Uncategorized

While allowing these petitions and setting aside impugned order dated 29.09.2022, the Registry is directed to number this matter as a suo moto writ petition and thereafter place the same before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders. [A.S.M, J.] [C.K, J.]

by Sekar Reporter · Published June 9, 2026 · Updated June 9, 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on: 27.02.2026
Pronounced on: 01.06.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICEANITA SUMANTH and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W. P.Nos.30717 & 29856 of 2022and
W.M.P.Nos.29243 & 30150 of 2022
W.P.No.30717 of 2022:
M/s.Golden Marine Harvest
Rep by its Partner K.Ravikumar
Chettikuppam, Marakkanam Villupuram District 604303 .. Petitioner
vs
1.The National Green Tribunal
Southern Zone,
Rep by its Registrar,
Kalas Mahal, KamarajarSalai, PWD Estate Chepauk, Triplicane Chennai 600 005.
2.The Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Fort St.George Chennai 600 009.
3.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Forest Secretariat, Fort St George Chennai 600 009.
4.The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
No 76, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai 600 032
5.The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority
Department of Environment and Forests First Floor, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
6.The Member Secretary
Coastal Aquaculture Authority
5th Floor, Fanepet, Nandanam
Chennai 600 113
7.The Chief Engineer
State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Centre
Tharamani,
Chennai 600 113
8.The District Collector
Chengelpet District
Collector Office, GST Road, Chengalpattu 603 001
9.The District Collector
Villupuram District
Collector Office Road, Moovendar Nagar, Villupuram 605302
10.The Block Development Officer,
Lathur Panchayat
Chengelpet District
11.K.Saravanan
[R11 impleaded vide order of this Court dated
09.02.2026 made in WMP.No.11642 of 2023
in W.P.No.30717 of 2022 .. Respondents
W.P.No.29856 of 2022:
M/s.Genesis Prawn Hatchery,
Rep. By its Sole Proprietor Mr.M.John,
Having its registered office at
No.39, Kohinoor Complex, East Coast Road, Vettuvankeni, Chennai – 600 115 .. Petitioner
vs
1.The Registrar
National Green Tribunal, South Zone, KamarajarSalai, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Chief Secretary Govt.Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 009.
3.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary
Department of Environment,
Climate Change and Forests Govt.Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 009.
4.The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
No 76, Anna Salai, Guindy,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 032
5.The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority,
Department of Environment and Forests, First Floor, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 035.
6.The Member Secretary,
Coastal Aquaculture Authority, 5th Floor, Fanepet, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.
7.The Chief Engineer,
State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Centre,
Taramani,
Chennai – 600 113.
8.The District Collector,
Chengelpet District, Collector Office, GST Road, Chengalpattu – 603 001.
9.The District Collector,
Villupuram District,
Collector Office Road, Moovendar Nagar, Villupuram, Tamil Nadu – 605602.
10.The Block Development Officer,
Lathur Panchayat, Chengelpet District
.. Respondents
Prayer in W.P.No.30717 of 2022: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Hon’ble NGT in O.A.No.05 of 2021 culminating in the Impugned Judgment dt.29.09.2022 made in O.A.No.05 of 2021 and quash the same.
Prayer in W.P.No.29856 of 2022: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the common order passed by the 1st respondent in O.A.No.05 of 2021 (SZ) and O.A.No.9 of 2021 (SZ) dated 29.09.2022 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and wholly without jurisdiction.
W.P.Nos. For Petitioners For Respondents
W.P.Nos.30717 of 2022 Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Counsel for Mr.Kamalesh Mr.C.Harsha Raj,
Special Government Pleader for R2, R8 & R9

Mr.S.SaiSathyajith, Standing Counsel for R4
Ms.Indhu Bala,
Additional Government Pleader for R3
Mr.K.B.Arul,
Senior Panel Counsel for R6
Mr.V.Ravi,
Special Government Pleader for R10
No Appearance – for R1, R5 and R7
Mr.Yogeshwaran for R11
W.P.Nos.29856 of 2022 Mr.Sunny Sheen for Ms.V.Srimathi Mr.C.Harsha Raj,
Special Government Pleader for R2, R8 & R9
Mr.S.SaiSathyajith, Standing Counsel for R4
Ms.IndhuBala,
Additional Government Pleader for R3
Mr.AR.Sakthivel, Senior Panel Counsel for R6
Mr.V.Ravi,
Special Government Pleader for R10
No Appearance – for R1, R5 and R7
COMMON ORDER
(Dr. ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
The petitioners are engaged in running shrimp hatcheries. They are aggrieved by an order dated 29.09.2022 passed by the National Green
Tribunal (NGT), Southern Zone, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as ‘NGT’) and challenge the same on various grounds.
2. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Kamalesh for the petitioner in WP.No.30717 of 2022 and Mr.Sunny Sheen, learned counsel for Ms.V.Srimathi for the petitioner in WP.No.29856 of 2022, firstly argue that the impugned order is contrary to the principles of natural justice. The petitioners have not been heard by the NGT and the directions issued at paragraph 25 of the impugned order greatly prejudice their interests.
3. On the merits, the petitioners have taken us in detail through the scheme of various enactments governing the protection of the environment including coastal areas. The petitioners argue that they are covered by the ambit of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005 (CAA Act) which is a complete code by itself, providing for various regulatory measures. The directions in the impugned order thus, are superfluous, being contrary to the scheme of the CAA Act specifically Sections 27 and 28 thereof.
4. The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act), in Schedule I thereof, adumbrates those enactments that would be encompassed by the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The CAA Act is not covered therein. Hence, there is a conscious decision by the legislature not to bring the activity of coastal aquaculture within the jurisdiction of the NGT.
5. Petitioners are specifically aggrieved by directions of the NGT that (i) they ought to have obtained approvals under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notifications 2011 and 2019 in the absence of which, their hatcheries are to be removed (ii) they are liable to remit compensation for restoration of the environment and (iii) the authorities are to take all further steps to regulate their business.
6. The Petitioner in W.P.No.29856 of 2022 relies upon the decisions in (i)Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai V. Ankita Sinha and Ors and (ii)Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station V. Ashwani Kumar Dubey and Ors. , and the Petitioner in W.P.No. 30717 of 2022 cites the judgement of the Delhi High Court in Telefonaktiebolaget LM
Ericsson (Publ) V. Competition Commission of India and anr.
Stand of the Respondents
7. A common counter has been filed on behalf of R3, the Secretary to Government, Department of Environment Climate Change and Forest, represented by Ms.Indhu Bala, learned Additional Government Pleader, and R5, Member Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management
Authority. It is their stand that it is the Authority constituted under the CAA Act that is the proper authority to regulate the construction and operation of aquaculture farms and hatcheries within coastal areas.
8. Referring to Section 27, they submit that both the 1991 and 2011 CRZ Notifications permit the functioning of hatcheries, beyond 500 mts from High Tide Line (HTL). R5 has sought a clarification from the National Coastal Zone Management Authority, Government of India as to whether hatcheries need clearance under the 2011 CRZ notification and await a response.
9. Incidentally, they also assail maintainability of these writ petitions as the remedy of statutory appeals under Section 22 of the NGT Act before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is available to the petitioners.
10. R6 is the Member Secretary of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority and is represented by Mr.K.B.Arul, learned Senior Panel Counsel (WP.No.30717 of 2022). The sum and substance of their submissions is to say that neither the 1991 nor 2011 CRZ Notifications list aquaculture or hatcheries as impermissible activities. The CAA Act has struck a balance between protecting the coastline and saving the employment of workers as well as investment in that activity.
11. Taking us in detail through the scheme of the CAA Act, R6 would submit that stringent measures are in place for regulation of coastal aquaculture. In summary, their contentions, as set out in their counter dated 16.02.2023 are as below:
i. Aquaculture perse was not included in the list of activities prohibited or permitted in CRZ in any of the CRZ notifications.
ii. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) no. 561 of 1994 has held that aquaculture is an industry and hence it is covered by the prohibition imposed by the sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph 2 of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forests (Department of Environment, Forests and Wildlife) No. S.O.114(E), dated the 19th February, 1991 issued under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986. iii. By enacting CAA Act, 2005 for establishment of Coastal Aquaculture Authority to regulate the coastal aquaculture, intention of the Government was not to treat coastal aquaculture as a prohibited activity within the meaning of the CRZ notification but to remove the prohibitions imposed by the CRZ notifications on coastal aquaculture. iv. Section 27 of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005 exempted the coastal aquaculture from the prohibitions of CRZ notification issued from time to time in areas beyond 200 m from HTL.
v. The hatcheries have always been excluded and
exempted from the prohibitions of CRZ Notifications 1991& 2011 and was not listed in the regulated and permissible activities.
vi. Therefore, the hatchery activity was not considered in the definition of coastal aquaculture as provided under sub-section 1(c) of Section 2 of CAA Act, 2005 which defined coastal aquaculture to mean aquaculture Farms and not the hatcheries. vii. Accordingly, the prohibitions of CAA Act, 2005 within the No development Zone of 200m from the HTL as provided under Sub Section 8 of Section 13 of CAA Act, 2005 does not apply to hatcheries as the Act exclusively considered regulation of the farming activities in coastal areas which does not include hatcheries.
viii. The action of the Govt. of India in declaring MPEDA as the registering authority for hatcheries during the year 2005 whereas CAA was registering all coastal aquaculture farms under CAA Act, 2005, reiterates the fact that the Act did not include hatcheries in coastal aquaculture.
ix. The exclusion provided for hatcheries in CRZ notifications implies that the coastal aquaculture hatcheries do not require CRZ clearance but registration issued by the Coastal Aquaculture authority under CAA Act, 2005.
x. The certification process and compliances to be fulfilled for CAA certifications as compared to that of CRZ clearance, is much stringent and regulatory ensuring protection of coastal environment. xi Coastal aquaculture is not prohibited in CRZ and shall operate with the registration issued by CAA the Coastal Aquaculture authority under CAA Act, 2005.
12. R4, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) is represented by Mr.S.Sai Sathyajith, learned Standing Counsel, who refers to the judgement of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd.& Ors4, submitting that the jurisdiction of the NGT would not encompass the CAA Act as it is not referred to in the Schedule thereto. He has taken us elaborately through the scheme of environmental and coastal protection.
13. In their counter dated 26th November, 2024, the TNPCB has taken the stand that the management of shrimp hatcheries, farms and aquaculture industries, falls under the purview of the Authority under the CAA Act. The TNPCB officials had inspected the unit on 19.01.2024 and their findings are that the unit was in operation, that the effluent, after treatment in the effluent treatment plant, was being discharged into the sea, and that the quality of effluents and constituents such as, pH, Total
Suspended Solid, Total Dissolved Solids, Chloride, sulphates, BOD, COD, TKN, Dissolved Phosphate, Ammoniacal Nitrogen and Nitrate were found to be within permissible limits.
14. However, there are two dangers flagged in the counter as the petitioners had not (i) obtained consent of the TNPCB under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (in short ‘Water Act’) and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (in short ‘Air Act’) and (ii) the activity of shrimp hatchery farms and aquaculture industries is not classified under the Central Pollution Control Board

4 2019 INSC 220 : (Civil Appeal Nos.4763 and 4764 of 2013)
(CPCB) harmonized classification of industries which is followed by the State Pollution Control Board, and hence stands outside its purview.
15. R4 has also argued that the areas of operation of the CAA and Pollution Control Board are independent of each other, and even if the aquaculture unit were to be regulated under the CAA Act, the regulation of their activities qua air and water pollution would fall under the monitoring and regulatory control of R4 only.
16. In this case, the petitioners have not obtained approvals under the Water and Air Acts, but have obtained consent to operate from R4 who would argue that the powers of regulating pollution are independent of the consent mechanism. As regards the interplay of their jurisdiction with the CAA, they would argue that their jurisdiction is both independent and concurrent with other regulatory bodies in connection with environment compliance.
17. Thus, the fact that the petitioners have obtained consent to establish or to operate, would not oust R4 from exercising its powers to prevent and control pollution. R4 relies upon the decisions in S.Jagannath V. Union of India , Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd.& Ors. and A.Paramasivan V. Tamil Nadu Pollution
Control Board, Chennai, NGT (SZ) .
Issues for consideration
(i) Is it right for the NGT to have assumed jurisdiction in a matter relating to the applicability of the CAA Act when the Act was not adumbrated in the Schedule to the NGT Act?
(ii) Ought not the NGT have issued notice to the aquaculture units that would be impacted by their directions under the impugned order and having not issued notice, is the order not bad for gross violation of principles of natural justice?
(iii) On merits, should aquaculture units obtain approvals under the
CRZ Notifications and be subject to oversight and management of the
Pollution Control Boards?
On Maintainability qua issues (i) and (ii)
18. The two issues on maintainability relate to whether the NGT could proceed to decide matters concerning coastal aquaculture as the CAA Act was not adumbrated in the Schedule to the NGT Act, and whether notice ought to have been issued to the petitioners prior to proceeding to issue directions adverse to their interests.
19. In Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (I)
Ltd.& Ors8, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had occasion to deal with the issue of maintainability of directions issued by the NGT concerning enactments not mentioned in the schedule to the NGT Act. The conclusion was unambiguous to the effect that those enactments not mentioned in the schedule would stand outside the jurisdiction of the NGT.
20. The Court has held that the NGT has no general power of judicial review akin to Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, being a Court of limited jurisdiction cannot strike down Rules or Regulations made in terms of an enactment over which its jurisdiction does not extend. As the CAA Act is not listed in the schedule to the NGT Act, there can be question that the jurisdiction of the NGT would not extend to encompass matters that fall within the ambit of the CAA.
21. The NGT undoubtedly can assume jurisdiction suo moto, and to that extent, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Bench in this matter, is perfectly in order. However, there is a requirement to hear the parties that are likely to be aggrieved by the directions of the NGT prior to such issuance, at least by issue of a Public Notice. In the present case, this has not been done, and the Petitioners have obtained interim protection from this Court on that ground, on the strength of which they are in operation

8 2019 INSC 220 : (Civil Appeal Nos.4763 and 4764 of 2013)
till date.
22. The NGT assumes jurisdiction in terms of the variousprovisions of the NGT Act. Section 19 of the Act stipulates that the NGT shall not be bound by the procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Section 19(4) goes on to say that in the discharge of its powers, the NGT is vested with all the enabling features of a Civil Court as provided under the CPC, such as summoning and enforcing attendance of persons, examining them on oath, discovery and production of documents, receiving evidence and issuing commission, power of review, passing of exparte and interim orders and any other order that may be prescribed. All proceedings before the NGT are deemed to be judicial proceedings and the NGT, deemed to be a Civil Court.
23. Section 19(3) also clarifies that the NGT shall not be bound by the Rules of Evidence as contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Hence, under Section 19(2), the NGT has been, over all, given power to regulate its own procedure.
24. The question that came up before the Supreme Court in Ankita Sinha was whether the NGT may initiate suo motu action for discharge of its functions. Three Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court reiterated that the NGT is a forum that exercises complementary jurisdiction to that of Constitutional Courts providing an alternate efficacious remedy for environmental issues. However, they made a distinction between the suo motu powers of the NGT and those exercised by the Constitutional Courts, in that, the NGT was bound to restrict its scope of enquiry within the domain of the scheduled enactments alone.
25. They also specifically emphasized that the exercise of the jurisdiction did not amount to a waiver of principles of natural justice and fair play. Thus, when suo motu action was initiated, the Registry of the NGT should make an office report and issue notice to the author of the news item or the communication on the basis of which suo motu action had been taken, such that, that party could assist the NGT in the hearing.
26. That party was also expected to produce before the NGT the factual materials on the basis of which the communication urging the NGT to take action, or the media report had been published. Thereafter, the NGT was expected to afford proper opportunity to the party likely to be affected before issuing adverse orders.
27. The relevant portion of the judgment in Ankita Sinha is as follows:
98. When the Registry of the NGT does indeed receive a communication or letter, including matters published in media, it may cause to initiate suo motu action by inviting attention of NGT to such matters in the form of office report.
Such circumstances would however require a notice to be given to the sender of the communication or author of the news item, as the case may be, to assist the NGT in the course of hearing and to substantiate the factual matters. It must also be said that the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction does not mean eschewing with the principles of natural justice and fair play. In other words, the party likely to be affected should be afforded due opportunity to present their side, before suffering adverse orders.
28. In Veena Gupta and another V. Central Pollution Control Board , the issue that directly concerned the Supreme Court was whether the NGT should afford an opportunity of hearing to an affected party. The Court has taken judicial note of the NGT’s ‘recurrent engagement in unilateral decision making’ and has deprecated the same. To quote the
Supreme Court,
4. The National Green Tribunal’s recurrent engagement in unilateral decision making, provisioning ex post facto review hearing and routinely dismissing it has regrettably become a prevailing norm. In its zealous quest for justice, the Tribunal must tread carefully to avoid the oversight of propriety. The practice of ex parte orders and the imposition of damages amounting to crores of rupees, have proven to be a counterproductive force in the broader mission of environmental safeguarding.
5. Significantly, these orders have consistently faced stays from this Court, resulting in the unraveling of the commendable efforts put forth by the learned Members, lawyers, and other stakeholders. It is imperative for the Tribunal to infuse a renewed sense of procedural integrity, ensuring that its actions resonate with a harmonious balance between justice and due process. Only then can it reclaim its standing as a beacon of environmental protection, where well-intentioned endeavors are not simply washed away.
6. It appears that the appellants did not have a full opportunity to contest the matter and place all their defenses before the Tribunal. They filed this appeal and by order dated 04.03.2022, this Court stayed the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. This was inevitable. Two years have passed by and the stay is still operating. We have no other alternative except to set aside the orders dated 31.08.2021 and 26.11.2021 and remand the matter back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal issue notices to all the necessary parties, hear them in detail, and pass appropriate orders. Needless to say that the Tribunal shall hear the case, uninfluenced by the observations and conclusions drawn in the orders dated 31.08.2021 and 26.11.2021.
29. In Grasim Industries V. State of Madhya Pradesh and another too, the order of the NGT was set aside for lack of opportunity granted to the party affected. They had referred to the judgment in the case of Ankita Sinha , while ultimately setting aside the order of the NGT and remanding the matter to the NGT for consideration afresh.
30. In the present matter, in light of our conclusion that the NGT can address only those enactments enumerated in the Schedule to the Act, the question of remanding the matters to the NGT does not arise. However, since we are of the unambiguous view that the issue taken up by the NGT merits serious consideration, we have taken recourse to an alternate methodology for dealing with the same.
31. The first and seconds issues are answered accordingly, in favour of the petitioners.
Issue (iii), on the merits of whether coastal aquaculture units ought to seek and obtain approval under the CRZ Notifications
32. We have heard detailed submissions on the merits of the issue as well and have, in the interests of completion of narration, recorded the submissions of the parties. However, having held the first two issues in favour of the petitioners, we are of the view that the decision on merits must await proper assumption of jurisdiction.
33. Our decision concerning the absence of jurisdiction by the NGT, does not, in any way, deflect from, or dilute the magnitude and importance of the issue identified by the NGT for attention. This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution is not deterred from assuming jurisdiction suo moto, as we are of the considered view that the issue identified by the NGT is one of enormous importance qua the coastal environment.
34. For the above reasons, we issue notice suo moto to the respondents to address this Court on the issue of whether coastal aquaculture units (i) ought to seek and obtain approval under the CRZ
Notifications, (ii) the extent of interplay of the CAA Act with general environmental laws including but not restricted to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and (iii) any other issue that is incidental, ancillary and supplementary to the aforesaid issues
35. While allowing these petitions and setting aside impugned order dated 29.09.2022, the Registry is directed to number this matter as a suo moto writ petition and thereafter place the same before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
[A.S.M, J.] [C.K, J.]
01.06.2026
Index:Yes
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes
Sl/vs
To
1.The Registrar
National Green Tribunal, South Zone, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Chief Secretary Govt.Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 009.
3.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Forests Govt.Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 009.
4.The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
No 76, Anna Salai, Guindy,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 032
5.The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority,
Department of Environment and Forests, First Floor, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 035.
6.The Member Secretary,
Coastal Aquaculture Authority, 5th Floor, Fanepet, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.
7.The Chief Engineer,
State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Centre, Taramani,
Chennai – 600 113.
8.The District Collector,
Chengelpet District, Collector Office, GST Road, Chengalpattu – 603 001.
9.The District Collector,
Villupuram District,
Collector Office Road, Moovendar Nagar, Villupuram, Tamil Nadu – 605602.
10.The Block Development Officer,
Lathur Panchayat, Chengelpet District.
11. The National Green Tribunal
Southern Zone,
Rep by its Registrar,
Kalas Mahal, Kamarajar Salai, PWD Estate Chepauk, Triplicane Chennai 600 005.