Pallikaranai marshland. File
| Photo Credit: B. Jothi Ramalingam
The Madras High Court on Friday (July 24, 2026) directed the Tamil Nadu State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) to explain, by July 28 how could it unilaterally revoke the environmental clearance (EC) issued to Brigade Enterprises Limited for constructing high-rise residential towers near the Pallikaranai marshland, a designated Ramsar wetland site.
Justice Mohammed Shaffiq issued the direction after senior counsel P.S. Raman complained that the EC had been revoked without following the principles of natural justice and issuing any notice to the realtor. The counsel also claimed that the construction site was located well outside the prohibited area around the marshland and that its parent title deed dates back to 1935.
The submissions were made during the hearing of a writ petition filed by the construction company, challenging the revocation order passed by the SEIAA on May 12, 2026. Mr. Raman said, the SEIAA had actually issued the EC on January 20, 2025, after being satisfied that the property in question, which was being developed through a joint venture with the landowner, was not within the prohibited area.
It was on the strength of the EC that the realtor had obtained the layout plan approval from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) and other clearances from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) before commencing the construction. Thereafter, Arappor Iyakkam, an anti-corruption organisation, had filed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition alleging that the property was within the prohibited area.
A Division Bench of the High Court had entertained the PIL petition and stalled the construction by way of an interim order. However, after the dismissal of the PIL petition, Brigade recommenced the construction only to stop it again because of the unilateral revocation of the EC on the ground that the realtor had failed to obtain permission from the Tamil Nadu State Wetland Authority, Mr. Raman said.
Contending that the permission from the Weland Authority needs to be obtained only “if applicable” and not otherwise, the senior counsel said, no such permission was required for the project in question because the authority had filed a categorical counter affidavit before the Division Bench that the ‘zone of influence’ around the 1,247.54 hectare Pallikaranai marshland was yet to be determined.
Mr. Raman also told Justice Shaffiq that Brigade Enterprises had decided not to recommence the construction until the issue gets resolved. He, however, urged the court to stay the SEIAA’s EC revocation order as well as all further proceedings, since the CMDA had subsequently issued a show-cause notice to the realtor seeking an explanation as to why the plan approval should also not be revoked.
Stating that the TNPCB, too, had withdrawn its consent, the senior counsel said: “The SEIAA’s unilateral order has led to consequential proceedings by other authorities. Therefore, they must be restrained from taking any such action.” After hearing him, the judge suo motu impleaded the CMDA, as well as the TNPCB, as respondents to the writ petition and adjourned the hearing to July 28.
Published – July 24, 2026 01:04 pm IST
