Elaborate arguments advanced by lawyers and Puthiya Tamizhagam leader K. Krishnasamy for over three hours
The Madras High Court Bench here on Monday reserved its orders on a batch of criminal revision petitions filed by private companies including a power generation company and a seafood processing unit challenging an order passed by the Kovilpatti Revenue Divisional Officer in Tuticorin district on June 6 banning sale of groundwater in and around Ottapidaram.
Justice S. Palanivelu deferred his verdict after hearing elaborate arguments, for over three hours, advanced by counsel for the petitioners as well as Puthiya Tamizhagam (PT) president K. Krishnasamy, also a Member of the Legislative Assembly representing Ottapidaram constituency, who included himself as a party to the case voluntarily in public interest.
The judge allowed an impleading petition and permitted him to argue the case.
The MLA insisted on vacating the stay imposed by the court on June 13 against the operation of the RDO's ban order. He contended that large scale commercial exploitation of groundwater had led to scarcity of water for drinking as well as agricultural purposes in his constituency.
“If these private companies want water let them install desalination plants and use the sea water. They can also take water from any other place which has abundant groundwater but not in Ottapidaram which has been classified as a critical area in terms of groundwater level. If they feel that the TWAD (Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage) Board was not supplying enough water to them, they should sort it out with the Board.
“These companies had established their units in Ottapidaram just because the land was available for a cheap price and they are now bent upon exploiting the groundwater,” he said. Mr. Krishnasamy also took strong exception to an allegation levelled by one of the petitioner's counsel that the MLA had impleaded himself in the case with a political motive.
The PT leader said that he was arguing the case only because the residents of Ottapidaram had made umpteen petitions to him, in his capacity as their representative in the Assembly, to stop the exploitation of groundwater in the constituency. Immediately, the judge intervened and asked the counsel to restrict his arguments to the facts related to the case.
Later, the counsel contended that the RDO had misguided himself by imposing the ban under Section 133 of Code of Criminal Procedure after terming the sale of water as a ‘public nuisance.'
Ban on exploitation of water was contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Ground Water (Development and Management) Act. But it had not been notified till date, they claimed.
COURTESY: THE HINDU - MADURAI
கருத்துகள் இல்லை:
கருத்துரையிடுக