The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the proposed establishment of a rice mill on a wetland in Pudukottai district. The court took a strict stance, imposing a cost of Rs 1,000 on the petitioner for approaching the judiciary based on what it termed as premature and illusory apprehension.
Court Condemns Premature Legal Challenge
The case was heard by a division bench comprising Justice G Jayachandran and Justice K K Ramakrishnan. The PIL had been filed by R Thirukeshwaran, seeking to restrain authorities from granting permission or a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to an individual for setting up the rice mill on wetland in Aayipatti village.
During the proceedings, the government pleader representing the authorities presented a copy of the NOC issued by the Pudukottai District Collector. This certificate was for the conversion of the agricultural land into non-agricultural use.
NOC Does Not Equal Final Permission: Court's Key Observation
The bench made a crucial distinction that formed the core of its judgment. The judges clearly observed that the NOC does not automatically permit the individual to set up the rice mill on the land in question. They emphasized that unless and until specific permission is granted for establishing the mill, the petitioner had no valid reason or legal standing (locus) to approach the court through a PIL based merely on anticipation.
The court examined photographs submitted by the petitioner as evidence. The judges noted that these images indicated only a compound wall had been erected and the land remained barren, with no building construction having taken place.
Dismissal and Imposition of Cost
Strongly criticizing the basis of the petition, the bench stated, "The illusory or premature apprehension with which the petitioner approached the court is condemned." Consequently, the judges dismissed the petition outright.
As a mark of disapproval for filing a petition on speculative grounds, the court imposed a cost of Rs 1,000 on the petitioner, R Thirukeshwaran. This fine is to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. The ruling underscores the judiciary's stance against clogging the court system with cases filed on hypothetical or anticipatory grounds before any concrete violation or action has occurred.
