Quarrying within 5 Kms. radius of Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant - Madras High Court Order

Madras High Court

V.Ganesan vs The District Collector on 19 October, 2010

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 19/10/2010

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU

W.P.(MD)No.10571 of 2007

and

M.P.(MD)No.1 OF 2007

V.Ganesan

 ... Petitioner

Vs

1.The District Collector,

Tirunelveli.

2.The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology,

Collectorate, Tirunelveli District.

3.The Project Director,

Nuclear Power Corporation of

India Limited (A Govt. of India Undertaking),

Koodankulam, Tirunelveli District.

4.A.K.A.Rajan

 .. Respondents

This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in M1/39272/06 dated 26.09.2007 quash the same from permitting the fourth respondent from quarrying within 5 Kms. radius of Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant in violation of G.O.Ms.No.829, dated 29.4.1991.

!For Petitioner ... Mr.T.S.R.Venkatramana

^For Respondents ... Mr.R.Janakiramulu, Spl.G.P. for R1 and 2 Mr.S.Ramasubramaniam for R-3

Mr.S.P.Maharajan for R-4

:ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking to set aside the order dated 26.09.2007 wherein and by which the fourth respondent was permitted to quarry. This challenge is on the ground that the quarrying area granted to the petitioner is situated within 5 kms radius of the Koodankulam Nuclear Power plant and such a grant of license is in violation of G.O.Ms.No.829 Public Works Department dated 29.04.1991.

2. Notice of motion was ordered on this writ petition on 14.12.2007. Pending the writ petition, this Court by an order dated 25.11.2008 appointed an Advocate Commissioner to visit the suit property and measure the property with the help of the Surveyor and to submit a report. Subsequently, by a further order dated 28.07.2009, the Taluk Surveyor of Irukkandurai and Koodankulam were directed to be present on 19.08.2009 at Irukkandurai Village in S.Nos.181/1, 183, 184/3, 184/7 and 185 along with respective Field Map Books.

3. The Advocate Commissioner so appointed submitted an interim report dated 10.12.2008 and a final report dated 26.08.2009. In the final report, he had stated that the disputed quarries in S.Nos. 181/1, 183, 184/3, 184/7 and 185 are all situated within the radius of 5 km from the Nuclear Reactor. He also submitted 3 Annexures along with the report.

4. On behalf of the first respondent, a counter affidavit dated 05.11.2008 was filed. The third respondent, Project Director of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited had also filed a counter affidavit dated 15.11.2008 together with a typed set of documents containing the copy of minutes of Koodankulam Project Local Committee meeting held on 14.07.2006, 14.02.2007 and 15.02.2008. The fourth respondent quarrying operator had filed a counter affidavit dated 14.09.2008 as well as an additional counter affidavit dated 17.11.2008. He had also filed a typed set of documents dated 23.09.2008

5. The petitioner was a neighbouring land owner. According to the petitioner, by G.O.Ms.No.829 Public Works Department dated 29.04.1991, had prohibited any quarrying operation within 5 kms radius of the Nuclear Power Plant as it comes with the 'Sterilization zone' and any permission for any activity cannot be done without the concurrence of the Koodankulam Project Local Committee. The 4th respondent quarrying operation is not only within the prohibited zone, it will also destroy the Coconut Thoppu owned by him in the Irukkanthurai village. It is also brought to the notice that the Collector did not carry out the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3293 of 2005 for granting permission.

6. The first respondent in his counter affidavit denied these allegations. In paragraphs 4 and 5, it was averred as folows:-

4.It is respectfully submitted that the area applied for quarry lease was inspected by Tahsildar, Radhapuram, Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi and the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Tirunelveli and reported that the above lease applied areas are situated at a distance of 4.8 kilometres from the Atomic Reactor of Koodankulam Atomic Power Plant. Quarry lease for rough stone was granted earlier in favour of Tmt.Sakthi and the quarry lease had expired on 29.10.2003 and after the expiry of the lease Thiru AK.A.Rajan has purchased the above lands and applied for lease. Based on the reports of the field officers, who had recommended the quarry lease, after getting the clearance from Koodankulam Atomic Reactor Project Local Committee's concurrence. The Chairman, Koodankulam Project Local Committee and Project Engineer (Civil) Koodankulam Project, Nagercoil has been addressed as per this office letter No.M.1/39272/06 dated 02.06.2006 with a request to place the subject before "Koodankulam Project Local Committee" for clearance as per G.O.Ms.No.829 PWD Dated 29.04.1991. The Commissioner, Radhapuram Panchayat Union, Radhapuram, in his letter No.A4/3213/04, dated 14.08.2006 has stated that in the meeting of Koodankulam Project Local committee was conducted on 14.07.2006 and in the meeting the proposal of stone quarrying lease in S.F.NO.181/1, 183, 184/3 and 7 of Irukkanthurai Village, Radhapuram Taluk, placed and the committee has approved the grant of this proposal for the period upto 31.12.2007.

5.It is respectfully submitted that considering all the factors framed in the Rules and Acts in force, recommendations of the field officers, concurrence of the Koodankulam Project Local committee as per G.O.Ms.No.829 PWD dated 29.04.1991, the stone quarry lease to quarry rough stone/jelly over an extent of 5.24.0 hectares of patta lands in S.F.No.181/1, 183 and 185 of Irukkanthurai Part II Village, Radhapuram taluk, has been granted to the applicant and 4th respondent of this writ - Thiru AK.A.Rajan, son of A.Kirubanathi, 58, Veeramani Nagar, Kovilambakkam, Chennai -117 as per the Collector, Tirunelveli's order No.M.1/39272/06 dated 26.09.2006 for a period of five years from the date of execution of lease subject to the further approval of the Koodankulam Project Local committee, Koodankulam beyond 31.12.2007. Subsequently, the clearance of the local committee is being granted by the committee every year. Now the committee has given its clearance upto 28.02.2009. This is intimated by the Block Development Officer, Radhapuram vide his letter No.A4/3213/02 dated 18.09.2008.

7. The third respondent Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, in their counter affidavit in paragraphs 9 and 10 averred as follows:- "9. ...The Kudankulam Local Committee met at Block Development Office on 14.07.2006. In that meeting, out of 07 members only 05 numbers of Committee members were present as per G.O. The Committee members recommended for Quarry Licence to Mr.A.K.A.Rajan under Survey No.181/1, 183, 184/3 and 184/7 at Irukkandurai Village up to a period of 31.12.2007. On 14.02.2007, Mr.A.K.A.Rajan (4th respondent) again applied for Quarry Mining under Survey No.181/2B. The Kudankulam Local Committee Members gave permission up to 28.02.2008 with a condition that if need arises within a short notice of one month the Quarry operation need to be suspended. On 15.02.2008, the Kudankulam Local Committee had given only an extension for a further period up to 28.02.2009.

10. Since Natural Growth cannot be prevented, Housing and Shops Construction requests are being normally recommended by the Kudankulam Local Committee. However, for some of the Quarry operation, it is also recommended by the Kudankulam Local Committee with an observation that the safety care has to be adhered without disturbing the nearby areas of the villagers. Based on the Dy.Director of Mines and Geology review and clearance in all these issues, an ultimate decision is being taken by the Collector after giving an opportunity of being heard by the affected persons as per G.O."

8. The Resolution of the Koodankulam Project Local committee dated 15.02.2008 produced in the typed set found at Pages 23 to 33 in Resolution No.5 has granted 'No Objection'. The Quarry operator in his additional counter affidavit had also raised the plea of alternative remedy for the petitioner to move in terms of Section 36-C(2) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules ,1959. He also denied that there was any violation in the quarrying operation to be carried out by him.

9. With reference to the violation of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3293 of 2005, in Paragraph 11 of the counter, the District Collector, Tirunelveli had stated as follows:-

11. It is submitted that the order of the High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench, Madurai, in W.P.No.3293/2005 and Director of Geology and Mining, Chennai dated 01.06.2005 does not relate to this issue. In this case after obtaining the approval of the Koodankulam Project Local committee as per G.O.Ms.No.829 dated 29.04.1991, the stone quarry lease had been granted subject to further approval o the committee beyond 31.12.2007 and every year committee reviews its permission. No objection petitions was received on publication of 'A1" Notice in the village and the writ petitioner is the one and only person raising objection that to after a lapse of nearly two years from the date of grant of quarry lease in this area. Further it is state that no quarry lease has been granted in S.F.No.184/3 and 7 of Irukkanthurai II Village, Radhapuram Taluk."

10. G.O.Ms.No.829 Public Works Department ,dated 29.04.1991 in P.2(iii) gives discretion to the Collector for using the agricultural land for non- agricultural purpose or for executing any mining operations after consulting the Koodankulam Project Local committee and the same has been done in the present case as set out above.

11. Therefore, even if the Advocate Commissioner's finding was that the survey lands are situated within 5 kms radius from the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant, since necessary approval from the committee has been obtained, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court.

12. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

svki

To

1.The District Collector,

Tirunelveli.

2.The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology,

Collectorate, Tirunelveli District.

3.The Project Director,

Nuclear Power Corporation of

India Limited (A Govt. of India Undertaking),

Koodankulam, Tirunelveli District.

Volcano near Kalpakkam Nuke Plant? - Public Interest Litigation

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P. No.                       of 2013

M.Vetri Selvan

Advocate

1-P, Pandu klix Plaza,

330/168, Thambu Street,

Chennai - 600001                                                                       .. Petitioner

vs

1.  Union of India

represented by the Secretary to Govt. of India

Department of Atomic Energy

Anushakti Bhavan

Chatrapathi Shivaji Maharaj Marg

Mumbai 400 001

2. Union of India

represented by the Secretary to Govt.

Ministry of Environment and Forests

Paryavaran Bhawan

CGO Complex, Lodhi Road

New Delhi 110 003

3.The Chairman

Atomic Energy Regulatory Board

Niyamak Bhavan

Anushaktinagar

Mumbai  400 094   

4. The Chairman and Managing Director

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited

Nambhkiya Urja Bhavan

Anushakti Nagar

Mumbai  400 094

5.  The Member Secretary

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Guindy, Chennai  600 032                                                 ...Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

       I, M.Vetri Selvan, S/o S.Muthuraj, aged about  31 years, having office  at 1-P, Pandu klix Plaza, 330/168, Thambu Street, Chennai - 600 001 do hereby on solemn affirmation state as under:

1.                 I am the petitioner herein.  I am conversant with the facts of the case.  I am competent to file this affidavit.

2.                I state that I am an advocate having a standing of more than five years. I am also actively associated with “Poovulagin Nanbargal”, a registered public trust working for the protection of environment and forests. I am initiating this Public Interest Litigation in discharge of my fundamental duties under Article 51-A (g),   (h) and (j) of the Constitution.    Earlier I have filed a public interest litigation  viz.  WP No. 26097 of 2011 questioning the failure of the respondents to implement the Guidelines on Management of Nuclear and Radiological Emergencies with regard to Madras Atomic Power Station, Kalpakkam, Kancheepuram District.

3.                I state that the Madras Atomic Power Station (MAPS) is located at Kalpakkam, about 70 kms from Chennai City.  The power station consists of two units viz.   MAPS-1 and MAPS-2. MAPS-1 and MAPS-2 went critical in 1983 and 1985 respectively.  At Kalpakkam, there are seven nuclear organizations including MAPS viz. Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam Ltd. (HQ), Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, PFBR Project (IGCAR), Nuclear Desalination Demonstration Plant (BARC), Kalpakkam Fuel Reprocessing Plant (BARC) and General Services Organisation.  Presently, the MAPS produces 440 MW of electricity from the two reactors.  It is learnt that the Union of India has plans for an additional 500 MW capacity in MAPS. 

4.                I state that on 26 March 1999 there was Heavy water leaks in MAPS and seven people received a full radiation dose. According to Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan, former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, in the early 1980s, the discovery of some pieces of zircalloy in a moderator pump in MAPS Unit 1 was traced to the problem of substantial crackingof the reactor inlet manifold and an identical problem surfaced in MAPS-2 also almost during the same period and that the synergy of different kinds of serious safety issues in MAPS 1 and 2 put the station at a higher risk than acceptable anywhere else in the world.  Frontline, a fortnightly in English, (March 16-23, 1999) reported  about Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan’s view about the said heavy water leak in MAPS: 

“Gopalakrishnan said that going by the initial estimates given by MAPS, several tones, possibly 14 tonnes, of heavy water leaked out.  “For this number the declaration of a plant emergency makes sense,” he said.  “You will not declare a plant emergency if just one bucketful of heavy water leaks or about 10 workers are concerned.  A very large amount must have gone into the drain and spread out.  The (tritium) release must have also been sucked into the ventilation system.”  It reports further:  “Tritium is highly radioactive, with a half-life of over 12 years.  Tritium content in heavy water increases with the number of years the reactor operates.  Almost all the tritium continues to be in the heavy water even if the reactor is shut down for a couple of months.  When there is a spillage of heavy water, the tritium affects the plant personnel.”  Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan, on account of the fact that micro-cracks in the coolant tubes would ultimately lead to a fire in the reactor, expressed great concern about the workers also.  The report says: “He demanded that personnel in MAPS be given the data on the release of radiation and be told how much radiation they had ingested.  He said that he was deeply concerned about the use of contract labour for cleaning jobs because they were often overexposed to radiation.”

5.                 I state that even after such caution by the former Chairman of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, there were two more incidents in 2001 and 2002.  On 30 May 2001, one Mr.S. Sivakumar, a worker, suffered internal contamination after a neoprene glove was punctured.  On 7 July 2002, one Selvakumar, a worker, burnt his left hand after he picked up a radioactive substance.  Moreover, as reported in Tehelka (2010), the General Secretary of the BARC Facilities Employees Association in his letter dated 24 January 2003 addressed to the Director of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) recounted in detail a significant nuclear accident that took place on 21 January 2003 at MAPS where one worker named Raju and 5 others including a woman were exposed to high levels of radiation.  After about eight months of the accident, Mr.B. Bhattacharjee, then Director of BARC, termed it “the worst accident in India’s nuclear history.”

6.                  I state that an estimated 30,000 workers live in the five villages that fall within the 5 km radius from MAPS.  There is a DAE township which accommodates thousands of permanent workers and their families.  Within the 16 km to 20 km radius from MAPS, there are about 60 villages where more than 1 lakh people live.  Since plant operations begain in the early 1980s, incidents of cancer and auto-immune thyroid diseases in the surrounding villages have increased.  A contract labour’s three year old child has been diagnosed with retinoblastoma or cancer of eyes.  Radiation from the nuclear plant is responsible for the child’s condition, doctors say.  Life of thousands of innocent people living in the villages which are within the radius of about 16 km to 20 km from MAPS is at stake. 

7.                     I state that the world was shocked to view the unprecedented nuclear disaster occurred on March 11, 2011 at Fukushima Dai-ichi Plant, Japan. An estimated 11,000 people were evacuated in a 20-km radius around the nuclear plant immediately after the accident.  United Kingdom, France and some other countries told their nationals to consider leaving Tokyo with a view to escaping from radioactive contamination.  Large amounts of radioactive isotopes were also released into the Pacific Ocean.  As of July 2011, the Japanese government found it impossible  to control the spread of radioactive material into the nation’s food and  radioactive material was being  detected in a range of produce, including spinach, tea leaves, milk, fish and beef, up to 200 miles from the nuclear plant. Inside the 12-mile evacuation zone around the plant, all farming was abandoned. As of August 2011, the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant was found still leaking low levels of radiation and areas surrounding it was found   uninhabitable for decades due to high radiation. According to experts, it would be at least 20 years before the residents could safely return to this area where high level radiation still prevails. This nuclear disaster made the respondent-Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) on 15^th March, 2011 constitutes four Task forces to review consequences of Fukushima similar situations in Indian Nuclear Power Plants under operation. One among the Task Force comprising an Executive Director, Technical Services Superintend, MAPS, and three Additional Chief Engineers has been constituted for “Safety Evaluation of Indian Nuclear Power plants PHWRs at Madras Atomic Power Station (MAPS)”. This Task Force has submitted an Interim Report by the end of March 2011. The Task force has made 12 Short term recommendations and 8 long term recommendations to be carried out in the MAPS.  The NPCIL-Task force report concludes stating: “The recommendation of the task forces have been reviewed and discussed. Action plans for the near term and long term are being worked out. As brought out earlier, this report is an interim one. As the event at Fukushima further unfolds and additional information is available, the recommendations will be revisited and changes, if any, will be incorporated.” The report also fixes timeline for completion of the recommendations. The maximum period given for fulfilling the recommendations is 14 months. It appears that no final report has so far been submitted by the Task Force to the respondent-Union of India with regard to the completion of recommendations made by the respondent NPCIL-Task force report.

8.                I state that respondent-Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) constituted a committee on March 19, 2011 to review the safety of Indian Nuclear Power Plants against external events of natural origin, in the light of the Fukushima accident. The committee has submitted its report on 31^st August, 2011. At paras 4.17 and 4.18, under the heading “Spent fuel storage facilities”, the report reads:

“4.17.   For the spent fuel storage pools at our NPPs it is seen that the stored fuel remains submerged in water for a period ranging from 9 to 16 days in the older plants viz. TAPS-1&2, RAPS-1&2 and MAPS-1&2, and for over one month in other plants, without any cooling or addition of water. Nevertheless an external water hookup provision for changing water in the pools for all the operating plants should be implemented. This make up capability should remain unaffected by the external events and SBO. Provision for monitoring the level and temperature of pool water and radiation fields inside the spent fuel storage buildings under SBO should also be made. 4.18. Detailed site specific safety assessment of spent fuel storage bays should be carried out with respect to structural integrity and leak-tightness of pools, loss of pool water from sloshing and, stability of fuel racks and mechanical handling equipment in case of extreme earthquake event”.

Further the committee has also recommended as follows:

“4.24. The practice of storing spent radioactive ion exchange resins in underground tanks should be discontinued as in case of earthquake or severe flooding this can cause spread of radioactive contamination. The resins presently stored in such tanks at TAPS and MAPS should be appropriately treated and disposed off. 4.25. Functional integrity of radioactive liquid effluent storage tanks and surrounding dykes at NPPs should be assessed under beyond design basis external events and corrective measures implemented as necessary”.

Annexure 5 to the AERB committee’s report under the caption “8. Working group to review safety of near surface radioactive waste disposal facilities and liquid waste storage tanks at NPP sites against external events” reads:

“At TAPS (1&2) and MAPS (1&2), spent resins generated from the reactors are stored in underground tanks. The ingress of water into the storage tanks or failure of storage tanks has the potential of spreading contamination in the surrounding environment. At present the radionuclide monitoring data in bore wells around the spent resin storage facility shows safety of storage as activity levels are below the detection limit (BDL). This establishes the integrity of storage tanks. The practice of storing spent resin in water at underground tank needs further investigation. However, early immobilization of these resins and discontinuation of practice of storage of spent resins in underground tank is recommended.”

9.       I state that the respondent-AERB has vide its communication dated 31 May 2013 addressed to me under the Right to Information Act made it clear that all the recommendations of NPCIL Committee/Task Force and the high level AERB Committee constituted  post-Fukushima  disaster have not so far been implemented with regard to MAPS.  The AERB has also admitted in the said communication : "AERB is aware of the information in the Smithsonian's Global Volcanism Program official website about the reported volcano (in 1757) located at about 100-110 km from Kalpakkam with status uncertain.  ...  ... However, GSI and others have recommended for further data/analysis in view of an inferred high density material intrusion of remnant magnetisation based on magnetic and gravity anomalies around the said location.   Based on the above feedback, AERB has asked the utilities at Kalpakkam to undertake detailed study through expert agencies.  The work in this regard is in progress."    

10.               I state that the schedule to 2006 notification viz. Notification dated 14th September 2006 issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 contains an entry "Nuclear power projects and processing of nuclear fuel".   "Spent fuel", stored in MAPS, satisfies the expression "Processing of nuclear fuel". Rule 2 (t) of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004 defines nuclear fuel cycle to mean among other things "radioactive waste management".   "Unstoppable and Unstorable" nuclear waste would always have environmental impact demanding fresh Environment Impact Assessment and further demanding fresh Environmental Clearance.  Moreover, any environmental clearance granted under the said notification for nuclear power project would be valid only for a period of five years.  No environmental clearance has so far been obtained for storing spent fuel in MAPS.  The AERB Committee has vide its recommendations with regard to storage of spent fuel in MAPS emphasises that the practice of storing spent radioactive ion exchange resins in underground tanks should be discontinued as in case of earthquake or severe flooding this can cause spread of radiocative contamination. Fresh environment impact assessment would be the need of the hour viewed in the light of the stand of AERB that a detailed study with regard to the presence of volcano about 100 - 110 kilometers near MAPS is in progress. Hence this Writ Petition in public interest on the following ground : 

GROUND

          It is submitted that the recommendations of the NPCIL Committee / Task Force and the AERB Committee constituted post - Fukushima disaster have not so far been fully implemented by the AERB and other respondents.   It is admitted by AERB vide its communication dated 31.05.2013 addressed to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act that detailed study into the presence of volcano near Madras Atomic Power Station, Kalpakkam is in progress.   It is also admitted by the AERB that no Environmental Clearance with regard to storage of spent fuel in MAPS has ever been obtained by the respondent - authorities.   Obviously, unstoppable and unstorable nuclear waste would always have environmental impact.   It is saddening to note that without any Environmental Clearance, Madras Atomic Power Station (Units.I & II) is functioning for more than three decades.   The Supreme Court has in G.Sundarrajan Vs Union of India and others : (2013) 4 MLJ 46 (SC) held : "No plant specifically the one dealing with radioactive materials can be allowed to function or commission even if it has been cleared by AEC, AERB, NPCIL etc. unless it strictly conforms to the standards set by the statutory authorities like MoEF, TNPCB etc. and follow the environmental laws".  The failure of the respondents to make a fresh Environment Impact Assessment and obtain a fresh Environmental Clearance with regard to Madras Atomic Power Station, Kalpakkam Units I & II would be violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

11.     I state that I have no personal interest in the case.  I have earlier filed a couple of public interest litigations viz. WP No. 14866/2009 (M.Vetri Selvan Vs. Union of India and others: 2010 (4) CTC 465) and W.P. No. 19192 of 2010 decided on 16.11.2010.  I have also filed WP No. 8034/ 2011 decided on 01.04.2011 (Manivannan Vs. Union of India and others: 2011 (3) CTC 785).  I undertake to pay the costs, if any, if this PIL is found to be intended for personal gain or oblique motive.  I have filed this petition from my own funds.  To my knowledge, no PIL arising on the issue raised in this petition has been filed anywhere.  This public interest litigation is maintainable in law. The contents of this paragraph are in compliance with the Rules to regulate the Public Interest Litigations filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai                                      Before me

this the 10th day of September 2013

and signed his name in my

presence.                        

:                                                             Advocate, Chennai

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P. No.                       of 2013

M.Vetri Selvan

Advocate

1-P, Pandu klix Plaza,

330/168, Thambu Street,

Chennai - 600001                                                                       .. Petitioner

vs

1.  Union of India

represented by the Secretary to Govt. of India

Department of Atomic Energy

Anushakti Bhavan

Chatrapathi Shivaji Maharaj Marg

Mumbai 400 001

2. Union of India

represented by the Secretary to Govt.

Ministry of Environment and Forests

Paryavaran Bhawan

CGO Complex, Lodhi Road

New Delhi 110 003

3.The Chairman

Atomic Energy Regulatory Board

Niyamak Bhavan

Anushaktinagar

Mumbai  400 094   

4. The Chairman and Managing Director

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited

Nambhkiya Urja Bhavan

Anushakti Nagar

Mumbai  400 094

5.  The Member Secretary

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Guindy, Chennai  600 032                                                 ...Respondents

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION

1..      The address for service of the petitioner is that of his counsel M.Radhakrishnan, Advocate, 134, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai. 600 001.

2..      The address for service on the respondent is as stated above.

3..      For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS forbearing the respondents from running the Madras Atomic Power Station (Units I & II), Kalpakkam, Kanchipuram District without first obtaining Environmental Clearance with regard to MAPS in accordance with law,  and thus render justice.

Dated at Chennai, this the 10th day of September 2013

Counsel for the petitioner.

MEMORANDUM OF MISCELLANEOUS PETITION

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

M.P. No.          of 2013

in

W.P. No.                       of 2013

M.Vetri Selvan

Advocate

1-P, Pandu klix Plaza,

330/168, Thambu Street,

Chennai - 600001                                                                       .. Petitioner

vs

1.  Union of India

represented by the Secretary to Govt. of India

Department of Atomic Energy

Anushakti Bhavan

Chatrapathi Shivaji Maharaj Marg

Mumbai 400 001

2. Union of India

represented by the Secretary to Govt.

Ministry of Environment and Forests

Paryavaran Bhawan

CGO Complex, Lodhi Road

New Delhi 110 003

3.The Chairman

Atomic Energy Regulatory Board

Niyamak Bhavan

Anushaktinagar

Mumbai  400 094   

4. The Chairman and Managing Director

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited

Nambhkiya Urja Bhavan

Anushakti Nagar

Mumbai  400 094

5.  The Member Secretary

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Guindy, Chennai  600 032                                                 ...Respondents

PETITION FOR INTERIM DIRECTION

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION

          For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an interim direction directing the respondents to take immediate steps for disposal of radioactive waste stored in and around Madras Atomic Power Station (Units I & II), Kalpakkam, Kanchipuram District as mandated by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board vide its report dated 31 August 2011 pending disposal of the Writ Petition and thus render justice.

Dated at Chennai, this the 10th day of September 2013

Counsel for the petitioner.