The Madras High Court on Wednesday rejected all objections raised by Vedanta Limited to applications filed by politicians and anti-Sterlite activists to include them as respondents to the company’s writ petition for reopening its copper smelting plant in Thoothukudi.
The plant has remained closed since 13 protesters were shot dead in a police firing incident on May 22 last.
Justices T.S. Sivagnanam and V. Bhavani Subbaroyan allowed the impleading applications filed by MDMK general secretary Vaiko, the CPI(M)’s Arjunan, Makkal Athikaram State coordinator S. Raju, Professor R. Fathima and G. Hari Raghavan of the Thoothukudi Anti Sterlite People Federation.
Observing that the impleading applicants could not be termed “busybodies or troublesome interlopers” since they had been voicing their concerns over the alleged environmental hazards caused by the plant for a long time, the judges said the applicants were entitled to get impleaded in the case and assist the court in deciding the plea for reopening the plant.
They, however, dismissed similar impleading applications filed by small-scale industries and many others in support of the copper plant since the company itself was not in favour of including them as parties to the case in order to avoid too many people getting involved in the issue and creating multiplicity of proceedings by filing appeals and so on before higher forums.
Multiplicity factor
Later, the judges adjourned the case for further hearing on June 20, when senior counsel G. Masilamani, P.S. Raman and A.R.L. Sundaresan, all representing the company, were asked to clarify whether they were interested in advancing arguments directly in the main case or on an interim application seeking permission to enter the plant and maintain the machinery.
During the course of arguments on Wednesday, Mr. Masilamani said there was no necessity for private individuals to get impleaded in a dispute between the company and the State, which was represented by eminent lawyers like senior counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan and Advocate General (A-G) Vijay Narayan.
“I have gone through affidavits of all impleading applicants and there is no allegation that the State is not effectively representing their cause. No doubt has been raised against the State that it is not supporting the issue wholeheartedly. I have no objection if they assist the A-G or even address the court directly but my objection is not make them as parties to the case [sic],” he said.
Explaining the reasons for such objection, he said “multiplicity of parties leads to multiplicity of proceedings”. “If they start filing pleadings, it will digress from the core issue and create problems. Elaborate documentation will have to be done and every time they file a document, I’ll have to file a counter...As of now, they have no locus standi to get impleaded,” he argued.
However, the A-G said the concept of locus standi would differ in a case related to environmental aspects, and every person who had a constitutional right to a clean and safe environment was entitled to approach the court on such issues.
