Madras High Court Refuses to Hear Pleas Against Construction Near Protected Wetland
The Madras High Court has declined to entertain a series of petitions challenging the construction of a multi-storey residential complex by a private real estate developer in close proximity to the ecologically sensitive Pallikaranai marshland. A significant portion of this marshland has been officially designated as a Ramsar site, an international wetland of importance.
Court Cites Supreme Court Jurisdiction Over Wetland Issues
The first bench, comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan, made a clear observation that it could not conduct a parallel hearing on the matter. This decision was based on the fact that the Supreme Court of India is already actively seized of issues concerning the protection and management of wetlands across the entire country, including those in Tamil Nadu.
The bench explicitly stated that the litigants, which include AIADMK Chennai legal wing secretary advocate J Brezhnev and the non-governmental organization Arappor Iyakkam, are at liberty to seek any relief directly from the Supreme Court.
Details of the Construction and Petitioners' Allegations
The controversy centers on construction activities initiated by Brigade Enterprises Limited near the Pallikaranai marshland. The petitioners approached the high court with the primary objective of quashing the environmental and building plan approvals granted for this project.
Their core allegation is that such developmental activities are strictly prohibited within the area of a Ramsar site and its immediate surroundings. Arappor Iyakkam contends that the construction site itself falls under the Pallikaranai marshland, which holds the Ramsar designation. According to the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, no construction is permitted in the periphery of a Ramsar site.
The NGO provided specific data, stating, "The Pallikaranai marsh reserve forest site-Ramsar site covers a total of 3,082.74 acres of land, of which only 1,717.08 acres were handed over to the forest department." They further petitioned the court to direct the government to transfer the remaining land that falls under the Ramsar site designation to the forest department for proper conservation.
Alleged Violations of Environmental Rules
Advocate J Brezhnev presented a strong argument against the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), the body that granted clearance for the construction. He contended that the SEIAA acted in blatant violation of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules.
Brezhnev asserted that the authority failed to properly appreciate a fundamental principle: no developmental activities can be permitted within wetlands that have been notified under the Ramsar Convention or within their zone of influence. This, according to the petitioners, represents a significant breach of environmental protection protocols designed to safeguard these critical ecosystems.
The court's refusal to hear the case at this level underscores the complex jurisdictional and environmental governance issues surrounding development near protected wetlands in India, pushing the matter toward the nation's highest judicial authority for resolution.
