Admk case pallikaranai affidavitTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P. No of 2025 J. Brezhnev, S/o Janardhanam, No.298, 7th Cross Street, Palkalai Nagar, Palavakkam,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P. No of 2025
J. Brezhnev,
S/o Janardhanam,
No.298, 7th Cross Street,
Palkalai Nagar,
Palavakkam,
Chennai – 6000041. …Petitioner
Vs
1. Union Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC)
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jorbagh Road,
New Delhi – 110 003.

2. The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St George,
Chennai – 600009.

3.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,Egmore,
Chennai – 600008.

4. The District Collector,
Chengalpattu District,
Chengalpattu.

5. The Additional Chief Secretary,
Department of Environmental & Climate Change,
No.1, Jeenis Road, Panagal Building,
Ground Floor, Saidapet,
Chennai – 600015.

6. The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu State Wetland Authority
Panagal Malaigai,
Saidapet, Chennai – 600015.

7. The Member secretary,
State Environmental Impact
Assessment Authority (SEIAA)
No. 327, 9th Floor, MetroS,
Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035.

8. Brigade Enterprises Limited
Represented by its Authorised Signatory
Mr.Hrishikesh Nair,
No.5/142, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, OMR,
Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai – 600041. …Respondents

AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITONER
I, J.Brezhnev S/o Janardhanam, aged 41, residing at No. No.298, 7th Cross Street, Palkalai Nagar, Palavakkam, Chennai – 6000041 do hear by solemnly affirm and sincerely states as below;

1. I state that I am a Legal wing District Secretary, Chennai Suburban District of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam(AIADMK). It is a recognized political party and also principal opposition party in the state of Tamilnadu. Also I’m practicing as an Advocate before this Hon’ble Madras High Court and a resident of the locality situated near the Ramsar site, which is a notified and prohibited area for development. Since the local residents are hesitant or afraid to initiate proceedings against the government authorities and powerful private entities involved, apprehending political pressure and vindictive actions. I, therefore, as a whistle blower acting purely in Public Interest, have taken upon myself the duty to bring to the attention of the Hon’ble Court the grave illegality and breach of the statutory obligation committed by the respondents herein. However, the State authorities, in connivance with the 6th Respondent, have granted approval for development activities within the Marshlands of the Ramsar site, acting against public interest and in violation of environmental norms.

2. I state that, I have no private interest in the subject matter, and I have filed this Writ Petition purely for the welfare of the people of Tamil Nadu. I state that I have no personal agenda or benefit from the ultimate outcome of this Writ Petition. I am filing this Public Interest Litigation with my own funds. I undertake to pay the costs, imposed by this Hon’ble Court if it is found later on that I have filed this Public Interest Litigation for personnel gain or publicity, My Aadhar number is 728529868041. I am an income tax assessee and my PAN Number BAXPB2826B and average annual income is Rs.3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs only). I state that, to my knowledge, no public interest litigation arising on the same issue has been filed anywhere, and no other Writ Petition has been filed in this regard by me. I have individually borne all the expenses, including the legal fees for filing the above Writ Petition.

3. I state that the sole purpose of filing this Writ Petition in Public interest is to seek a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction in the nature of a Writ to call for the records of the Planning Permit File No: CMDA/PP/HRB/S/0121/2024 on the file of the 3rd Respondent, Planning Permission No: OL-PP/HRB/0004/2025, and Permit No: OL-01505 Dated: 23.01.2025 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, whimsical & untenable and consequently, direct the Respondents 1 to 7 not to grant any approvals or permission for any construction or developmental activities within the Ramsar Site Boundary and for consequential orders.

4. I state that the 8th respondent herein namely M/s. Brigade Enterprises Limited propose to construct High Rise residential Building complex, building of 4 blocks in perumbakkam village comprised in Survey Nos. 453, 495/2C, 496 and 498 in Shollinganallur to Medavakkam Road. Furthermore, the 8th Respondent had obtained Environmental Clearance for their proposed building construction project from SEIAA by order dated 20.01.2025. Interestingly, the CMDA within three days of the order of the Environmental board, granted planning permission to the 8th respondent on 23.01.2025 to enable it to raise constructing of high rise Residential Group Development of 4 blocks in proceedings of the CMDA in File No: CMDA/PP/HRB/S/0121/2024, which is the impugned order herein.

5. I state that the CMDA, despite being fully aware that the subject lands are classified as Marsh Lands and have been notified as such by the Government of India, has unlawfully granted approval for the proposed construction to the 8th Respondent. The said lands, situated in the heart of Chennai City and herein referred to as “the said land,” are recorded in the Revenue Records as “Marsh Land”, Pallikaranai Marsh Land.” The said land lies adjacent to the Buckingham Canal and forms part of a Wetland ecosystem which the Respondent authorities are legally bound to protect and preserve from any form of alienation, reclassification, or conversion to alternate use.

6. In fact, the Revenue Records unequivocally establish that these lands are Marsh Lands. However, the Respondent authorities, in connivance with the 8th Respondent, are attempting to justify the illegality by contending that the site of the proposed construction is 1.28 kilometres away from the Pallikaranai Marsh Land. What the authorities have conveniently ignored is that the proposed development site lies adjacent to Survey No. 533/4, which is an integral part of the Marsh Land, as clearly reflected in the Revenue Records. It is pertinent to note that the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), in its 411th meeting held on 27.09.2023, has erroneously recorded that the proposed development area is 1.28 kilometres away from the Marsh Lands, without disclosing the basis or source of such observation. Be that as it may, the CMDA has absolutely no authority or jurisdiction to grant approval or permit conversion of Marsh Lands that fall within the Ramsar Site, which stands protected under the National and International Conventions on Wetlands.

7. I state that, the Pallikaranai Marsh Reserve Forest in Chennai is a well-known South Indian Marsh land. It could be said to be the last surviving marsh land in the region, which serves as a vital flood buffer, a rich habitat for diverse flora and fauna, including migratory birds and endangered reptiles.

8. I state that, from time immemorial, the wetlands have played a critical role in fostering culture and civilization. Unfortunately, they did not receive due consideration of appreciation. As a result, wetlands have diminished in size and quality at an alarming rate throughout the globe. Perhaps it was considered as a wasteland to be filled with garbage and other waste. The real estate activities around the urban centres are also a threat to the wetlands.

9. I state that, only in the year 2022, the Pallikaranai Marshland was designated as a Ramsar Site, having realized that it acts as an aquatic buffer for Chennai and surrounding districts, absorbing flood waters and releasing them during dry spells. The urban development, including the construction of IT corridors and residential areas, has drastically shrunk the original area of the marsh. This has resulted in the sewage and sullage water and industrial effluents contaminate the marsh. Additionally, the solid waste dumped also pollutes the ecosystem, reducing its water storage capacity.

10. I state that, the value of the wetlands can be expressed in many ways. The ecosystem services offered by the wetland include flood water storage and control, recharge of aquifers, water quality improvement, while habitats for fish and wildlife and several other animals and plant species. Besides, the wetlands have high aesthetic and heritage value, which provides opportunities for recreation and research. The wetlands also stabilize the levels of available Nitrogen, Atmospheric Sulphur, Carbon dioxide, and Methane. Thus, the invaluable ecosystem services provided by marsh lands, which are recognized globally for their significance, are now being taken for granted. While the marsh lands have inherent and unique characteristics of wetlands, which function like a natural tub or sponge, storing water and releasing it gradually. It has been neglected by allowing infrastructure development, land reclamation and over harvesting. These have caused hydrological perturbations, pollution and several after effects. After neglecting the natural resources available, the construction of a sponge park with recreational facilities to mitigate the urban flood risk is being contemplated by the Government.

11. I state that, the state government has illegally granted clearance and approval for 2000 crore housing projects planned inside the ecologically sensitive Pallikaranai Ramsar wetland site in Perumbakkam. The survey number has mentioned above covers 14.7 acres of marshland within the RAMSAR boundaries notified in April 2022. I further submit that in spite of the land which comes in the Ramsar boundaries the private respondents have floated a project called ‘Brigade morgan heights’ and applied for environmental clearance to SEIAA on 25.07.2022 and the 8th respondent also applied for construction planning approval with CMDA on 15.02.2024 for 10250 dwelling units.
12. I further submit that, the SEIAA in its order dated 09.01.2025 granted permission for environment impact assessment and, subsequently on 20.01.2025 SEIAA gave environmental clearance. I further submit that pursuant to the SEIAA approval the CMDA gave building permission within three days from the date of SEIAA approval. The said approval given by the SEIAA and CMDA are directly against the wetlands (conservation and management) rules 2017 which categorically states marshland cannot be converted for any non-wetland use and no construction of permanent nature permitted when such being the case the permission granted is against the legislation and illegal exercise of power granted to SEIAA and CMDA.

13. I state that the action of the CMDA and other Respondent authorities in granting approval for the proposed construction to the 8th Respondent is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and actuated by mala fide intent. The authorities were fully aware that the subject land forms part of the Pallikaranai Marsh Land, a notified wetland under the Ramsar Convention and protected under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017. Despite such clear statutory prohibitions, the CMDA has chosen to act in utter disregard of the law and environmental safeguards, thereby aiding private interests at the cost of public and ecological welfare.

14. I state that the 3rd respondent herein in pursuant to the orders passed by National Green Tribunal in Suo Moto Original Application No. 91 of 2023 Dated 24.09.2025 vide office order No.07/2025 dated 09.10.2025 directed the authorities concern not to grant any approval or permission in the Ramsar site boundary and its zone of influence of 1 K.M, however despite being aware of the Order passed by the National Green Tribunal and of his own order dated 09.10.2025, the official respondents have not taken any steps to cancel the approval granted to the 8th Respondent.

15. The Respondents 1 to 7 are under a legal obligation to protect and preserve the same from alienation, reclassification, or conversion. Yet, in a deliberate and calculated manner, the Respondents, in collusion with the 8th Respondent, have attempted to disguise the true nature of the land by wrongly asserting that the proposed development site is situated 1.28 kilometres away from the Pallikaranai Marsh Land. This false narrative is contrary to the Revenue Records, which clearly show that the proposed site lies immediately adjacent to Survey No. 533/4 a part of the Pallikaranai Marsh ecosystem.

16. I state that, in several judgements decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble High Court regarding with regard to the protection of water bodies/ wet lands/ water areas. Some of those decision and judgements which are relevant to the present case listed below.

i. Full Bench Judgement of this Hon’ble Court reported in 2015-5-L.W.397 regarding the duty of the State to protect Water bodies from alienations / Transfers / encroachments .
ii. Order in W.P. No. 30951 of 2016 dt. 06.09.2016 in which this Hon’ble Court has held that the above Full Bench Judgement shall be applicable to all categories of Wetlands also .
iii. Judgement of the Supreme Court reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396 Dt. 28.01.2011 enunciating on the Principal of “Public Trust Doctrine” and the Responsibilities of the State in protecting natural and communal properties.
iv. The order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 08.02.2017 in W.P.(Civil) No. 230 of 2001 directing all the State Governments to apply the Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 to the Wetlands of 2.25 Hec. and above , irrespective of the fact whether such Wetlands are notified or not. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further directed to notify the revised Wetlands, (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2016 before 30th June 2017. It is to be noted that Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 prohibits reclamation and conversion of Wetlands for non-Wetland uses.
v. (1997) 1 SCC 388 dated 13.12.1996 – M.C.Mehta Vs.. Kamalnath and Ors. regarding the doctrine of Public trust of of natural resources.
vi. (2010) 3 MLJ 771 dated 10.02.2010 – T.S. Senthil Kumar Vs.. Government of Tamilnadu rep. by its Secretary, PWD regarding the importance and the duty to protect Wetlands and Water bodies by State
vii. (2008) 1 MLJ 417 dated 04.10.2007 – Anti Corruption Movement Vs.. Govt. of Tamil Nadu on the need to protect and preserve the Water bodies.
viii. 2016- 1-LW. 168 Dated 27.11.2015 — T.K. Shanmugam Vs.. The State of Tamil Nadu directing eviction of encroachments from Water bodies.
ix. Crl.O.P. No. 4413 of 2013 dated 18/11/2016 – Lakshmanan and Azhagiri Vs.. The State by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-II, Chennai , banning construction activities on Marchlands.
x. W.P. No. 40571 of 2015 dated 22.12.2015 – E.Thirugnana Selvam Vs.. The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Revenue Department directing that Wetlands shall not be reclassified into house-sites.
xi. W.P.No. 10821 of 2017 dated 24.04.2017 – I.H. Sekar Vs.. The Principal Secretary to Government Tamilnadu and Ors.,
xii. 2021 Supreme(Mad) 1623 in W.P.2709 of 2021 dated 22.09.2021.
xiii. 2024 (4) CTC 590 in W.P. No. 7349 of 2020 dt. 02.02.2024

17. I state that the Tamil Nadu Government has constituted the “Tamil Nadu Wetland Authority” vide the G.O.No. 24 dated 15.06.2016 for the protection and preservation of Wetlands in the interests of maintaining ecological balance and other benefits as stated therein. As custodians of such properties in public trust, it shall be incumbent on all the Respondents to protect the remaining Wetlands/ Water Areas of the State in the interests of future mankind and to avoid the consequences of floods, damages to flaura and fauna, etc.,

18. I state that the above lands act as buffer storages of excess water during rains which get discharged from Pallikkaranai Marsh lands into the Buckingham Canal through “Thoraipakkam-Okkiam”. It also facilitates recharging of wells, tanks, etc. in the nearby localities through “Aquifer effect” apart from forming a home for large extents of flaura and fauna and living creatures. Any construction activities in the above lands shall cause irreversible damages and destructions to the above and hence need to be prevented in the interest of environmental protection and to ensure the safety and security of living including human beings in the nearby villages.

19. It is respectfully submitted that, while so, the 5th Respondent has issued a press release pertaining to the conservation and management of the Pallikaranai Marshland, a notified Ramsar Site situated in the State of Tamil Nadu, vide News Publication No. 2569, Environment, Climate Change and Forest Department, dated 28.10.2025. The said press release states that proposals to notify Ramsar Sites, including the Pallikaranai Marshland, are being undertaken in accordance with prescribed rules to ensure proper public dissemination of boundaries and details of ongoing conservation activities.

20. It is further stated therein that the Ramsar Site covers an extent of 1,248 hectares, which includes 698 hectares of already protected marshland and an additional 550 hectares proposed to be delineated after completion of due procedures. Significantly, the said press release admits that Ground Truthing (field verification) to identify the exact land parcels along with their respective survey numbers is yet to be completed. When the fixation of boundaries and field verification themselves remain unfinalized and incomplete, it is wholly incomprehensible as to how environmental clearance and project approval could have been granted in favour of the 8th Respondent. The conclusion sought to be drawn through media reports that the survey numbers involved fall within private patta lands and not within the protected marshland is, therefore, untenable and premature. In fact, the 5th Respondent, by its own admission that Ground Truthing is still pending, has undermined the validity of its own assertion, and the present press release appears to have been issued only to shield the lapses and omissions of the authorities themselves rather than to ensure genuine environmental protection.

21. I state that, I hereby submitting Authorities’ Duties and Breach of Statutory Obligations:

I. The Respondents 1 to 7, being public authorities and custodians of natural resources, are under a statutory and constitutional duty to protect, preserve and maintain the ecological character of the Pallikaranai Marshland, which stands notified as a Ramsar Site and protected under the Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the Public Trust Doctrine declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Kamalnath (1997) 1 SCC 388. The Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu is obligated to ensure effective inter-departmental coordination and enforcement of environmental safeguards. The CMDA, as the planning authority, is bound to verify the ecological classification of lands before granting any planning or building permission and to refuse approval for projects falling within restricted wetland or marshland areas. The District Collector, being the custodian of government lands, is required to prevent any encroachment, alienation or conversion of marshlands for non-wetland use. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Environment and Climate Change, and the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Wetland Authority, are mandated to enforce the Wetland Rules, monitor compliance, and prohibit any developmental activities within or around the Ramsar site and its one-kilometre zone of influence.
II. However, in blatant breach of their statutory duties, the Respondent authorities, acting in concert with the 6th Respondent, have granted environmental and planning clearances for a large-scale housing project within the ecologically sensitive marshland area. The approvals were issued mechanically, without independent verification of the site’s classification in the revenue and forest records, and in total disregard of the prohibitions contained in Rule 4 of the Wetlands Rules, 2017. Such actions constitute a gross abuse of power, violation of environmental law and the Public Trust Doctrine, and amount to dereliction of duty on the part of the Respondents, warranting judicial interference to prevent irreversible ecological damage and to uphold the constitutional mandate under Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India.

22. It is respectfully submitted that the 8th Respondent is now actively advertising the proposed site by floating the advertisement all over the city for sale, under this circumstance I have been left with no other alternative remedy to approach this Hon’ble Court under article 226 of the constitution of Indian on following among other:-

GROUNDS
a. That the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, irrational, and unsustainable in law.

b. That the state environmental impact assessment authority (SEIAA), who have granted environmental clearance to the 8th respondent, has acted in blatant violation of the Rule 4 of the wetlands (conservation and management) rules, 2017. The authority has failed to appreciate that no developmental activity or construction can be permitted within the Ramsar-notified wetlands or within their zone of influence.

c. That the Chennai metropolitan development authority (CMDA)/3rd Respondent, without following the rules in force in respect of the wetland in a hasty and mechanical manner, granted planning permission to the 8th respondent within three days of the Environmental Clearance granted by SEIAA, without any independent application of mind, without verifying the original records, and in total disregard of the mandatory environmental norms. such action is arbitrary and contrary to law.

d. That the 8th respondent has suppressed material facts and misrepresented that the proposed project site does not fall within the RAMSAR boundaries. By such deliberate suppression, the 8th respondent has obtained environmental clearance and planning permission fraudulently and in contravention of environmental laws.

e. That the ratio laid down by the division bench of this hon’ble court in W. P. no.10821 of 2018, dated 18.04.2019, is squarely applicable to the present case. this hon’ble court held that lands situated adjacent to the buckingham canal and forming part of the natural backwater system are to be treated as wetlands requiring protection.

F. That the state had successively transferred large extents of the pallikaranai marsh lands to the forest department, initially 317 hectares, followed by 170.40 hectares, and subsequently 206.98 hectares for protection and conservation. the fact that certain adjoining portions have not yet been formally handed over to the forest department does not alter their ecological character as marsh lands.

In the above circumstances, It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the original proceedings in records of the Planning Permit File No: CMDA/PP/HRB/S/0121/2024, Planning Permission No: OL-PP/HRB/0004/2025, Permit No: OL-01505 Dated: 23.01.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent and thus render justice

In the above circumstances, It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the further proceedings of the 3rd Respondent Planning Permit File No: CMDA/PP/HRB/S/0121/2024, Planning Permission No: OL-PP/HRB/0004/2025 and Permit No: OL-01505 Dated: 23.01.2025 and thereby restraining the 8th respondent from making any construction in RAMSAR sit boundary, situated Perumbakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District thus render justice.

In the above circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction in the nature of a Writ to call for the records of the Planning Permit File No: CMDA/PP/HRB/S/0121/2024, Planning Permission No: OL-PP/HRB/0004/2025, and Permit No: OL-01505 Dated: 23.01.2025 passed by the 3rd Respondent and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, whimsical & untenable and consequently, direct the Respondents 1 to 7 not to grant any approvals or permission for any construction or developmental activities within the Ramsar Site Boundary and within its zone of influence of 1 Kilometre situated Perumbakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and thus render justice.

Solemnly affirmed and signed his } Before Me
name at Chennai on this the 29th day }
of Oct 2025 in my presence }
Advocate: Chennai

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P. No of 2025
J. Brezhnev,
S/o Janardhanam,
No.298, 7th Cross Street,
Palkalai Nagar,
Palavakkam,
Chennai – 6000041. …Petitioner
Vs
1. Union Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC)
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jorbagh Road,
New Delhi – 110 003.

2. The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St George,
Chennai – 600009.

3.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,Egmore,
Chennai – 600008.

4. The District Collector,
Chengalpattu District,
Chengalpattu.

5. The Additional Chief Secretary,
Department of Environmental & Climate Change,
No.1, Jeenis Road, Panagal Building,
Ground Floor, Saidapet,
Chennai – 600015.

6. The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu State Wetland Authority
Panagal Malaigai,
Saidapet, Chennai – 600015.

7. The Member secretary,
State Environmental Impact
Assessment Authority (SEIAA)
No. 327, 9th Floor, MetroS,
Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035.

8. Brigade Enterprises Limited
Represented by its Authorised Signatory
Mr.Hrishikesh Nair,
No.5/142, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, OMR,
Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai – 600041. …Respondents

WRIT PETITION
The address for service of all court notices and process on the petitioner is that of his Counsel S.Tamil Selvan, R.S.Selvam, P.Praveen Samadhanam and S.Prasath Advocates at No.F93C, Phase – II, Spencer Plazza, Anna Salai, Chennai – 02.
The address for service of all notices and processes of the Respondent is as stated above.
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction in the nature of a Writ to call for the records of the Planning Permit File No: CMDA/PP/HRB/S/0121/2024, Planning Permission No: OL-PP/HRB/0004/2025 and Permit No: OL-01505 Dated: 23.01.2025 passed by the 3rd Respondent and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, whimsical & untenable and consequently, direct the Respondents 1 to 7 not to grant any approvals or permission for any construction or developmental activities within the Ramsar Site Boundary and within its zone of influence of 1 Kilometre situated Perumbakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and thus render justice.
Date at Chennai 29th day of October 2025.

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.M.P. No of 2025
IN
W.P. No of 2025
J. Brezhnev,
S/o Janardhanam,
No.298, 7th Cross Street,
Palkalai Nagar,
Palavakkam,
Chennai – 6000041. …Petitioner
Vs
1. Union Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC)
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jorbagh Road,
New Delhi – 110 003.

2. The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St George,
Chennai – 600009.

3.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,Egmore,
Chennai – 600008.

4. The District Collector,
Chengalpattu District,
Chengalpattu.

5. The Additional Chief Secretary,
Department of Environmental & Climate Change,
No.1, Jeenis Road, Panagal Building,
Ground Floor, Saidapet,
Chennai – 600015.

6. The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu State Wetland Authority
Panagal Malaigai,
Saidapet, Chennai – 600015.

7. The Member secretary,
State Environmental Impact
Assessment Authority (SEIAA)
No. 327, 9th Floor, MetroS,
Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035.

8. Brigade Enterprises Limited
Represented by its Authorised Signatory
Mr.Hrishikesh Nair,
No.5/142, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, OMR,
Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai – 600041. …Respondents

STAY PETITION
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the further proceedings of the 3rd Respondent Planning Permit File No: CMDA/PP/HRB/S/0121/2024, Planning Permission No: OL-PP/HRB/0004/2025 and Permit No: OL-01505 Dated: 23.01.2025 and thereby restraining the 8th respondent from making any construction in RAMSAR sit boundary, situated Perumbakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District thus render justice.
Date at Chennai 29th day of October 2025
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.M.P. No of 2025
IN
W.P. No of 2025
J. Brezhnev,
S/o Janardhanam,
No.298, 7th Cross Street,
Palkalai Nagar,
Palavakkam,
Chennai – 6000041. …Petitioner
Vs
1. Union Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC)
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jorbagh Road,
New Delhi – 110 003.

2. The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St George,
Chennai – 600009.

3.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,Egmore,
Chennai – 600008.

4. The District Collector,
Chengalpattu District,
Chengalpattu.

5. The Additional Chief Secretary,
Department of Environmental & Climate Change,
No.1, Jeenis Road, Panagal Building,
Ground Floor, Saidapet,
Chennai – 600015.

6. The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu State Wetland Authority
Panagal Malaigai,
Saidapet, Chennai – 600015.

7. The Member secretary,
State Environmental Impact
Assessment Authority (SEIAA)
No. 327, 9th Floor, MetroS,
Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035.

8. Brigade Enterprises Limited
Represented by its Authorised Signatory
Mr.Hrishikesh Nair,
No.5/142, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, OMR,
Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai – 600041. …Respondents
DISPENSE WITH PETITION
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the original proceedings in records of the Planning Permit File No: CMDA/PP/HRB/S/0121/2024, Planning Permission No: OL-PP/HRB/0004/2025, Permit No: OL-01505 Dated: 23.01.2025 passed by the 3rd Respondent and thus render justice
Date at Chennai 29th day of October 2025
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P. No of 2025
J. Brezhnev,
S/o Janardhanam,
No.298, 7th Cross Street,
Palkalai Nagar,
Palavakkam,
Chennai – 6000041. …Petitioner
Vs
Union Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC)
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jorbagh Road,
New Delhi – 110 003 and 7 others ….Respondents

SYNOPSIS

The present Writ Petition is filed in Public Interest challenging the illegal and arbitrary grant of Environmental Clearance and Planning Permission to the 8th Respondent — M/s. Brigade Enterprises Limited — for construction of a high-rise residential complex in Perumbakkam Village, Chengalpattu District, within or adjoining the Pallikaranai Marshlands, a notified Ramsar Wetland Site of international ecological importance.
The CMDA (3rd Respondent) granted planning permission on 23.01.2025 (Permit No. OL-01505) to the 8th Respondent, barely three days after the SEIAA (7th Respondent) issued Environmental Clearance on 20.01.2025. Both these approvals were issued despite the land being classified in the Revenue Records as “Marsh Land”, forming an integral part of the Pallikaranai Marsh ecosystem, and being subject to express prohibitions under Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, which prohibits reclamation, construction, or conversion of wetlands for non-wetland use.
The Pallikaranai Marshland, designated as a Ramsar Site in 2022, serves as a vital hydrological and ecological buffer for the city of Chennai, preventing floods and supporting a rich diversity of flora and fauna. Successive judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble High Court have emphasized the State’s Public Trust obligation to protect wetlands and prevent alienation or encroachment of natural water bodies.
However, in blatant violation of statutory and judicial mandates, the Respondent authorities, acting in collusion with private entities, have permitted large-scale real estate activity within the ecologically sensitive wetland zone, amounting to an abuse of power and a grave threat to public and environmental safety.
Further, despite the National Green Tribunal’s Order dated 24.09.2025 in Suo Motu O.A. No.91 of 2023 and subsequent Office Order No.07/2025 dated 09.10.2025 directing that no approvals or permissions be granted within the Ramsar site boundary or its 1 km zone of influence, the CMDA and SEIAA proceeded to approve the impugned project.
The press release dated 28.10.2025 issued by the Department of Environment and Climate Change itself admits that “Ground Truthing” and final delineation of Ramsar site boundaries are still pending, thereby rendering any construction approval premature and unlawful.
The petitioner, a resident of the locality and advocate acting in public interest, seeks to quash the impugned approvals and to restrain further construction or development within or around the Ramsar site, to preserve the ecological integrity of the Pallikaranai Marshland.
Date at Chennai 29th day of October 2025
Counsel for petitioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P. No of 2025
J. Brezhnev,
S/o Janardhanam,
No.298, 7th Cross Street,
Palkalai Nagar,
Palavakkam,
Chennai – 6000041. …Petitioner
Vs
1.The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St George,
Chennai – 600009 and others …Respondents
TYPED SET PAPERS
S.NO DATE DESCRIPTION P.NO
2. 29.10.2025 Synopsis
1
3. 29.10.2025 Dates and Events
4
4. 29.10.2025 Coding Sheet
5
5. 29.10.2025 Court Fee
6
6. 29.10.2025 Writ Petition
7
7. 29.10.2025 Dispense with Petition
10
8. 29.10.2025 Stay Petition
12
9. 29.10.2025 Affidavit
15
10. 23.01.2025 Impugned order
35
TYPED SET PAPERS

11. 15.06.2016 G.O.24 of Tamil Nadu Wetland Authority 37
12. 23.07.2022 Covering letter of Brigade Enterprises Ltd 42
13. 23.07.2022 Common Application form
43
14. 23.07.2022 Appendix – I
46
15. 23.07.2022 Proposed Terms of Reference
59
16. 30.01.2023 Proposal received date at each stage of flow 81
17. 09.02.2023 Terms of Reference (ToR)
82
18. 08.01.2024 Brigade Enterprises MOU signed intimation send to department of corporate
92
19. 10.01.2025 Development charges letter
95
20. 20.01.2025 EC Granted by SEIAA
101
21. 23.01.2025 Impugned order
135
22. 23.01.2025 CMDA letter to The Commissioner of St.Thomas Mount Panchayat Union
137
23. 24.09.2025 Order made in Original Application No.91 of 2023
144
24. 09.10.2025 Office Order No.07/2025
163
25. 25.10.2025 The Times of India Newspaper
165
26. Ramsar site & Influence area map
168
27. Petitioner Adhar Card
169
28. Petitioner Pan Card
171
29. Petitioner Bar Council Identify Card
172
30. 28.10.2025 Press release by department of Environment 173
31. 29.10.2025 Vakalath
179
32. 29.10.2025 Batta
181

Dated at Chennai On this the 29th day of Oct, 2025

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P. No of 2025
J. Brezhnev,
S/o Janardhanam,
No.298, 7th Cross Street,
Palkalai Nagar,
Palavakkam,
Chennai – 6000041. …Petitioner
Vs
1.The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St George,
Chennai – 600009 and others …Respondents
DATES AND EVENTS
DATES EVENTS
15.06.2016 G.O.24 of Tamil Nadu Wetland Authority
23.07.2022 Covering letter of Brigade Enterprises Ltd
23.07.2022 Common Application form
23.07.2022 Appendix – I
23.07.2022 Proposed Terms of Reference
30.01.2023 Proposal received date at each stage of flow
09.02.2023 Terms of Reference(ToR)
08.01.2024 Press Release – Brigade Enterprises
10.01.2025 Development charges letter
20.01.2025 File No.9462 issued by SEIAA
23.01.2025 Planning Permit
23.01.2025 CMDA letter to The Commissioner of St.Thomas Mount Panchayat Union
24.09.2025 Original Application No.91 of 2023
09.10.2025 Office Order No.07/2025
25.10.2025 The Times of India Newspaper
2025 Ramsar site & Influence area map

Dated at Chennai On this the 29th day of Oct, 2025
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
HIGH COURT: MADRAS

TYPED SET

COURT FEES 750
BATTA 240
DISPENSE WITH 20
STAY PETITION 20
IMPUGNEDORDER 10
VAKALATH 10

TOTAL 1050

S.TAMILSELVAN, MS.353/19
R.S.SELVAM, Ms.665/11
P.PRAVEEN SAMADHANAM, MS.1498/15
S.PRASATH, MS.5825/24
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER