The State of Tamil Nadu vs M. Periyasamy

R. Banumathi, J.—The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No. 11562 of 2010 was disposed off by this Court by order dated 2.12.2010. In

Paragraph No. 82 of the said order, this Court has made the following observations:

The learned Advocate General fairly submitted that a monitoring committee could be constituted for monitoring the sand quarrying in all the rivers

in the State of Tamil Nadu. In this regard, the learned Advocate General has also filed a draft scheme pertaining to the constitution of the

monitoring committee and its powers and functioning.

Seeking to review the same, the Petitioners, who are the Respondents in the Writ Petition, have come up with this review petition.

Heard Mr. P.S. Raman, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the review applicants, Mr. R. Nallakannu -party in person in

W.P. No. 12229 of 2010, Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 11182 and 12383 of 2010 and

Mr. M. Venkatesh, learned Counsel representing Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, counsel for the Petitioner in W.P. No. 11562 of 2010.

It is the contention of the learned Advocate General that in the draft scheme submitted by the Advocate General in the course of his argument in

the writ petitions, he submitted that a monitoring committee could be constituted only in respect of Tamiraparani river and not in respect of the

other rivers in the State of Tamil Nadu, but in paragraph No. 82, the observation is to the effect that the learned Advocate General submitted that

a monitoring committee could be constituted in respect of all the rivers including the Tamiraparani river. This observation, according to the learned

Advocate General, may not be factually correct. Therefore the learned Advocate General submitted that same may be corrected by reviewing the

order.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents as well as Mr. R. Nallakannu-party in person, who appeared in one of the writ petitions,

have fairly submitted that they have got no objection for reviewing Paragraph No. 82 of the order suitably so as to record that the submission of

the learned Advocate General in respect of monitoring committee was only for Tamiraparani river. The said submissions are recorded.

The submission of the Advocate General and perusal of the draft scheme submitted by the Advocate General would go to show that his

submission was confined only to Tamiraparani lriver. Therefore, as submitted by him, paragraph No. 82 of the order needs to be reviewed.

Accordingly, we are inclined to review paragarph No. 82 of the order and it shall be read as under:

The Public Works Department engages the assistance of Labour Contractors. The labour contractors either with or without the connivance of

Public Works Department and local authority carry out indiscriminate sand quarrying. Scientific quarrying is not employed. What was sought to be

prevented by G.O. Ms. No. 95 dated 1.10.2003 is now worsened. The learned Advocate General fairly submitted that a monitoring committee

could be constituted for monitoring the sand quarrying in Tamiraparani river. In this regard, the learned Advocate General has also filed a draft

scheme pertaining to constitution of monitoring committee for Tamiraparani river and its powers and functioning. Though the draft scheme filed by

Advocate General is only in respect of Tamiraparani river, having regard to the larger public interest involved in sand quarrying, in our considered

view, it would be appropriate that a State level monitoring committee for sand quarrying is to be constituted for all the rivers in the State of Tamil

Nadu. Therefore, to have effective monitoring not only over Tamiraparani river, but in respect of all the rivers in the State of Tamil Nadu, it is

appropriate to issue directions for the scientific sand quarrying in respect of all the rivers in accordance with TN MMC Rules and also to constitute

a monitoring committee for all the rivers in the State of Tamil Nadu.

The review application is ordered accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs.