HC fears Sterlite case hearing might get dragged till mid-September

Division Bench has been hearing a batch of cases since June 27

The Madras High Court on Monday feared that the hearing on a batch of cases filed regarding the reopening of the Sterlite copper smelting plant in Thoothukudi might go on till mid-September if the advocates representing various parties go on making marathon submissions.

A Division Bench of Justices T.S. Sivagnanam and V. Bhavani Subbaroyan had been hearing the batch since June 27 with as many as four senior counsel — C. Ariyama Sundaram, G. Masilamani, P.S. Raman and AR.L. Sundaresan — opening the arguments on behalf of Vedanta Limited.

Thereafter, they heard senior counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan, C.K. Viswanathan and Advocate General Vijay Narayan appearing for the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the State government before proceeding to hear Member of Parliament Vaiko who had got himself impleaded.

His arguments were followed by that of senior counsel R. Vaigai, appearing for another impleaded respondent, and she was succeeded by advocate A. Yogeshwaran who argued the case on Monday and accused the copper plant of having tampered with the ambient air quality monitoring stations.

When he urged the court to allow him to continue his arguments on Tuesday too, the senior judge in the Bench wanted the lawyers to keep their arguments short since many more lawyers, including N.G.R. Prasad and T. Mohan, were yet to argue.

The judge also said there was a possibility of him being sent to the Madurai Bench of the High Court for three months beginning in September, in which case, the hearing would have to be conducted only through videoconferencing.

In the meantime, Madurai-based activist Fatima filed a fresh writ petition in the High Court seeking a direction to demolish the copper plant, retrieve the site to its previous state by remediating the damage that had been reportedly caused to the soil and ground water.

The judges chose to keep the petition pending without even ordering notices to the respondents since that process would again end up prolonging the proceedings as the opponent might seek time to file a counter-affidavit and then argue the case separately.