W.P.(MD)No.6678 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.03.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN W.P.(MD)No.6678 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.5178 of 2022 and 21072 of 2023 K.Muthuselvam ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Deputy Salt Commissioner, O/o.Deputy Salt Commissioner, No.26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhawan, Chennai -6. 2.The Superintendent of Salt Commission, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. 3.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. 4.The Tahsildar, Srivaikundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District. 5.The Tahsildar, Eral Taluk, Thoothukudi District. 6.Maharajan 1/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.6678 of 2022 7.The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, C7 & C9, SIPCO Industrial Complex, Meelavittan, Thoothukudi-628 008. ... Respondents (R7 was suo motu impleaded vide order of this Court, dated 03.02.2025) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the Respondents 1 to 4 from granting any lease or licence for manufacturing salt pan in favour of the Respondent 6 in and around Servaikaranmadam, Iruvappapuram II Village, Eral Taluk, Thoothukudi District. For Petitioner :Mr.D.Selvanayagam For R1 :Mr.S.Jeyasingh For R2 to R5 :Mr.Suryananth Government Advocate For R6 :Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for M/s.Ajmal Associates For R7 :Ms.Madhuri Donti Reddy ***** 2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.6678 of 2022 O R D E R The petitioner moved this Court seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to restrain the respondents No.1 to 4 from granting any lease or license for creating and operating salt pan by the 6th respondent at Servaikaranmadam, Iruvappapuram II Village, Eral Taluk, Thoothukudi District. 2.The petitioner claims that he is an agriculturalist and cultivating 6½ acres of lands at Servaikaranmadam, Iruvappapuram II Village, Eral Taluk, Thoothukudi District. He states that his father, who had purchased the property, engaged in agricultural activities and after his death, the petitioner had been cultivating the lands with the assistance of his mother. 3.He states that the 6th respondent, who is in possession of 400 acres of agricultural land and has without getting permission from any authority, State or Central, has converted the agricultural field into salt pans and is harvesting salt. He states that the residents of the village have objected to the establishment of the salt pan with the District 3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.6678 of 2022 Administration and other authorities since 2011. 4.He urges that extraction of salt is an industrial activity and that the lands in the area have not been converted into industrial zone. Additionally, he points out that the Deputy Salt Commissioner has not granted any leases for salt manufacturing. On account of salt manufacturing, the petitioner’s entire agricultural activity has come to a grinding halt, as waste salt water is being discharged into his paddy field and banana trees. He states that farmers’ rights are at stake and that salt manufacturing negatively impacts the ecological balance and the environment. He pleads it must be preserved for future generations. He urges that respondents 1 and 4 have evaded their statutory duty to stop the sixth respondent. Hence, the Writ Petition. 5.This Court entertained the Writ Petition and issued notice to the respondents. Mr.S.Jeyasingh, appears for the first respondent, Mr.Suriyananth, Additional Government Pleader appears for the respondents 2 to 5 and Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, appears for the sixth respondent. 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.6678 of 2022 6.The first respondent and the fourth respondent have filed their counter affidavits. 7.The stand of the Central Government is that the Salt Department has dispensed with the licensing system for salt manufacturing since 1996, and therefore, there is no requirement to file an application for private salt manufacturing. They further state that a lease is necessary only for the Government owned lands, which are granted by the Salt Commissioner. Insofar as Servaikaranmadam Village in Thoothukudi District is concerned, no license or lease has been granted to any salt manufacturer. In fine, the stand of the Central Government is that salt manufacturing falls outside the licensing system. They would rely upon the Notification, that has been issued by the Central Government in exercise of Section 37 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, dated 23.07.1996 to substantiate the plea. 8.The fifth respondent, Tahsildar, Eral Taluk, has filed an affidavit. The stand of the Tahsildar is that the salt manufacturing does not require 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.6678 of 2022 any license from the State Government. However, the Tahsildar added that as per Board Proceeding No.11, dated 04.04.2007, salt manufacturing is categorised as “orange” category and therefore, consent must be obtained to establish and operate salt pans from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. 9.In the light of the stand taken by the Tahsildar, I impleaded the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board as party to the Writ Petition on 03.02.2025. Notice was issued to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. Ms.Madhuri Donti Reddy took notice on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. She sought time to get instructions. It was granted. 10.She has filed a counter on behalf of the District Environmental Engineer, Thoothukudi. In terms of this counter, the Board has stated that while the salt pan per se does not require any permission, salt refineries do require permission from the Pollution Control Board. It is pointed out that in and around the Iruvappapuram Village, two entities have established salt refineries, namely, M/s.Velan Salt Private Limited 6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.6678 of 2022 and M/s.Sun Salt. Both these entities have obtained permission to manufacture iodized, free flow refined salt with a production capacity of 1200 tons per month respectively. The counter affidavit is categorical in stating that salt pans are not categorised as industrial activities requiring consent from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. 11.As pointed out in the counter affidavit filed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, a water sample has been sent for analysis, the matter was adjourned to enable the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to produce the sample report. 12.The report filed along with an additional affidavit by the District Environmental Engineer. It states that the surface water parameters are within the Board prescribed standards for the discharge of trade effluent into inland surface water. It also confirms that salt water bittern from nearby salt pans do not enter into the stream located nearby agricultural lands. 7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.6678 of 2022 13.As pleadings were completed, I took up the Writ Petition for final disposal. I heard Mr.D.Selvanayagam, for the Writ Petitioner, Mr.S.Jeyasingh, for the first respondent, Mr.Suriyananth, Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 2 to 5, Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, for the sixth respondent and Ms.Madhuri Donti Reddy, for the seventh respondent. 14.Mr.D.Selvanayagam, pleads that on account of the salt pan being operated next to the lands of the petitioner, the petitioner is unable to cultivate his land, which negatively impacts the environment. He urges that such activities invite the wrath of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 and violate the Coastal Regulatory Regulation and also Hazardous Waste Management Regulation framed by the pollution control authorities. 15.The Counsels appearing for the State and Union Government submit that private salt manufacturing has been de-licensed from 1996 and therefore, they are not in a position to act on the representation of the Writ Petitioner seeking cancellation of the license. 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.6678 of 2022 16.Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, argued that water for salt manufacturing is drawn from borewells in the area, and not from the sea. He states that the saline content of the borewells is very high and they are utilised for the purpose of manufacturing salt. He adds that the salt manufacturing, as indulged by the sixth respondent, is a traditional practice that prevents water from seeping into the ground where the activity is carried on or the neighbouring fields. He states that the land, on which the sixth respondent is conducting activities, was sold to the sixth respondent by the petitioner’s father and that the Writ Petition is not a bona fide litigation. 17.In response, Mr.D.Selvanayagam, urges that the Central Government has the power to make Rules under Chapter-VII Section 37(2)(v) and (xii) of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, and that this Court can give a direction to the Central Government to frame rules. 18.I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. I have gone through the records and the applicable laws. 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.6678 of 2022 19.The plea of the Writ Petitioner was based on the assertion that the respondents No.1 to 4 might grant a lease or license for manufacturing salt in the salt pans in and around Servaikaranmadam, Iruvappapuram II Village, Eral Taluk, Thoothukudi District. The clear stand of the Central Government is that private salt manufacturing, which was subject to licensing till 1996, has been de-licensed by way of a notification issued under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. Not only as the Central Government amended the Rules, but has taken a policy decision not to regulate private salt manufacturing. Salt manufacturing is not regulated by the State Government either. 20.Therefore, the prayer sought for by the Writ Petitioner that no license should be granted by the State or Central Government to the sixth respondent is an act of impossibility. This is because, when no license was granted nor can be granted, there cannot be a Mandamus not to grant license. It is a non-licensed field of operation. Any person interested in manufacturing salt on their land, is entitled to do so. The Central Government only regulates salt manufacturing in the Government lands, 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.6678 of 2022 for which, leases have been granted by the first respondent. The first respondent has specifically stated that in Servaikaranmadam, Iruvappapuram II Village, Eral Taluk, Thoothukudi District, no lease has been granted. 21.The State Government too has taken a similar stand saying that it does not grant any license for private salt manufacturing. This left out only the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, which, as pointed out from the counter of the fourth respondent, is an “orange” category. 22.The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board had also filed a counter that as per Board Proceeding No.6, dated 02.08.2016, salt pans is not categorised as industrial activity, requiring the consent of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. 23.In the light of the above discussion, the prayer of the petitioner not to grant license to salt pans is totally outside the purview of the Central and State Governments as well as the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. 11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.6678 of 2022 24.Insofar as the plea of Mr.D.Selvanayagam that under Section 37 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, the Central Government is empowered to regulate private salt pans is concerned, as pointed out supra, the Central Government did, in fact, regulate the salt manufacturing till 1996. Thereafter, it has taken a policy decision not to indulge in licensing private salt pans. The power to frame rules under Section 37 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, is an exercise of subordinate level legislation. A Mandamus cannot be issued to the Government to frame rules, when it has taken a policy decision not to do so. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner fails. 25.Insofar as the plea of Mr.D.Selvanayagam that salt pan activities affect the Coastal Regulation Zone, the Hazardous Waste Management Regulation as well as the Environmental Protection Act is concerned, there is absolutely no plea in the affidavit to that effect. Where there is no plea, obviously, this Court cannot invent pleas for the petitioner and grant reliefs. Apart from that, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, has created National Green Tribunal across the nation. If the 12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.6678 of 2022 petitioner feels that the action of the salt pans would invite Section 2F or Section 2M of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, the remedy to approach the said Tribunal for the purpose of reliefs. 26.Hence, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Tribunal, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index :Yes / No 20.03.2025 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No cmr To 1.The Superintendent of Salt Commission, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. 2.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. 3.The Tahsildar, Srivaikundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District. 4.The Tahsildar, Eral Taluk, Thoothukudi District. 13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.6678 of 2022 V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. cmr W.P.(MD)No.6678 of 2022 20.03.2025 14/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis