M/s. Golden Marine Harvest vs The National Green Tribunal

2026:MHC:1814
W.P.Nos.30717 and 29856 of 2022
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 2022
and
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.
1/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 07:03:07 pm )

2026:MHC:1814
W.P.Nos.30717 and 29856 of 2022
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
th
5 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:
2/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 07:03:07 pm )

2026:MHC:1814
W.P.Nos.30717 and 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,
th
5 Floor, Fanepet, Nandanam,
Chennai 600 035.
3/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 07:03:07 pm )

2026:MHC:1814
W.P.Nos.30717 and 29856 of 2022
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
st
the records of the common order passed by the 1 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
Mr.V.Raghavachari,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.Kamalesh
Mr.C.Harsha Raj,
Special Government Pleader
for R2, R8 & R9
W.P.Nos.30717
of 2022
4/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 07:03:07 pm )

2026:MHC:1814
W.P.Nos.30717 and 29856 of 2022
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
Mr.Sunny Sheen
for Ms.V.Srimathi
Mr.C.Harsha Raj,
Special Government Pleader
for R2, R8 & R9
W.P.Nos.29856
of 2022
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
5/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 07:03:07 pm )

2026:MHC:1814
W.P.Nos.30717 and 29856 of 2022
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
6/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 07:03:07 pm )

2026:MHC:1814
W.P.Nos.30717 and 29856 of 2022
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
1
and Ors and (ii) Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station V. Ashwani
2
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
3
Ericsson (Publ) V. Competition Commission of India and anr.
1 (2022) 13 SCC 401
2 (2023) 8 SCC 35
3 (2023) 3 High Court Cases (Del) 284
7/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 07:03:07 pm )

2026:MHC:1814
W.P.Nos.30717 and 29856 of 2022
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
8/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 07:03:07 pm )

2026:MHC:1814
W.P.Nos.30717 and 29856 of 2022
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)
th
No. S.O.114(E), dated the 19 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
9/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 07:03:07 pm )

2026:MHC:1814
W.P.Nos.30717 and 29856 of 2022
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
10/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 07:03:07 pm )

2026:MHC:1814
W.P.Nos.30717 and 29856 of 2022
4
Board v. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd.& Ors , 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.
th
13. In their counter dated 26 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
2019 INSC 220 : (Civil Appeal Nos.4763 and 4764 of 2013)
4
11/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 07:03:07 pm )

2026:MHC:1814
W.P.Nos.30717 and 29856 of 2022
(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
5
V. Union of India , Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite
5 1997(2) SCC 87
12/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 07:03:07 pm )

2026:MHC:1814
W.P.Nos.30717 and 29856 of 2022
6
Industries (I) Ltd.& Ors. and A.Paramasivan V. Tamil Nadu Pollution
7
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)
6 Civil Appeal Nos.4763 – 4764 of 2013 Supreme Court of India
7 O.A.No.82 of 2016 (SZ) National Green Tribunal Special Bench
13/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 07:03:07 pm )

2026:MHC:1814
W.P.Nos.30717 and 29856 of 2022
8
Ltd.& Ors , 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
2019 INSC 220 : (Civil Appeal Nos.4763 and 4764 of 2013)
8
14/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 07:03:07 pm )

2026:MHC:1814
W.P.Nos.30717 and 29856 of 2022
till date.
22. The NGT assumes jurisdiction in terms of the various
provisions 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
9
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
Foot Note Supra (1)
9
15/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 07:03:07 pm )

2026:MHC:1814
W.P.Nos.30717 and 29856 of 2022
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.
10
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.
10 Foot Note Supra (1)
16/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 07:03:07 pm )

2026:MHC:1814
W.P.Nos.30717 and 29856 of 2022
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
11
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 counter-
productive force in the broader mission of environmental safe-
guarding.
5. Significantly, these orders have consistently faced stays
from this Court, resulting in the unraveling of the commend-
able 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 ac-
tions resonate with a harmonious balance between justice and
11 (2024) 1 SCR 1185
17/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 07:03:07 pm )

2026:MHC:1814
W.P.Nos.30717 and 29856 of 2022
due process. Only then can it reclaim its standing as a beacon
of environmental protection, where well-intentioned endeav-
ors are not simply washed away.
6. It appears that the appellants did not have a full opportu-
nity 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 observa-
tions and conclusions drawn in the orders dated 31.08.2021
and 26.11.2021.
12
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
13
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
12 2024 INSC 926
13 Foot Note Supra (1)
18/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 07:03:07 pm )

2026:MHC:1814
W.P.Nos.30717 and 29856 of 2022
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
19/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 07:03:07 pm )

2026:MHC:1814
W.P.Nos.30717 and 29856 of 2022
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.
20/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 07:03:07 pm )

2026:MHC:1814
W.P.Nos.30717 and 29856 of 2022
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,
th
5 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.

21/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 07:03:07 pm )

2026:MHC:1814
W.P.Nos.30717 and 29856 of 2022
DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.
and
C. KUMARAPPAN,J.
Sl/vs
7
W.P.Nos.30717 & 29856 of 2022
and
W.M.P.Nos.29243 & 30150 of 2022
01.06.2026
22/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 07:03:07 pm )