W.P.(MD) No.4326 of 2014

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 13.08.2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 25.08.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.DILIP KUMAR

W.P(MD) No.4326 of 2014

A.Ganapathy ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Government of Tamil Nadu,

Fort St.George,

Secretariat,

Chennai,

rep by its Chief Secretary.

2.Secretary,

Housing and Urban Development (UD.2.2)

Fort St.George,

Chennai 600 009.

3.Hill Area Conservation Authority of Tamil Nadu

Through its Member Secretary,

Director of Town Country Planning,

Anna Salai,

Chennai 600 002.

4.The Assistant Director,

District Town and Country Planning Department,

Thirunelveli Road,

Kallorani Village (Paavur Sathiram)

Tenkasi District 627 808.

Page 1 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.4326 of 2014

5.The Assistant Director,

Mines and Minerals Department,

Tenkasi District.

(R4 and R5 have been impleaded vide

order dated 27.07.2026.) ... Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to quash G.O.Ms.No.44 dated

02.04.1990 and G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 24.03.2003.

For Petitioner: Mr.T.S.R.Venkatramana

Senior Counsel for

Mr.A.Parameswaran

For Respondents: Mr.Mahaboob Athieff

Special Government Pleader

ORDER

(By N.DILIP KUMAR, J.)

This writ petition is filed with a prayer to issue a WRIT of CERTIORARI

and quash G.O.Ms.No.44, Planning and Development (TC.II) Department,

dated 02.04.1990 and G.O.Ms.No.49, Housing and Urban Development

(UD2.2) Department, dated 24.03.2003. Under G.O.Ms.No.44 the

Government constituted the 'Hill Area Conservation Authority'. Under

G.O.Ms.No.49, the Government included and excluded certain areas/villages

from the purview of the 'Hill Area Conservation Authority'.

Page 2 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.4326 of 2014

2.The writ petitioner is a retired Sherishtadhar; he hails from

Melagaram village, situated near the Municipal Town of Tenkasi; he got to

know about the impugned Government orders through a Real Estate

promoter, while he was scouting lands to build his retirement home; he felt

that the requirement of getting the prior concurrence pursuant to the

impugned Government Orders from 'Hill Area Conservation Authority' (in

short HACA) is unnecessary, as it is only an empty formality adding to the

burden of the citizens. In paragraph No.4 of the affidavit he had stated that

the constitution of HACA is illegal and unconstitutional, because he feels

so. He challenges the competence of the Government to issue these

Government Orders. He has alleged discrimination in the manner of

including and excluding certain areas/villages from the control of HACA. The

writ petitioner was satisfied with the production of the impugned

Government Orders alone in the paper book. No other document is produced

by the petitioner.

3.The respondents had filed their counter affidavit and they had

sought to defend their Orders on merits and by raising objections to the writ

petition on the ground of delay and laches, as these Orders have been in

force since 1990 for more than 36 years and interference after such a long

time will lead to a serious setback in the attempt of the Government to

protect the environment and ecologically sensitive areas.

Page 3 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.4326 of 2014

4.The Government seeks to defend the impugned GOs' on the premise

that they were issued in recognition of the need to preserve the ecological

balance of hill and hill-adjacent regions and to regulate developmental

activities therein and to cause these developments in a planned and

sustainable manner; the authority is established with the objective of

ensuring environmental protection while facilitating orderly and regulated

development in ecologically sensitive areas; HACA is constituted in

furtherance of the constitutional mandate vested on the STATE under

Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India; these Government

Orders are a way of discharging their duty to protect and improve the

environment and safeguard forests, wildlife, and ecological balance;

Inclusion of Tenkasi area under the control of HACA is for valid reasons, as

the authority has identified and notified the areas falling under the purview

of the HACA on the basis of topographical features, ecological sensitivity and

upon receiving recommendations from the competent authorities, including

the Directorate of Town and Country Planning and other expert bodies; such

identification is only with an intention to ensure sustainable development,

protect the environment and preserve the ecological integrity of the notified

areas and there is no absolute bar or prohibition on developmental activities

including the construction of any buildings. They claimed that the

Government Order is only regulatory and not prohibitory.

Page 4 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.4326 of 2014

5.It is further argued that it is a policy decision of the State, which is

derived as a part of its responsibility to provide proper planned development

and also to protect the environment and to prescribe a sustainable

development and hence in the absence of patent illegality or perversity, this

Court may not interfere in such policy decision of the State.

6.Insofar as the inclusion of areas covering Tenkasi and Coutralam

and the villages thereunder, they contend that these villages are located on

the eastern slopes and foothill regions of the Western Ghats and they form

part of an environmentally sensitive zone requiring special planing and

conservation measures. They claim that the Tenkasi-Courtallam region

forms part of an ecologically sensitive foothills of the Western Ghats and it

constitutes an important watershed and catchment area, which provides

sustainability to several rivers and streams, including the famous

Courtallam Falls. These areas are environmentally significant and are

identified as vulnerable, warranting regulation of the developmental

activities; and that this region of Tenkasi is experiencing increased

developmental pressure because of tourism, commercial establishments,

residential layouts and others and unregulated development in the hill

slopes and foothill areas may lead to environmental degradation, landslides,

reduction in groundwater recharge and also will have an adverse impact on

the forest ecosystems; these villages are contiguous to reserve-forests and

Page 5 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.4326 of 2014

forest catchment areas forming part of the Western Ghats ecosystem;

reference is made to the planning and technical expert opinions that were

received before arriving at the conclusion to include Tenkasi-Courtallam

area. They have justified the inclusion of some villages and exclusion of

others on the premise that their classification was based on the geographical

and ecological parameters and thus, constitute a valid and reasonable

classification with a clear nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

7.Insofar as the claim regarding the reference to Hill Stations, the

counter affidavit contends that the competency of HACA is not restricted

only to hill stations but is also extended to ecologically fragile hill slopes,

forest adjoining regions and watershed zones requiring conservation.

8.The authority had also sought to explain the manner of functioning

of the HACA Committee. It states that the HACA Committee involves

consultation with the District Level Officers of the Department of Geology

and Mining, Agricultural Engineering Department and the District Forest

Officer and in necessary cases also involves obtaining concurrence from the

Principal Chief Conservator of Forests as well the 'No Objection Certificate'

by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The authority contends that the petitioner

is always at liberty to approach the HACA Committee, get its approval and

proceed with any of his intended development works.

Page 6 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.4326 of 2014

9.The counter affidavit also finds fault with the writ petitioner for

failing to produce any scientific study, environmental reports, expert opinion

or other technical material to substantiate the claim.

10.We heard Mr.TSR.Venkatramana, Learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Mohaboob Athiff, learned Special

Government Pleader for the respondents.

11.During the course of arguments, the respective counsels apart from

reiterating the contentions in their respective pleadings specifically advanced

arguments with regard to the inclusion of Tenkasi as one of the areas

warranting prior approval from the HACA Committee. No serious argument,

other than a feeble submission on the lack of legislative competence in

reference to Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, was advanced on

the side of the writ petitioner with regard to the validity of the first

impugned Government Order i.e., G.O.Ms.No.44, Planning and Development

(TC.II) Department, dated 02.04.1990, where under the HACA was

constituted.

12.The learned Senior Counsel, during the course of his arguments,

invited our attention to the definition of 'Hill Station' prescribed under the

Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. He would submit that under

Page 7 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.4326 of 2014

the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (Act 5/1920), there is no

competency available with the Government of Tamil Nadu to constitute an

authority in the name and style of HACA and in the absence of any source of

legislation, such constitution is bad in law. The learned Senior Counsel

raised grievances regarding the manner of inclusion and exclusion of areas

from the control of HACA.

13.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for

the respondents apart from reiterating the contentions in the pleadings

would submit that Courtallam known for its famous water falls and the

beautiful environment is sought to be preserved by bringing in the regulatory

control in the form of compelling any development to have the prior

concurrence of the HACA. He answered to the primary argument on the

premise that HACA is constituted not under the Tamil Nadu District

Municipalities Act, 1920, but under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country

Planning Act, 1971 (hereinafter Act 35/1972) and the entire edifice built by

the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is without any legs. He invited

our attention to Chapter III of Act 35/1972 providing for planning areas,

planning authorities and plans. He seeks to sustain the Government Orders

by tracing the powers to Article 162 of the Constitution of India.

14.We heard the respective counsels at length and have also perused

the materials available on record.

Page 8 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.4326 of 2014

15.We would like to first take up the preliminary objections of the

learned Special Government Pleader to the entertainability of the writ

petition, on the ground of delay and laches.

16.The challenge mounted in this writ petition is to the correctness of

the action of the State Government of Tamil Nadu in creating a body in the

name of 'Tamil Nadu Hill Areas Development Authority' in supplementation

with the authorities constituted under the Tamil Nadu Act 35/1972 and

various local body laws. Similarly there is a challenge to the subsequent

Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.49, Housing and Urban Development

(UD2.2) dated 24.03.2003 as well, whereby there is an exclusion of few

villages/places and inclusion of other villages/places under the jurisdiction

and control of the HACA.

17.It is true, as argued by the learned Special Government Pleader

that these Government Orders had been in existence since 1990 and 2003

respectively and there is an inordinate delay of 24 and 11 years respectively

in challenging these respective Government Orders. However, this objection

of the Learned Special GP need not deter us. It is a long settled proposition

that the challenge to the vires of a legislation or any promulgation of powers

or creation of statutory bodies can be made at any point of time and there is

no bar against challenging it, at a later stage. Delay and laches or even

Page 9 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.4326 of 2014

acquiescence need not be looked in to when such challenges are made. In

this regard, we refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Motor General Traders and another Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh and others reported in (1984) 1 SCC 222. The Apex Court has

specifically held that mere lapse of time does not lend constitutionality

to a provision which was otherwise bad and that "Time does not run

in favour of legislation. If it is ultra vires, it cannot gain legal strength from

long failure on the part of lawyers to perceive and set up its invalidity. Albeit,

lateness in an attack upon the constitutionality of a statute is but a reason

for exercising special caution in examining the arguments by which the

attack is supported”. We are therefore of the conclusive opinion that in

matters involving environmental issues and constitutional rights, the

argument that the challenge to a legislation or a Government Order is made

belatedly and therefore, the writ petition is hit by delay and laches cannot be

a solitary ground to dismiss the writ petition.

18.In this case we are concerned with the constitution of an

AUTHORITY with the objective of protecting the environment and safeguard

ecologically sensitive areas. It concerns the property rights of individuals

protected under Art.300-A of the Constitution of India, as the manner of

enjoyment of their land is sought to be regulated under the impugned G.O.s'.

The challenge mounted in this writ petition is serious and its outcome will

have larger ramifications and impact on the environment and right to

Page 10 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.4326 of 2014

property. We reject the argument of the learned Special Government Pleader

that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and

laches.

19.We shall test the correctness of the impugned Government Orders

on its merits. The learned Senior counsel invited our attention to the

definition provided under the word 'Hill' under the Tamil Nadu District

Municipalities Act, 1920, which is extracted herein below:-

"Hill station" means a place specified in Schedule II and

includes any other place which may be notified by the [State

Government] as a hill station;”

Schedule II provides the List of Hill Stations and they are,

i) Ootacamund, the Nilgiri District

ii) Coonoor, the Nilgiri District &

iii) Kodaikanal, (Madurai District) (sic – it now forms part of

Dindigul District)”

Therefore, he would submit that Tenkasi, which is a town situated in

the plains can never be brought under the purview of the HACA and

accordingly, there is lack of competence for the State Government.

20.The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the

impugned Government Orders have been issued not in exercise of the

powers available under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 or

any other law governing the local bodies. Rather, they are traceable to the

statutory provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Town and Country

Page 11 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.4326 of 2014

Planning Act, 1971 (Act 35/1972) and the plenary powers of the State

Executive under Article 162 of the Constitution.

21.A perusal of G.O.Ms.No.44, Planning and Development (TC.II)

Department, dated 02.04.1990 reveals that the Government of Tamil Nadu

has decided to constitute an Adhoc Authority with a proposal to give it a

statutory basis in due course (emphasis supplied) and had accordingly

constituted 'Tamil Nadu HACA'.

The said authority consists of the following members:-

“1.Chairman : A very senior of the I.A.S. to be appointed by

the Government (Part-time)

2.Member Secretary : Senior I.A.S. Officer to be appointed by the

Government

3.Six Office Member : Secretary, Planning and Development

Department

4.-do- : Secretary, Finance Department

5.-do- : Secretary, Environment and Forest

Department

6.-do- : Secretary, Agriculture Department

7.-do- : Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department

8.-do- : Secretary, Public Works Department

9.-do- : Secretary, Information and Tourism

Department

10.-do- : Secretary, Housing and Urban Development

Department

11.-do- : Secretary, Industries Department

12.-do- : Secretary, Rural Development Department

13.-do- : Secretary, Municipal Administration and

Water Supply Department

14.-do- : Secretary, Defense Department

15.-do- : Chairman, Tamil nadu Water Supply and

Page 12 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.4326 of 2014

Drainage Board

16.-do- : Chairman, Electricity Board

17.-do- : Director of Town and Country Planning

18.-do- : Director of Horticulture

19.-do- : Collector, Nilgiris

20.-do- : Principal, Chief Conservator of Forests

21.-do- : Collector, Dindigul Anna District

The Government had also constituted an advisory council consisting of

the following members:-

“1. The Vice-Chancellor, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University.

2.Chief Engineer, (Agri. Engg.) River Valley Project.

3.Chief Engineer, Soil Conservation.

4.Chief Engineer, Highways.

5.Chief Engineer, Buildings.

6.Chief Engineer, Irrigation.

7.Chief Engineer, General.

8.Director of Rural Development.

9.Director of Animal Husbandry.

10.Director of Geology & Mining.

11.One sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly,

representing any one of the constituencies inthe Nilgiris District to be

nominated for a two year term by the Government.

12.One sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly,

representing any one of the constituencies in which one or more of

the Hill taluks other than Nilgiris, to be nominated for a two year term

by the Government.

13.One Chair person of any one of the Panchayat Unions or

Municipalities in the Nilgiris areas to be nominated for a two year

term by the Government.

14.Chairperson of the Kodaikanal Panchayat Union.

15.Four Environmentalists to be nominated for a two year term

by the Government and one representing Non-Government voluntary

Organisations

19.connected with environment and ecology to be nominated

for a two year term by the Government.

20.The Authority may co-opt. any District Collector having

jurisdiction over the Hill taluks or any other official or non-official as

Associate Member of Invitee or Special Invitee.”

Page 13 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.4326 of 2014

The Government has also prescribed the functions to be performed by

the HACA and it is provided as under:-

“1.Function listed in Section 12 of the Town and Country Planning

Aot, 1971 and

2(i) To prepare an environmental report of the Hill area and keep it

updated every three years.

ii) To undertake-continual monitoring of ecological parameters.

iii) To prepare a structural development plan indicating the carrying

limits of the hills and propose alternatives to the hill population

where reasonable economical development can not be locally

provided without serious over all damage;

iv) To draw up guidelines for development of hills and Compulsorily

require prior clearance for any development listed in Annexure IV

altogether.

v) To advise Government on the Policy and strategy for all

development activities in the hills.

vi) To issue such directions as necessary to local authorities to

enable the compliance and have necessary powers delegated to it

under the Municipal and Panchayat Acts; and

vii) To prohibit expenditure by any Government department or

undertaking on any plan or scheme not cleared by it in that area

and require all budgetary provisions (Plan and not plan) by all

Departments are only for schemes cleared by it.”

22.A careful reading of the Government Order more particularly

paragraph No.13 indicates that pending extension of the provisions of the

Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 to the Hill Areas, the Government

upon constitution of the HACA has made it compulsory for these local

authorities to get the expert opinion of the HACA in respect of all

development programmes undertaken by them within the areas listed in

Annexure I.

Page 14 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.4326 of 2014

23.The HACA is created as an expert body to ensure that the local

authorities get the prior concurrence of such an expert body before

sanctioning the mentioned developmental activities, and thus, ensuring the

compliance of the development plans in consonance with the ecological

preservation. It is created more in the nature of an environmental oversight

Committee. It is certainly not a Planning Permit Authority, but an

Environmental Prerequisite Expert Body set up to guide the local authorities

before they exercise their legal powers to sanction development plan or

building plan. The creation of HACA is not an attempt to pass a localized

regulation; it is a macro level State policy decision to address ecological

degradation across the identified areas including hills.

24.The impugned Government Orders issued in exercise of the States

plenary power under Article 162 are intended only to supplement the

statutory law and it does not supplant it. It is only creating a complementary

body to the local planning authorities and the other planning authorities

framed under Act 35/1972 and there is no overriding or superseding powers

provided to HACA. It is created only as an expert body with an intention to

protect and preserve the environment and ecology. HACA is certainly not an

authority mentioned in Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country

Planning Act, 1971 (Act 35/1972). It is an independent body created under

the impugned GO 44 to supplement the functions of these authorities

Page 15 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.4326 of 2014

constituted under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning

Act, 1971 (Act 35/1972). The various plan sanctioning authorities in the

State of Tamil Nadu varies across the different levels of local bodies, viz.,

Village Panchayats, Town Panchayats, Municipalities, Municipal

Corporations and the Town and Country Planning authorities under the

Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (Act 35/1972). These

plan sanctioning authorities are not well conversant and are not, at all

times, equipped to deal with the impact of the development, that are sought

to be sanctioned by them, upon the environment and ecology and hence this

vacuum of expert domain is being filled up by creating HACA, under the

impugned GO 44. The HACA Committee does not prohibit development, it

only regulates the developmental activities.

25.The Executive of the State is competent to exercises powers under

Article 162 of the Constitution of India to fill up the gaps in the prevalent

statutory schemes by issuing various Government Orders. The executive

power is coterminous with the legislative powers. If the State Legislature has

jurisdiction to enact law with respect to a subject, the State Executive is

having the corollary power to make regulations and issue Government

Orders with respect to the said subject, of course, within the constitutional

limitations. The Hon'ble Apex Court as early as in 1955 in the judgment

delivered in Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and others vs the State of

Punjab reported in (1955) 1 SCC 553 has elaborately dealt with the nature

Page 16 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.4326 of 2014

and scope of Article 162 of the Constitution of India. It is specifically held

that the language of Article 162 clearly indicates that the powers of the State

Executive extends to matters, upon which the State legislature is competent

to legislate. Useful reference can be placed upon the following judgments of

the Hon'ble Apex Court:-

“i) B.N.Nagarajan and others Vs. State of Mysore and

others reported in AIR 1966 SC 1942

ii) State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Lavu Narendranath

reported in (1971) 1 SCC 607

iii) P.H.Paul Manoj Pandian Vs. P.Veldurai reported in

(2011) 5 SCC 214”

26.The matters relating to planning, development and regulation of

such developments upon any land is largely governed by the Tamil Nadu

Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (Act 35/197 2). The impugned GO is

the way in which the GAP between the competing rights of the land owner

and the general public to have a protected environment is balanced. There is

a recognized duty upon the State to protect and improve the environment as

envisaged under Article 48A of the Constitution of India. Entry 18 under the

State list enables the State to enact laws on the subject 'LAND' and 'LAND

IMPROVEMENT'. It reads as under :-

“List II Entry 18: Land, that is to say, right in or over land,

land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the

collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land

improvement and agricultural loans; colonization.”

Thus, the availability of legislative competence/authority with the

State of TN to enact laws on this subject is beyond any cavil of doubt.

Page 17 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.4326 of 2014

27.Once such power falls within the domain of the Executive, it would

necessarily fall as corollary that the said plenary power can very well be

exercised to constitute an expert body in the form of an ADHOC Committee,

till the framing of necessary statutory Rules, with an intention to guide the

planning and sanctioning authorities under the Town and Country Planning

Act, 1971 and the various local body laws.

28.We do not find any lack of legislative competence with the State in

promulgating these Government Orders. However, it is not out of place to

mention that what was constituted as an Adhoc Authority before 36 years in

1990 continues to remain as an adhoc auhtority. The State shall have a re-

look upon the prevalent scenario and ensure the effective functioning of the

HACA.

29.One of the restrictions while examining such executive power under

Article 162 of the Constitution of India is that when there is a statutory Rule

or an Act on the same subject matter, the executive must abide by that Act

or Rule and it cannot in exercise of its executive power under Article 162 of

the Constitution of India, ignore or act contrary to that Rule or Act.

30.In this case the petitioner has not shown any conflicting provision

in any of the statutory enactments. The object of establishing the ADHOC

Committee of HACA is only a measure of the executive, to fill up the gap in

Page 18 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.4326 of 2014

the prevalent planning laws and local laws and to supplement the Rules. It

does not contain any instructions, which are not consistent with the

available Act and Rules.

31.The impugned orders are based on the recommendations made by

the experts and no material is brought on record by the writ petitioner to

substantiate that the Executive had not applied its mind to the relevant

questions or that the classification by including or excluding certain areas

based on the various geological and other factors. In the absence of any

evidence to the contrary, such State action cannot be characterized as

arbitrary or unreasonable or not founded on tangible materials without

having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

32.It is the person assailing inclusion/exclusion, which would amount

to be a form of classification, to discharge the heavy burden of showing that

such classification is invalid, because it is unjust and unreasonable in its

consequences. In respect of these matters, the writ petitioner had not

furnished any material and in such an event, it is very difficult for us sitting

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to exercise our powers of

judicial review.

33.It is well settled that the Courts in exercise of their power of judicial

review do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decision of the Executive,

Page 19 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.4326 of 2014

unless the policy can be faulted on the ground of mala fide,

unreasonableness, arbitrariness, unfairness, irrationality and perversity. It

is neither within the domain of the Court nor within the scope of judicial

review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is

wise or whether the public policy can be evolved in a different dimension.

34.The Court will not ordinarily interfere in the decisions of the

authority with regard to a policy matter, which is taken based on the expert

knowledge of persons concerned. Useful reference can be made to the

decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jacob Puliyel Vs. Union of India

and others reported in (2024) 17 SCC 485 and Shri Sitaram Sugar

Company Limited and another Vs. Union of India and others reported in

(1990) 3 SCC 223.

35.It is a policy decision of the State to have an expert body, like

HACA. The expert's decision to include an area or exclude an area is not

demonstrated before us to be ill-logical. The identification and notification of

areas falling under the purview of HACA have been claimed to have been

carried out on the basis of the topographical features, ecological sensitivity

and the recommendation of the competent authorities, including the Director

of Town and Country Planning and other expert bodies. When such an

identification has been undertaken with a view to ensure sustainable

development, environmental protection and to preserve the ecological

Page 20 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.4326 of 2014

integrity of the notified areas, it would not be proper on the part of this Court

to disturb the same.

36.The respondent has furnished sufficient reasons to include Tenkasi

under the areas that are regulated by HACA. It is specifically stated that the

developmental activities undertaken in Tenkasi will have an indirect impact

on the adjoining environmental sensitive areas, as the increased

urbanization will cause pressure on the natural resources and the traffic

generation along with infrastructure expansion. Therefore, the expert body

has opined that the town of Tenkasi shall be brought behind the regulatory

ambit of HACA and since it is a matter of policy and planning based on the

environmental consideration, we do not want to interfere with such

conclusion in the absence of any other contravening materials. Therefore,

the vague assertion that Tenkasi is not a hill area and therefore, cannot be

brought under the purview of HACA is rejected.

37.Though we are well aware of the environmental impact, still we are

not experts in environmental issues, soil slopes, landslides management,

Planned and Sustainable development. When the Government sets up a

specialized multi disciplinary expert panel, we in our wisdom would certainly

refrain from interfering on the specious plea that there is arbitrary inclusion

of the Town of Tenkasi to the midst of places that will be covered under the

scrutiny of HACA.

Page 21 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.4326 of 2014

38.One another perspective, through which the subject issue can be

looked at is the PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE. The State is the trustee of all

natural resources. It has an inherent, non-negotiable legal obligation to

protect these lands. This doctrine enjoins the State player to protect the

resources for the present and future generations. It is essential to protect the

environment, ecology and natural resources and ensure that the human

activities are in tune with nature and ecology. Whenever any new building is

constructed or any other development takes place, even in a private

property, it has an impact on the surrounding environment.

39.We reject the argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for

the petitioner that the HACA can be restricted only to hill stations provided

under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act. The District Municipalities

Act has no significance to the issue in hand. Hence, the said argument

cannot be countenanced at all and it is rejected.

40.We do not find any substantial grounds to interfere with the

impugned Government Orders. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands

dismissed. No costs.

(M.D.I. J.,) & (N.D.K. J.,)

25.08.2026

NCC : Yes/No

Index : Yes/ No

Internet : Yes/ No

mm

Page 22 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.4326 of 2014

To:

1.Government of Tamil Nadu,

Fort St.George,

Secretariat,

Chennai, rep by its Chief Secretary.

2.Secretary,

Housing and Urban Development (UD.2.2)

Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

3.Hill Area Conservation Authority of Tamil Nadu

Through its Member Secretary,

Director of Town Country Planning,

Anna Salai,

Chennai 600 002.

4.The Assistant Director,

District Town and Country Planning Department,

Thirunelveli Road,

Kallorani Village (Paavur Sathiram)

Tenkasi District 627 808.

5.The Assistant Director,

Mines and Minerals Department,

Tenkasi District.

Page 23 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.4326 of 2014

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

and

N.DILIP KUMAR, J.

mm

W.P(MD) No.4326 of 2014

25.08.2026

Page 24 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis