Case Note & Summary
This common order decided two writ petitions filed in 2016 before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The first, W.P.(MD) No.7406 of 2016, was instituted as a public interest litigation by Dr. R.S. Lal Mohan, a former Principal Scientist, Government of India, and after his death on 13 May 2024, pursued by substituted petitioners C. Shoba and A. Vins Anto. The second, W.P.(MD) No.6297 of 2016, was filed by T. Manikandan, a councillor. The subject matter was a Housing Board Colony at Vallankumaranvilai, Vadiveeswaram Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. The layout was originally approved in 1994 and revised in 1996, 1997 and 2000. It contained about 2500 residents, four parks, one playground and a nursery school. A park of 30 cents in Survey No.L5 2/2, a nursery school of 24 cents in Re-Survey No.L5 2/5 and a playfield of 26 cents in Re-Survey No.L5 2/4 were earmarked. In 2002 the fifth respondent approved layout plan number 57 of 2002, shifting the public utility area from these survey numbers to resurvey numbers L5 3/1 and L5 2/6 abutting a cremation ground in resurvey number L5 3/3. Petitioners alleged the shift was clandestine and contrary to public interest, because the park area was being used for housing and the relocation near a crematorium exposed children to polluting gases. The petition sought certiorarified mandamus to quash the 2002 approval and restore status quo ante; W.P. No.6297 sought mandamus to prevent alteration of the nursery school, playground and park. During arguments, counsel for the first petition conceded that the nursery school and playfield prayers had become infructuous, leaving only the park in Re-Survey No.L5 2/2. Petitioners relied on Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa (1991) 4 SCC 54 to argue that a public park cannot be substituted and a layout scheme cannot be altered except for public good. Respondents countered that the park was gifted to the local body, the revised layout allocated 10.05% open space against the required 10%, and the 2002 revision was prompted by an unauthorized private burial ground at Survey No.L5-3/5 within 90 metres of residential plots. The revised plan provided five park and play space locations totalling 6536 square metres and increased the nursery school extent from 832 to 960 square metres. The court found that neither of the petitioners resided in the layout; no resident or allottee challenged the shifting. It held that the Muddappa case did not assist the petitioners because there the writ petitioners were residents and had locus standi, whereas the present petitioners lacked locus standi to maintain the public interest litigation. The court observed that the public park concept, though important, did not prevent relocation; the park was not eliminated but shifted to a larger area about a kilometre away, and the area given was bigger. It further noted that crematoriums exist within residential areas in many cities including Chennai, and directed the Corporation running the crematoriums to put in place mechanisms to restrict emission of pollutants. Consequently, W.P.(MD) No.7406 of 2016 was disposed with no order as to costs and interim applications dismissed; W.P.(MD) No.6297 of 2016 was dismissed for non-appearance with no order as to costs and interim application dismissed.
Headnote
A) Public Interest Litigation - Locus Standi - Non-residents cannot maintain PIL challenging shifting of a park in a housing layout without direct interest or support of affected residents - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The court noted that the original petitioners and substituted petitioners did not reside in the layout and no resident or allottee challenged the shifting; it distinguished Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa where writ petitioners were residents with necessary locus standi. Held that petitioners herein had no locus standi to maintain the public interest litigation (Paras 3, 13-14). B) Town and Country Planning - Modification of Approved Layout Scheme - Shifting a park to a larger area without eliminating public utility is permissible if revision complies with norms and public good - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The court found that the park was not done away with but moved about a kilometre away, the revised plan provided five park and play space locations as against four earlier, and open space reservation was 10.05% as against required 10%; it held no legal infirmity in the 2002 revision and distinguished the Muddappa case where a private nursing home replaced a public park (Paras 9-11, 15). C) Environmental Law - Crematorium Emissions - Direction to install pollution-control mechanisms at crematorium near relocated park - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The court observed that human bodies are not burnt 24x7 and crematoriums exist within residential areas in many cities, including Chennai; it directed the Corporation running the crematoriums to put in place mechanisms to restrict emission of pollutants, thereby addressing petitioners' concern (Paras 17-18). D) Writ Jurisdiction - Non-appearance and Lack of Residency in Mandamus Petition - Dismissal of writ petition where petitioner was merely a councillor and did not appear - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The court rejected the submission that the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.6297 of 2016 was a resident; his affidavit showed he was a councillor of the 19th Ward, Nagercoil Municipality, and he did not appear. Held that the petition was liable to be dismissed for non-appearance and lack of established locus standi (Paras 13, 20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether non-resident petitioners had locus standi to maintain public interest litigation challenging shifting of a park in an approved housing board layout; whether the 2002 revision of layout plan violated public interest or statutory norms; whether court should issue directions regarding crematorium emissions near the relocated park; and whether W.P.(MD) No.6297 of 2016 could be maintained when the petitioner was not a resident and did not appear.
Final Decision
W.P.(MD) No.7406 of 2016 was disposed of with direction to the Corporation running the crematoriums to put in place mechanisms to restrict emission of pollutants; no order as to costs; interim applications dismissed. W.P.(MD) No.6297 of 2016 was dismissed for non-appearance; no order as to costs; interim application dismissed.
Law Points
- Non-residents lack locus standi to challenge relocation of public utility in housing layout unless residents aggrieved
- approved layout scheme may be revised for general public good
- shifting park to larger area without eliminating public utility not unlawful
- open space norms compliance upheld
- crematorium in residential area permissible subject to pollution-control mechanisms
- public interest litigation requires demonstrated direct interest
