IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 2.3.2007 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA W.P.Nos.17195 & 17196 of 1998, 19750 & 19751 of 1999, 2926 to 2928, 2930, 5390, 5913 to 5915, 6903, 7476, 15858 & 7613 of 2000 and WPMP Nos.26031 & 26033 of 1998, 21327 & 21329 of 1999, 28990 & 28992 of 1999, 4516, 4518, 4520, 4524, 8153, 8905, 8907, 8909, 10294, 11050, 22997, 22998 of 2000, 6965 of 2001 , WPMP.18576/2006 and WVMP No.645 of 2002 M/s. Ramgopal Estates Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Managing Director MR. K.S.Hemanth Kumar .. Petitioner in W.Ps. 17195 and 17196/98 Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Commissioner & Secretary to Government, Industries Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Petro Chemical Park TIDCO, 485, Anna Salai Nandanam, Chennai 600 035. ... Respondents in W.Ps.17195 & 17196/98 To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the notification under Sec 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act made in G.O.Ms.No.232 & 234 respectively Industries (MID-II) 18th June 1998 published in T.N.Government Gazette on 22.6.1998 in so far as the petitioner's land is concerned in survey No.7/1 & 1/5 measuring 48.56.5 hectares 51.49.5 hectares respectively in Kattupalli Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District in W.P.Nos.17195 and 17196/98. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1. K.B. Basker 2. K.B. Chandramouli ... Petitioners in WPs.19750 /99 1. K.B. Jaishankar 2. K.B. Ramesh ... Petitioners in W.P.19751/99 1. State of T.N. rep by Secretary to Government Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2. The Special Tahsildar (L.A) Unit 7 TIDCO (Petro Chemical park, Ponneri) M.T.P. Buildings, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai- 35. 3. The Managing Director State Industries Promotion Corporation of T.N. Limited, 19, A.R.L. Road, Egmore, Chennai-8. ... Respondents in W.Ps.19750 & 19751/99, 15858/2000 RR1 and 3 in W.P.7613/2000 to issue a writ f certiorarified Mandamus or direction by calling for the records relating to impugned notification under Sec 4 (1) of the land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms.No.231 & 216 respectively Industries MID II dated 18.6.98 published in T.N. Government Gazette Extra Ordinary No.3421 in part II Sec 2 of 22.6.98 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the said notification and Sec 6 declaration in G.O.Ms.No.455 & 454 respectively Industries MID II dated 8.6.99 published in T.N. Government Gazette Extra ordinary No.463 dated 8.6.99 on the file of the first respondent and to direct the first respondent to withdraw from the acquisition of the lands comprised in S.No.7/2B & S.No.7/2A respectively of an extent of 26.5.8.00 & 27.76.00 hectares respectively hectares and S.No.331/2B S.No.331/2A respectively of an extent of 0.27.00 hectares & 0.23.05 hectares respectively of total extent of lands of 26.85.00 hectares and 27.99.05 hectares respectively situated at Kattupalli Village and Ponneri Taluk Tiruvallur District in favour of the petitioners in W.P.19750/99 & W.P.19751/99. 1. J. Ponraj S/o. Jayaraj ...Petitioner in W.P.2926 of 2000 2. S.Arumugham ...Petitioner in w.P.2927 /2000 3. S. Rajendran ...Petitioner in W.P.2928/2000 4. S. Gajendran ...Petitioner in W.P.2930/2000 Vs https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1. The Government of T.N. rep by the Secretary to Government Industries (MID II) Department , Fort Saint George, Chennai-9. 2. The Spl. Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Unit 9, Petro Chemical Park, TIDCO No.485, MTP Buildings, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-35. Respondents in WPs.2926 to 2928 & 293/2000. To issue a writ of ceriorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the notification issued by the first respondent under Sec 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms.No.810, 752, 752, 752 Industries (MID II) dated 12.11.99, 7.10.99, 7.10.99, 7.10.99, published in the Government Gazette dated 12.11.99, 11.10.99, 11.10.99, 11.10.99 and declaration issued by the first respondent under Section 6 of the land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms.No.6, 935, 935, 935 Industries (MID II) dated 7.1.2000, 13.12.99, 13.12.99, 13.12.99 published in the Government Gazette dated 7.1.2000, 13.12.99, 13.12.99 , 13.12.99 and quash the 4 (1) Notification dated 12.11.99, 7.10.99,7.10.99, 7.10.99 and 6 Declaration dated Nil 13.12.99, 13.12.99, 13.12.99 in so far as the petitioner's lands are concerned and consequently direct the respondents to delete the petitioner land situate in S.No.101/2B2 & 101/3 of 91; 70/2,71/1, 71/2, 72 and 88/3 of 91; 70/2, 71/1,71/2, 72 and 88/3 of 91; 70/2, 71/1, 71/2, 72 and 88/3 of 91 Kattupalli Village Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District from the proposed cquisition in abovesaid (WPs 2926/00 to 2928/00, 2930/00). 1. Indirani W/o. Ramanatha Mudaliar 2. Baskaran @ G. Yoganandam S/o.Gajarajan Mudaliar, 3. G. Krishnakumar S/o. Gajarajan Mudaliar Petitioner in W.Ps.5390/2000, 5913 to 5915/2000 Vs 1. State of TN rep by Secretary to Government Industries Department Fort Saint George, Chennai-9. 2. The Special Tahsildar (L.A) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Unit TIDCO, (Petroleum park Ponneri) M.T.P. Building, Anna Salai, Nandanam Chennai- 35. 3. The M.D. T.N. Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., 19, ARL Road, Egmore, Chennai-8. ...Respondents in Wps 5390/2000, 5913 to 5915/2000, 6903/2000 To issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus or direction by calling for the records relating in impugned notification under Sec 4 (1) in G.O.Ms.No.810 Industires (MID II) dated 12.11.99 was publised in T.N. Government Gazette extra ordinary No.849 in Part II Sec. 2 on 12.11.99 on the file of the first respondent and notification under Sec 6 declaration issued in G.O.Ms.No.6 Industries (MID II) dated 7.1.2000 was publised in T.N. Government Gazette Extra ordinary No.14 in part II Sec 2 on 7.1.2000 on the file of the first respondent to withdraw from the Acquisition of the lands comprised 0.22.0 hectares in S.No.95/2A (2) 0.07.0 hectares in S.No. 98/2 and (3) 0.04.5 hectares of wets land in S.No.114/1 of total extent of 0.33.5 hectares situated at Kattupalli Village in Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District in W.P.5390/2000. To issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to impugned notification under section 4(1) notification in G.O. Ms. 754 Industries (MID II) dated 7.10.1999 published in T. N. Govt Gazette Extraordinary No. 778 in part II section 2 on 11.10.1999 on the file of the first respondent and notification under section 6 declaration issued in G.O.Ms.941 Industries (MID II) dated 13.12.1999 published in T.N. Govt Gazette Extra ordinary No. 932 in part II section 2 on 13.12.1999 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and to direct the first respondent to withdraw from the acquisition of the lands measuring 0.04.0 hectares in S.No. 159/2 of wet land situated at Katupallivillage in Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District in favour of the petitioners in WP.5913/2000. To issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to impugned notification under section 4(1) in G.O. Ms. 766 Industries (MID II) dated 8.10.1999 published in T. N. Govt Gazette Extra ordinary No. 779 in part II section 2 on 12.10.1999 on the file of the first respondent and notification under section 6 declaration issued in G.O.Ms.990 Industries (MID II) dated 27.12.1999 published in T.N. Govt Gazette Extra ordinary No. 970 in part II section 2 on 27.12.1999 on the file of the first respondent ans quash the same and to direct the first respondent to withdraw from the acquisition of the lands comprised (1) S.No. 4/2A1 of an extent of 2.43.0 hecares https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii)S.NO.4/2A3 Of an Extent of 2.42.0 hectares and total extent of lands of 7.85.0 hectares situated at Kalanji Village, in Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District in favour of the petitioners in WP.5914/2000. To issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to impugned notification under section 4(1) notification in G.O. Ms. 752 Industries (MID II) dated 7.10.1999 published in T.N. Govt Gazette Extraordinary No. 778 in part II section 2 on 11.10.1999 on the file of the first respondent and notification under section 6 declaration issued in G.O.Ms.935 Industries (MID II) dated 13.12.1999 published in T.N. Govt Gazette Extra ordinary No. 932 in part II section 2 on 13.12.1999 on the file of the first respondent to withdraw from the acquisition of the wet land measuring 0.16.5 hectares in S.No.91/2A of dry land situated at Kattupalli Village in Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District in WP.5915/2000. 1. G.Yoganandam S/O. Gajarajan Mudaliar 2. G.Krishnakumar S/O. Gajarajan Mudaliar Petitioners in WP.6903/2000 vs To issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus or calling for the records relating to impugned notification under section 4(1) notification in G.O.Ms.709 Industries (MID - II) dated 26.10.98 was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.616 Extraordinary in part II Sec.2 on 28.10.98 on the file of the first respondent and notification under Sec.6 declaration in G.O.Ms.8 Industries (MID II) dated 11.01.1999 published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary No.27 in part II Sec.2 on 12.01.1999 on the file of the first respondent to quash the same and to direct the 1st respondent to withdraw from the acquisition of the lands measuring 4.21.0 hectares in S.No.1/1D2 and measuring 3.88.5 hecatares in S.No.8/1B of dry land situated at Puzhuthivakkam Village in ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District in favour of the petitioners in WP.6903/2000 1. Tmt. C.Kumuda 2. Tmt. R.Thuljarani 3 Dr.(Tmt) W.K.Vindhyarani 4. K. Venkatakrishnan 5. Tmt. Lakshmimohan 6. Selvi K.Gowri 7. R.K.Surendar Petitioners in WP.7476/2000 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government Industries (MID II) Department FSG, Chennai -9. 2. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Unit 15, Petrochemical Park TIDCO, 485, MTP Building Anna Salai, Chennai - 35. Respondents in WP.7476/2000 M/S.Anand Transports rep. by its Partner M.G.M.Maran Petitioner in WP.15858/2000 Jesu Rathinam Convenor, Coastal Action Network Petitioner in WP.7613/2000 Vs 1. State of T.N. rep by Secretary to Government Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2. The Department of Environment and Forests by its Secretary, Fort St.George, Chennai -9. 3. The Managing Director State Industries Promotion Corporation of T.N. Limited, 19, A.R.L. Road, Egmore, Chennai-8. 4. Union of India, rep. by Ministry of Environment and Forests New Delhi 5. The Commissioner Department of Fisheris DMS Compound, Teynampet, Chennai - 6. 6. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, rep. by its Chairman, 100, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai. Respondents No.2,4,5 & 6 in WP.7613/2000 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the notification issued by the 1st Respondent under Sec.4(1) of the land acquisition Act G.O.Ms.No.235 Industries MID II cated 18.05.98 published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee Extra Ordinary No.342 in Part II Sec. 2 on 22.06.98 on the file of the first respondent and sec.6 declaration in G.O.Ms.No.451 Industries MID II dated 08.06.99 on the file of the first respondent and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary No.463 in Part II Sec.2 on 08.06.99 and to quash the same and to direct the first respondent to withdraw from the acquisition the lands comprised in S.No7/3A1 of an extent of measuring 8.90.5 hectares situated at Kattupalli Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District in WP.15858/2000 in G.O.Ms.No.806 Industries (MID II) dated 27.11.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.410, Industries (MID II) dated 28.07.98 and published in the Government Gazette dated 08.12.98 and 23.7.98 respectively and the Declaration issued by the 1st Respondent under Section 6 of the Act in G.O.Ms.No.188 Industries (MID II) dated 01.03.99 published in the 'Madurai Mani" Newspaper dated 05.03.99 and G.O.Ms.No.571 Industries (MID II) dated 08.09.98 published in the Government Gazette dated 08.09.98 and quash the same in so far as the petitioner's lands are concered and consequently direct the Respondents to delete the petitionr's lands measuring 12.15 acres (4.92.0 hectares) situate in Survey Nos.3/1, 136 and 137 in No.141, Puzhidivakkam Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallurvar District from the proposed acquisition in WP.7476/2000. To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the records in G.O.Ms.No.85 dated 21.03.1997 issued by the first respondent quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent not to setup the proposed petrochemical park at Kattupalli Island, Tiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu (in WP.No.7613/2000). For Petitioner in W.P.Nos.17195&17196/98 : Mr.M.S.Subramanian W.P.Nos.19750&19751/99 & 5390, 5913 to 5915 & 6903/00 : Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham W.P.Nos.2926 to 2928, 2930 & 7476/00 : Mr.P.Anbarasan W.P.No.15858/00 : Mr.K.Bijai Sundar W.P.No.7613/00 : Mr.S.Mohan For Ms.D.Geetha https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For State Government : Mr.N.Kannadasan Addl. Advocate General Assisted by Mr.I.Paranthaman, G.A. For Union of India : Mr.P.Wilson Asst. Solicitor General For TIDCO : Mr.M.Vijayan For M/s. King & Patridge For Pollution Control : Mr.Ramanlal Board For Ennore Pulicat Environmental Protection Forum : Mr.T.K.Ramkumar O R D E R P.D.DINAKARAN, J. I. PREFATORY CAVEAT The meat of the matter is the tussle between eco-environmental maintenance and vigorous industrialization. To answer as to the need of the day for the right to life, viz., whether we should maintain eco-friendly environment or opt for prosperous economic growth, neither the eco-environment alone nor the industrial and economic growth by itself will meet the human needs in the global competition. Then, what is desirable is a sustainable development, by being resilient, but not rigid; organic, but not static; liberal, but not strict; wider, but not narrow, as to both eco- friendly environment and prosperous industrial development, that are to be worked out harmoniously, to meet the challenges in global economic competition and in order to meet the ends of socio- economic justice. And the core of the dispute raised is, whether the acquisition of lands impugned in these writ petitions for Petrochemical Park, a major industrial project, satisfies the pious wish of the statutory mandate, for invoking emergency and dispensing with the statutory enquiry; and stands to the test of executive competency of the State Government, beneath the canopy of constitutional provisions, focussed sharply on the legal screen? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ II. THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS 2.1. In the public interest litigation, W.P.No.7613 of 2000 challenge is made to G.O.Ms.No.85, Industries (MID-II) Department, dated 21.3.1997, whereunder the State Government had accorded sanction to acquire the lands in Kattupalli Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District for setting up of Petrochemical Park on the ground of environment hazards and violations of the guidelines of Coastal Regulation Zones. 2.2. Among other writ petitions, while W.P.Nos.17195 and 17196 of 1998 are filed challenging the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for brevity, "the Act") in G.O.Ms.No.232, Industries (MID-II) Department dated 18.6.1998, in other writ petitions, the challenge is made to notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and declaration made under Section 6 of the Act in G.O.Ms.No.231, Industries (MID-II) Department, dated 18.6.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.455, Industries (MID-II) Department, dated 8.6.1999 respectively in W.P.No.19750 of 1999, G.O.Ms.No.216, Industries (MID-II) Department, dated 15.6.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.454, Industries (MID-II) Department dated 8.6.1999 respectively in W.P.No.19751 of 1999, G.O.Ms.No.810, Industries (MID-II) Department dated 12.11.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.6, Industries (MID-II) Department dated 7.1.2000 respectively in W.P.No.2926 of 2000, G.O.Ms.No.752, Industries (MID-II) Department dated 7.10.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.935, Industries (MID-II) Department dated 13.12.1999 respectively in W.P.Nos.2927, 2928 and 2930 of 2000, G.O.Ms.No.810, Industries (MID-II) Department dated 12.11.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.6, Industries (MID-II) Department dated 7.1.2000 respectively in W.P.No.5390 of 2000, G.O.Ms.No.754, Industries (MID-II) Department dated 7.10.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.941, Industries (MID-II) Department dated 13.12.1999 respectively in W.P.Nos.5913 to 5915 of 2000, G.O.Ms.No.709, Industries (MID-II) Department dated 26.10.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.8, Industries (MID-II) Department dated 11.1.1999 respectively in W.P.No.6903 of 2000, G.O.Ms.Nos.806 & 410 Industries (MID-II) Department dated 27.11.1998 & 20.7.1998 and G.O.Ms.Nos.188 & 571, Industries (MID-II) Department dated 1.3.1999 & 8.9.1998 respectively in W.P.No.7476 of 2000 and G.O.Ms.No.235, Industries (MID-II) Department dated 18.6.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.451, Industries (MID-II) Department dated 8.6.1999 respectively in W.P.No.15858 of 2000. III.THE BACKDROP OF THE LIS 3.1. The State Government, with an aim to improve the economic growth in the State by establishing major industries as an industrial policy, decided to set up a Petrochemical Park as early as 1997 at the cost of Rs.30,000 crores in the State of Tamil Nadu over an extent of 7155.95 acres of lands which are spreading over in four villages, viz., Puzhudivakkam, Kattupalli, Kalanji and Voyalur. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.2. The location of the Petrochemical Park in the said villages is identified as the same is approximately 35 km. away from Chennai and well connected by road, rail, air and sea. It is situated at 8 kms. from the nearest town of Minjur and 5 km. from the nearest railway station of Athipattu and also located on the east and western side of Buckingham canal. 3.3. The investment for the above major industry is to create substantial contribution to the Gross Domestic Product of the State and will also provide direct employment for nearly 10,000 Engineers and technically qualified persons and indirect job opportunity for 25,000 people. That apart, the contribution by the Gross Domestic Product by the major industry will increase the demand for service such as, transportation, housing, etc. This will again contribute for the creation of additional employment in and around the City of Chennai and it will be a major socio-economic turn-key project for the upliftment of the people of the State. 3.4. To achieve the above aim, the Government by G.O.Ms.No.85, Industries (MID-II) Department, dated 21.3.1997 accorded permission to the SIPCOT to undertake the setting up of the Petrochemical Park and thereafter, taking into consideration the successful execution of the projects like, Jayamkondam Lignite Power Corporation, Hi-tech Park, etc., by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (in short, "TIDCO"), the State Government requested TIDCO to set up the Petrochemical Park and orders were passed in G.O.Ms.No.85A, dated 25.5.1997. Pursuant to the said decision, the Government proposed to acquire the lands impugned by issuing various notifications under section 4(1) of the Act to the owners of the lands. However, taking an exception to the normal course of acquisition, the government decided to invoke the emergency clause under section 17(1) of the Act and to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act by exercising the powers conferred under section 17(4) of the Act and thus proceeded further with the impugned acquisition proceedings and passed the declaration under section 6 of the Act, of course with a delay of 4 months. The notifications under section 4(1) of the Act and the declaration under section 6 of the Act are being challenged in this batch of writ petitions. 3.5. Apart from the landowners, a public interest litigation was also filed in W.P.No.7613 of 2006 to protect the environment in the locality based on Article 21 read with Article 48A of the Constitution of India. IV. OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED PETROCHEMICAL PARK AND THE IMPUGNED ACQUISITION OF LANDS https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.1. The proposal for setting up the Petrochemical Park in Pulidivakkam, Kattupalli, Kalangi and Voyalur II Villages, by impugned land acquisition proceedings is challenged to protect eco- friendly environment on the basis of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and also on the ground of violations of the guidelines of Coastal Regulation Zones, notified under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act and Rules, as hereunder: (i)the setting up of the Park will be an environmental hazard in the impugned locality and would also endanger the Pulicat Lake as well as the Pulicat Birds Sanctuary; (ii)the impugned proposal is in violation to Guidelines of Coastal Regulation Zone declared under the Environment (Protection) Act and Rules; (iii)the natural springs and the fresh water ponds in Kattupalli Island, which attract birds of rare species, as well as the important species of tropical dry evergreen vegetation having medicinal value therein will be destroyed totally, by establishing of the impugned Park; and (iv)the Petrochemical Park is opposed to the report of the Expert Committee relied on by the petitioner. 4.2. Ennore Pullicat Environmental Protection Forum, a third party, also got impleaded themselves by filing WP.M.P.No.18576 of 2006, in the above public interest litigation demanding environmental maintenance and opposing the impugned proposal. 4.3. Questioning the validity of the impugned acquisition, it is contended that, (i)(a) Having already accorded sanction in favour of SIPCOT for setting up of Petrochemical Park, by G.O.Ms.No.85, dated 21.3.1997, the impugned acquisition should not have been proceeded with by the TIDCO without a fresh sanction in its favour merely based on G.O.Ms.No.85A, dated 25.5.1997 as the change of requisitioning body vitiates the impugned acquisition. The decision in U.P.Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi, 1995 (2) SCC 326 is relied on in this regard; (b) Since TIDCO redrew the project, the public purpose proposed to be executed by SIPCOT, as per the sanction accorded by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.85, Industries Department, dated 21.3.1997 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ does not survive, as per the decision in Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. (P) Ltd., (1996) 11 SCC 501; (v) The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was not published in the manner required by law and therefore, the impugned acquisition proceedings are arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (vii)The issuance of different notifications under Section 4(1) of the Act for the same purpose suffers from vagueness; (ix)(a) The statutory right conferred under section 5A of the Act enabling the landowners to file objections to the acquisition being mandatory, the denial of the same by invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(1), by exercising the power conferred under section 17(4) of the Act is arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified for want of tangible reasons; and (b) The delay in passing declaration under section 6 of the Act even after four months from the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the Act apparently belies the urgency; and (xiii)the State Government has no jurisdiction to initiate the impugned acquisition proceedings without due delegation of powers by the Union of India as contemplated under Article 258 read with Article 73 of the Constitution of India, as the subject matter, viz., setting up of Petrochemical Park falls under Entry 53 of List I of VII Schedule to the Constitution of India. 4.4. It is commonly contended that, (i)the impugned acquisition as well as proposed Petrochemical Park is in violation of Articles 14, 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the of the Constitution of India; and (ii)both the impugned acquisition and proposed Petrochemical Park are opposed to the Directive Principles of State Policy as it offends the adequate means of livelihood of the people and endangers the environment, in the locality. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ V. DEFENCE TO SUSTAIN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND THE IMPUGNED ACQUISITION 5. Based on the detailed and independent counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, Mr.N.Kannadasan, learned Additional Advocate General sustaining the proposed project and the impugned acquisition, contends that (i)the proposed Petrochemical Park, a major industrial project, originally estimated at the cost of Rs.30,000 crores in the year 1997, would provide, (a) direct employment opportunity to more than 10,000 persons, viz. Engineering Degree holders as well as technicians and field workers; and (b) additional and indirect job opportunities to nearly 25,000 persons; (ii)the location for the impugned project was identified as the same is closer to Chennai and easily accessible by means of road, rail, air and sea; (iii)even though the project is proposed to be set up in vast extent of land of 7155.95 Acres, 4302 acres of land belongs to the Government and only the rest is proposed to be acquired, even out of which 2542 acres are dry lands and 311 acres alone are wet lands; (iv) a very bare minimal number of families, viz., 585 in number residing in the impugned areas, are affected due to the impugned land acquisition and required to be rehabilitated; the interest of these 585 families also would be taken care of under the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Package; and the Government has already identified two sites for their rehabilitation; (v)the project includes several development schemes, viz., Common area development and reserving about 1200 acres of land for the green belt, besides Roads, Bridges, Drainage System, Bunds, Service Corridors, Administrative Facilities, Fresh Water Supply, Sea Water Supply, Effluent disposal system, Railway Sidings, Power Supply Facilities, Street Lighting, Telecommunications, and Fire Fighting facilities. (vi)the proposed project has already been evaluated by National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (for brevity, "NEERI"), an expert body functioning under the Council of Scientific Industrial Research, Government of India, who have undertaken to set up separate environmental management cell to protect, monitor and control all the matters concerning environment; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (vii)there will not be any environmental hazard by setting up the proposed project in the locality; nor there will be any environmental