proposes to treat the other sources of effluent and
\nutilise on land for irrigation. The unit uses natural gas as fuel. Hence the
\nlevel of air pollutants suspended particulate matter and sulphur dioxide will be
\nless.  However, there will be oxides of nitrogen in its emission.  The unit
\nproposes to control the said emission by water spraying and through the process
\ncontrol.\n<\/p>\n
                 7. The southern side of the unit Kalugoorani village is located
\nat a distance of about 110m. At the north eastern side Bharahidasan Nagar hamlet
\nis located at the boundary.  At the west direction coconut trees and irrigation
\nfields are located. At the northern direction paddy fields, irrigation lands are
\nlocated. At the eastern direction, agricultural lands are located.  The
\nrespondent unit proposes a buffer zone around the unit’s boundary to develop
\ngreen belt.  The Board resolved to approve the grant of NOC to the unit subject
\nto the conditions and one of the conditions is that the unit shall leave a
\nbuffer zone of 150 metres from the Bharathidasan Nagar and Kalugoorani
\nhabitation. The Board issued ‘NOC’ to the unit vide letter dated 28-6-2005. As
\nper the EIA Notification, the unit has to obtain environmental clearance from
\nthe State Government. The public hearing had been conducted as stipulated in the
\nEIA Notification.  Based on the views expressed in the public hearing, the
\nrespondent unit has been requested to furnish additional particular.  After, the
\nunit assured to provide buffer zone around the unit, the subject was placed
\nbefore the Board and the Board resolved to approve the grant of NOC.\n<\/p>\n
            8. The authorised signatory of M\/s. Regency Power Corporation filed
\na counter affidavit reiterating the steps taken by them.\n<\/p>\n
              9. Heard Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner in
\nboth the writ petitions; Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel for Pollution
\nControl Board and Environmental Engineer; Mr. C. Selvaraj, learned Government
\nAdvocate for Government and District Collector, Ramanathapuram; and Mr. S.
\nKarthikeyan, learned counsel for M\/s. Regency Power Corporation, Hyderabad.\n<\/p>\n
              10. Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, learned counsel appearing for the
\npetitioner, after taking us through the relevant particulars, raised the
\nfollowing contentions:\n<\/p>\n
Considering the nature of the unit being established by the Regency Power
\nCorporation, the Government\/District Collector and the Pollution Control Board
\nhave to conduct public hearing in the manner as provided under Environmental
\nImpact Assessment Notification (EIA Notification), 1994, issued under G.O.Ms.No.
\n487 – Environment and Forests (EC-III)Department dated 22-12-1997. Since no
\neffective public hearing was held and in accordance with the said Government
\nOrder, the grant of ‘No Objection Certificate’ (‘NOC’ in short) in favour of
\nRegency Power Corporation cannot be sustained.  He also contended that the
\nGovernment and the Pollution Control Board have to take note of the complaints
\nof the residents of the locality of their right to life guaranteed under Article
\n21 of the Constitution of India.  The Pollution Control Board failed to take
\nnote of their report dated 28-3-2005 of their own officer, namely, District
\nEnvironmental Engineer before granting ‘NOC’.  On the other hand, Mr. A.L.
\nSomayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board,
\nwould submit that public hearing panel was constituted as per the Government
\nOrder and hearing was held on 15-3-2005 in the chamber of the District
\nCollector.  He also contended that the objection raised by the District
\nEnvironmental Engineer have been forwarded to the Regency Power Corporation and
\non their assurance that buffer zone of 150 metres from Bharathidasan Nagar and
\nKalugoorani habitation will be provided, the Board issued NOC.  He also
\nsubmitted that in addition to the same, the unit has to obtain environmental
\nclearance from the State Government and consent for establishment will be issued
\nto the unit only after the unit obtained the environmental clearance and
\nfurnished the same to the Board.  According to him, there is no merit in both
\nthe writ petitions.  The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State
\nGovernment and the District Collector reiterated the same. Learned counsel
\nappearing for the Regency Power Corporation also highlighted that the public
\nhearing panel was validly constituted, that the objections in the public hearing
\nwere considered and in the light of the fulfillment of various conditions by the
\nunit, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board granted ‘NOC’ subject to further
\ncondition of obtaining environmental clearance from the State Government; hence
\nthere is no basis with regard to the apprehension raised by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                11. We have carefully considered the relevant materials and the
\nrival contentions.\n<\/p>\n
             12. The main points to be considered are:\n<\/p>\n
       (i) Whether public hearing was conducted in the manner as provided under
\nEnvironmental Impact Assessment Notification, 1994 issued under G.O.Ms.No. 487
\nEnvironment and Forests Department dated 22-12-1997?\n<\/p>\n
       (ii) Whether the public hearing held on 15-03-2005 satisfies\/fulfills the
\nconditions prescribed in the Notification; and\n<\/p>\n
       (iii) Whether Pollution Control Board is justified in granting ‘NOC’ in
\nthe light of the report dated 28-06-2005?\n<\/p>\n
             13. The Government of India considering the importance of the
\nenvironment, amended the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 1994 (“EIA
\nNotification” in short) in and by which public hearing has been made as
\nmandatory for all the projects covered in Schedule I  of the said Notification.
\nPowers have been delegated to State Department of Environment for issue of
\nenvironmental clearance to those categories of Thermal Power Plants which has
\nbeen listed in Schedule I of the Notification.  The amended Notification will
\napply to all projects which are received after 10th April, 1997.      In order
\nto have proper assessment of the project, after obtaining the views of the
\ngeneral public, the Government of India inter alia, amended the EIA Notification
\ndated 10th April, 1997 for giving effect to public hearing as mandatory for all
\nthe projects covered in Schedule I of the EIA Notification, with effect from 10-
\n4-1997.  In the amended Notification, the Government of India have detailed the
\ncomposition of the Public Hearing Panel in the districts, process for Public
\nHearing, Notice of Public Hearing and access to the executive summary.  The
\ncomposition of public Hearing Panel consists of the following:\n<\/p>\n
           i) Representative of State Pollution Control
\n              Board;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          ii) District Collector or his nominee;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         iii) Representative of State Government
\n              dealing with the subject;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          iv) Representative of Department of the State
\n              Government dealing with Environment;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           v) Not more than three representative of the
\n              local bodies such as Municipalities or
\n              Panchayat;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          vi) Not more than three senior citizens of the
\n              area nominated by the District Collector.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                14. The State Government in furtherance of the EIA Notification
\nissued in G.O.Ms.No. 487, Environment and Forests, dated 22-12-1997, constituted
\na Public Hearing Panel for Ramanathapuram District.  The panel consists of,\n<\/p>\n
        i) Joint Chief Environmental Engineer-\n<\/p>\n
           District Environmental Engineer;\n<\/p>\n
       ii) District Collector;\n<\/p>\n
      iii) Deputy Secretary\/Under Secretary to the
\n           Government, Environment and Forest Department;\n<\/p>\n
       iv) Director of Environment;\n<\/p>\n
        v) 5 persons including M.L.A. and President of
\n           the Panchayat.\n<\/p>\n
As observed earlier, since the Unit, namely, Regency Power Corporation is a
\nThermal Power Plant with investment of Rs.185.40 Crores, it attracts the
\nprovisions of the EIA Notification, 1994.  It is not in dispute that as per the
\nsaid Notification, amended on   10-4-1997, public hearing has been made as
\nmandatory for the projects attracting EIA Notification. As per the procedure for
\npublic hearing as laid down in the Schedule IV of the said notification, the
\nTamil Nadu Pollution Control Board caused notice for public hearing which was
\npublished in two newspapers on 12-2-2005.  The public hearing meeting was held
\non 15-3-2005 at 3.30 P.M. at District Collector’s Chamber, Ramanathapuram. The
\nfollowing members of the public hearing panel had participated in the said
\npublic hearing:\n<\/p>\n
        i) Thiru K. Sellamuthu, I.A.S.,
\n           District Collector,
\n           Ramanathapuram.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       ii) Thiru C. Muthukani, M.E.,
\n           District Environmental Engineer i\/c,
\n           Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board,
\n           Virudhunagar.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      iii) Dr. T. Aravindaraj, M.D.,
\n           M\/s. Kanagamani Clinic,
\n           Ramanathapuram.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       iv) Thiru M. Jeyakumar,
\n           Municipal Councilor,
\n           Ramanathapuram.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        v) Thiru S.P. Kalimuthu,
\n           Chairman,
\n           Kamudhi Panchayat Union.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       vi) Thiru M.K.K. Thangamarakkayar alias
\n           Se-Ku, Abdul Kadar,
\n           Chairman, Mandapam Town Panchayat.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Admittedly, the Director of Environment and the Deputy Secretary to the
\nGovernment being the Members of the public hearing panel were absent.  Though
\nthe State of Tamil Nadu, Environmental and Forest Department is made as a first
\nrespondent and the District Collector as a third respondent in W.P.No.
\n7020\/2005, there is no explanation at all for the absence of these two persons,
\nnamely, Director of Environment and Deputy Secretary to the Government.  No
\ndoubt, Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for Pollution Control
\nBoard, submitted that merely because two persons of the committee were absent,
\nthe decision taken on 15-3-2005 cannot be faulted with.  We are unable to accept
\nthe said contention.  We have already referred to the fact that as per the EIA
\nNotification as amended by the Government of India, constitution of public
\nhearing panel is a mandatory for project clearance and it is but proper the
\ngrievance of public should be heard in the presence of the officers of the
\nconcerned departments.  The absence of Director of Environment and the Deputy
\nSecretary to the Government of the concerned department cannot be viewed lightly
\nin the light of the nature of the project and importance of safety and
\nenvironment of the persons residing in and around the project.  As said earlier,
\nthere is no explanation at all by the State Government and the District
\nCollector, Ramanathapuram for the absence of the two members of public hearing
\npanel in the public hearing conducted by the District Collector on  15-3-2005.\n<\/p>\n
              15. Another relevant aspect highlighted by the petitioner is that
\nthe public hearing that was held on 15-03-2005 at the Collectorate was
\nterminated immediately on the protest by the villagers.  It is also the claim of
\nthe petitioner that the official respondents were influenced by the Regency
\nPower Corporation with issue of clearance certificate to them.  It is also
\nbrought to our notice that in Writ Petition No. 4655 of 2005 the very same
\npetitioner sought for a Mandamus forbearing the respondents from permitting the
\n4th respondent to commission the power plant without conducting public hearing
\nafresh in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 487 dated 22-12-1997 to enable the
\nresidents of the village to put-forth their objections, for which the official
\nrespondents though entered appearance informed this Court that no decision was
\ntaken on the public hearing and therefore no clearance certificate was issued to
\nthe unit.  While so, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the Member
\nSecretary, Pollution Control Board had issued NOC in favour of the Unit on 28-6-
\n2005 for setting up of Thermal Power Plant.  A perusal of the File produced by
\nthe Pollution Control Board also shows that on the date of public hearing i.e.,
\non 15-3-2005, large number of public turned out and protested against the
\nproposed setting up of thermal power plant in their village Kalugoorani.  The
\nFile also discloses that the meeting, conducted on 15-3-2005, was terminated
\nabruptly.  In such a circumstance, it is not clear what was the decision taken
\nby the Public Hearing Panel after deliberation on 15-3-2005; and whether the
\nobjections raised by the public were duly considered or not?  The Pollution
\nControl Board has filed a counter affidavit stating that the Public Hearing
\nPanel had submitted its report and based on the Minutes found therein, the Board
\ngranted ‘NOC’ in favour of the Unit for setting up of thermal power plant. We
\nhave already referred to the fact that though the Public Hearing Panel was
\nconstituted in accordance with the EIA Notification, there is no explanation on
\nthe side of the Government for the absence of the two Members\/Officers of the
\nconcerned departments.  In the light of the above details, particularly the
\nabsence of two Members in the Public Hearing Panel, the serious allegation that
\npublic hearing was terminated abruptly on the protest from the villagers on 15-
\n3-2005 as well as absence of details regarding the decision taken in the public
\nhearing, we sustain the objection raised by the petitioner and hold that the
\npublic hearing, which is mandatory as per the EIA Notification, was not fully
\ncomplied with and implemented by the District Collector, who is the monitoring
\nauthority.\n<\/p>\n
              16. It is relevant to note that after the Public Hearing Panel
\nmeeting, Thiru C. Muthukani, District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu
\nPollution Control Board, Virudhunagar, who also participated in the public
\nhearing, has sent a detailed letter No. DEE\/TNPCBd\/VNR\/F RL-9\/2005 dated 28-3-
\n2005 to the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai-32,
\npointing out certain apprehension and doubts regarding the proposed project.
\nAfter narrating the details furnished by the Unit namely Regency Power
\nCorporation regarding the proposed project, views of the other departments,
\nincluding Forest and Agriculture, and the objection of the public who
\nparticipated, he has concluded thus:\n<\/p>\n
              “On hearing the public’s views the Public Hearing members are on
\nthe conclusion that the public of Kalugoorani Village are objecting to the
\nlocation of the unit.\n<\/p>\n
               Also, I submit the following technical informations for kind
\nperusal.\n<\/p>\n
           i) The unit may generate 1.50 KLD of sewage
\n              and 37.0 KLD of trade effluent<\/p>\n
          ii) The cost of the project is Rs.184.5 Crores.\n<\/p>\n
         iii) The raw water required for the project is
\n              245 KLD.  The unit has informed that the
\n              water will be obtained by digging bore
\n              wells at available locations even away
\n              from the project site.\n<\/p>\n
          iv) The unit has proposed to install 3 Nos. of
\n              machineries for power production (please
\n              see unit’s letter dt.26-2-2005)<\/p>\n
           v) The unit has proposed to provide treatment
\n              systems for sewage and trade effluent<\/p>\n
          vi) Even though the River Vaigai is passing
\n              at a distance of about 740 m, the river
\n              source has been exempted vide Lr.MS.No.\n<\/p>\n
              181 E & F, dt. 19-11-03 of the Secretary
\n              to Government, E & F (EC-III) Dept.,
\n              Secretariat, Chennai as this thermal power
\n              unit has proposed to utilize only Natural
\n              gas as fuel.\n<\/p>\n
         vii) The unit has furnished Patta Transfer
\n              Order obtained from Zonal Deputy Tahsildar,
\n              Ramnad instead of land ownership documents.\n<\/p>\n
        viii) The unit has proposed to provide Rain
\n              Water Harvesting system<\/p>\n
          ix) The unit has earmarked the boundary of the
\n              unit by fixing coloured stones especially
\n              at the village sides and hence area
\n              earmarked for the unit’s activity is
\n              well defined.\n<\/p>\n
           x) From the boundary no distance is available
\n              from the said Bharathidasan Nagar
\n              consisting of about 20 houses located at
\n              North East. About 110m is left between the
\n              Kalugurani Village and the unit’s boundary
\n              at Southern side.\n<\/p>\n
          xi) The unit has furnished a letter dt.19-3-\n<\/p>\n
              2005 ie. After the Public Hearing Meeting
\n              (received in this office on 23-3-2005)
\n              wherein the unit has furnished a drawing
\n              in which the distance between the
\n              Bharathidasan Nagar and the machineries
\n              installation points is 136.94 m and 208 m
\n              respectively.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Further, I submit the following:\n<\/p>\n
           It is learnt that during Boomi Pooja at the project site Public have
\nagitated and gave hindrance to the unit authorities.  Hence, it is felt that the
\npublic may give hindrance to the unit even during initial period.\n<\/p>\n
            It is learnt that the District Collectorate has organized a Peace
\nCommittee Meeting on 14-3-2005 among the Public and entrepreneurs; from the
\nabove the public’s motivation may kindly be understood.\n<\/p>\n
              A complaint has been received in this office on 14-3-2005 wherein
\nthe public have objected the project at the said location.\n<\/p>\n
                Under these circumstances, I submit the following
\nrecommendations-\n<\/p>\n
            1) The unit authorities may be addressed from the Board office to
\nfurnish the following details since the unit authorities have not furnished the
\nsame to this office so far.\n<\/p>\n
                i) To furnish exact distances from the boundary of the unit and
\nto the Bharathidasan Nagar, Sadayan valasai and Kalugurani Village.  The
\ndistance between the above residences and unit’s activities including generator
\nsets, gas storage\/input area, motors, pumps, stacks installation area etc., by
\ntaking a concrete solution.\n<\/p>\n
            ii) Proposal of expansion activities of the project if any and if so
\nthe details of the same.\n<\/p>\n
            iii) Building plans furnished is inadequate and detailed drawings
\nshall be furnished.\n<\/p>\n
             iv) Topo sketch said to be furnished by the unit in many letters
\nhave not been received by this office and the same may be insisted because it
\nwill give some Environmental features and the distances between the
\nmachineries\/boundaries of the unit since the particulars furnished by the unit
\nis inadequate, vague and incomplete shape.\n<\/p>\n
          2) The Public’s views on the project proposal is to be given due
\nrespect.\n<\/p>\n
           3) If the unit is put up at the same location without any
\nmodification it shall give hindrance to the public life.\n<\/p>\n
           4) Based on the unit’s authorities technical informations pointed out
\nin the recommendation as above a decision shall be arrived at.\n<\/p>\n
             5) If the authorities do not come with the clear distance criteria
\namong the unit’s establishment\/machineries\/gas supply point\/motors and
\npumps\/stacks\/administrative buildings\/TNEB provisions for wheeling the
\ncurrent\/Expansion activities\/other facilities etc., No Objection Certificate to
\nthe unit may not be considered.\n<\/p>\n
           This is submitted for favour of kind information and necessary action
\nplease.\n<\/p>\n
Encl: 1) FIR\n<\/p>\n
      2) Copy of minutes of the meeting.\n<\/p>\n
      3) Copies of unit’s letter.\n<\/p>\n
                     (Sd) xx xx
\n       District Environmental Engineer (i\/c)
\n         Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
\n                     Virudhunagar.”\n<\/p>\n
         17. The above letter makes it clear that there was a strong opposition
\nby the public of the village concerned to the location of the unit.  Further,
\nthe Field Officer, namely, District Environmental Engineer has raised certain
\ntechnical objections.  No doubt, based on the report and pursuant to the
\ndirection of the Pollution Control Board, the Power Corporation has submitted
\ncertain information regarding distance between habitants and various machineries
\nto be installed etc. There is no information how the queries raised by the
\nDistrict Environmental Engineer have been answered and considered and ultimately
\nNOC was granted in favour of the Power Corporation.  Though a condition has been
\nissued for formation of 150 metres buffer zone around the unit’s boundary to
\ndevelop a green belt has been imposed, admittedly from the boundary of the
\nproposed unit, no distance is available from Bharathidasan Nagar which consists
\nof 20 houses located at north-east; in such a situation, it is not clear how it
\nwould be possible for the unit to form buffer zone of 150 metres around its
\nboundary to develop green belt.  In the absence of all the relevant details,
\nparticularly the questions\/ doubts raised by the District Environmental Engineer
\nin his letter dated 28-3-2005, we are of the view that the Pollution Control
\nBoard failed to take note of the relevant aspects before grant of ‘NOC’ to set
\nup a buffer zone within the residential locality of the village which will
\nexpose the life and liberty of the residential village.\n<\/p>\n
               18. Though it was brought to our notice by  the learned counsel
\nappearing for the Power Corporation that after discussion and deliberation, the
\nvillagers have agreed and consented for the formation of the project and also
\nexecuted a deed of settlement giving consent and the Power Corporation also
\nagreed to renovate a temple situated there, lay road, etc., for the village, the
\nfact remains that except the signatures of some of the villagers and
\nrepresentative of the Power Corporation, there is no evidence to show that the
\nsaid agreement was reached on the basis of consensus of the villagers or in the
\npresence of officers of either the Revenue or the Environment Departments.  In
\nsuch circumstances, there is no need to give credence to the agreement said to
\nhave been executed between some of the villagers and the Power Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
               19. In the light of our discussion, the proceedings of the Member
\nSecretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai dated 28-6-2005, granting
\nNo Objection Certificate for setting up of Thermal Power Plant in favour of M\/s.
\nRegency Power Corporation, Hyderabad is quashed.  Direction is issued to the
\nPollution Control Board and the District Collector to conduct public hearing
\nafresh in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 487 Environment and Forests Department
\ndated 22-12-1997 and permit the residents of Kalugoorani village, Ramanathapuram
\nTaluk, Ramanathapuram District, to put-forth their objections, if any, consider
\nand thereafter proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.  Both the
\nWrit Petitions are allowed on the above terms.  No costs. Connected W.P.M.Ps.,
\nare closed.\n<\/p>\n
R.B.\n<\/p>\n
To:-\n<\/p>\n
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
\n   represented by its Secretary,
\n   The Environment and Forest Department,
\n   St. George Fort, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Chairman,
\n   Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
\n   Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
3. The Member Secretary,
\n   Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
\n   Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
4. The District Collector,
\n   Ramanathapuram District,
\n   Ramanathapuram.\n<\/p>\n
5. The District Environmental Engineer,
\n   Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board,
\n   6\/26, Gangai Street,
\n   Madurai Road, Virudhunagar.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Kamatchi vs The Chairman on 22 September, 2005 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 22\/09\/2005 Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN Writ Petition No. 4655 of 2005 Writ Petition No.7020 of 2005 and WPMP No. 4984 and 7625 of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30472","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKamatchi vs The Chairman on 22 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamatchi-vs-the-chairman-on-22-september-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kamatchi vs The Chairman on 22 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamatchi-vs-the-chairman-on-22-september-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-21T23:22:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamatchi-vs-the-chairman-on-22-september-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamatchi-vs-the-chairman-on-22-september-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kamatchi vs The Chairman on 22 September, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-21T23:22:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamatchi-vs-the-chairman-on-22-september-2005\"},\"wordCount\":5170,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamatchi-vs-the-chairman-on-22-september-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamatchi-vs-the-chairman-on-22-september-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamatchi-vs-the-chairman-on-22-september-2005\",\"name\":\"Kamatchi vs The Chairman on 22 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-21T23:22:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamatchi-vs-the-chairman-on-22-september-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamatchi-vs-the-chairman-on-22-september-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamatchi-vs-the-chairman-on-22-september-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kamatchi vs The Chairman on 22 September, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kamatchi vs The Chairman on 22 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamatchi-vs-the-chairman-on-22-september-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kamatchi vs The Chairman on 22 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamatchi-vs-the-chairman-on-22-september-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-21T23:22:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamatchi-vs-the-chairman-on-22-september-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamatchi-vs-the-chairman-on-22-september-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kamatchi vs The Chairman on 22 September, 2005","datePublished":"2005-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-21T23:22:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamatchi-vs-the-chairman-on-22-september-2005"},"wordCount":5170,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamatchi-vs-the-chairman-on-22-september-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamatchi-vs-the-chairman-on-22-september-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamatchi-vs-the-chairman-on-22-september-2005","name":"Kamatchi vs The Chairman on 22 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-21T23:22:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamatchi-vs-the-chairman-on-22-september-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamatchi-vs-the-chairman-on-22-september-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamatchi-vs-the-chairman-on-22-september-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kamatchi vs The Chairman on 22 September, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30472","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30472"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30472\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30472"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30472"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30472"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}