High Court · 2025

W.P.No.13489 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 17.11.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANIW.P.No.13489 of 2024 And W.M.P.Nos.14655 and 14658 of 2024 A.Josephraj ... Petitioner Vs.1 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT NATURAL RESOURCES (MMC.2) DEPARTMENT, FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI – 600 009.2 THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, GUINDY, CHENNAI – 600 032.3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, DINDIGUL.4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALANI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.... Respondents Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned G.O. issued by the first respondent in G.O.(D).No.31 Natural Resources (MMC.2) Department, dated 13.03.2024 whereby 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13489 of 2024confirming the order passed by the Director of Mines and Geology, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032 in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.14667/ M.M-9/2006, dated 23.03.2018 whereby rejecting revision petition confirming the order passed by the District Collector, Dindigul in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.138/2004/(Mines), dated 09.12.2006 whereby imposing penalty of Rs.26,61,360/- and quash the same.For Petitioner : Mr.C.PrakasamFor Respondents : Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu Additional Government Pleader O R D E RThis writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned G.O. issued by the first respondent in G.O.(D).No.31 Natural Resources (MMC.2) Department, dated 13.03.2024 whereby confirming the order passed by the Director of Mines and Geology, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032 in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.14667/ M.M-9/2006, dated 23.03.2018 whereby rejecting revision petition confirming the order passed by the District Collector, Dindigul in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.138/2004/(Mines), dated 09.12.2006 whereby imposing penalty of Rs.26,61,360/- and quash the same.2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13489 of 2024that the petitioner was leased out stone quarry for the period 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2005 in respect of the Government Poromboke Quarry situated at S.No.268, Vedachandhur Village to an extent of 1.48.0 hectares. Whileso, the Tahsildar submitted letter dated 20.01.2004 to the respondents stating that the petitioner quarried outside the lease hold area. Thereafter, the Assistant Director of Mines conducted inspection and submitted his report, based on which, the fourth respondent, vide proceedings dated 10.03.2005, imposed penalty of Rs.26,61,360/-.3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that aggrieved by the proceedings of the fourth respondent, the petitioner preferred appeal before the third respondent and the third respondent vide order dated 09.12.2006 confirmed the penalty imposed by the fourth respondent and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the second respondent and the second respondent also vide order dated 23.03.2018 confirmed the penalty imposed on the petitioner and challenging the same, the petitioner approached the first respondent and the first respondent passed the impugned order confirming the penalty. The learned counsel further submitted that the imposed penalty on the petitioner on the ground 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13489 of 2024that the petitioner quarried outside the lease hold area, however, the respondents did not furnish any details or documents in this regard to the petitioner and hence the impugned order is not sustainable one.4.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that an extent of 1.48.0 hectares in Government Poromboke land bearing SF No.268, Vedachandhur Village and Taluk was leased out to the petitioner for a period of five years from 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2005 vide proceedings of the third respondent dated 10.03.2000 to quarry rough stone with conditions stipulated in the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1959. During the course of lease period, the Tahsildar, Vedachandhur Village during the routine course of inspections found that the petitioner had quarried over and above the permitted extent and vide letter dated 20.01.2004 recommended to the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Dindigul for appropriate actions on the petitioner. Thereafter, the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining conducted inspection and based on his report, the fourth respondent vide proceedings dated 10.03.2005 imposed penalty of Rs.26,61,360/- and the same was confirmed by the other respondents in the appeal preferred by the petitioner.4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13489 of 20245.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record.6.Admittedly, an extent of 1.48.0 hectares in Government Poromboke land bearing SF No.268, Vedachandhur Village and Taluk was leased out to the petitioner for a period of five years from 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2005 vide proceedings of the third respondent dated 10.03.2000 to quarry rough stone with conditions stipulated in the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1959. During the course of lease period, the Tahsildar, Vedachandhur Village during the routine course of inspections found that the petitioner had quarried over and above the permitted extent and vide letter dated 20.01.2004 recommended to the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Dindigul for appropriate actions on the petitioner. Thereafter, the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining conducted inspection and based on his report, the fourth respondent vide proceedings dated 10.03.2005 imposed penalty of Rs.26,61,360/-7.Aggrieved by the proceedings of the fourth respondent, the petitioner preferred appeal before the third respondent and the third 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13489 of 2024respondent vide order dated 09.12.2006 confirmed the penalty imposed by the fourth respondent and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the second respondent and the second respondent also vide order dated 23.03.2018 confirmed the penalty imposed on the petitioner and challenging the same, the petitioner approached the first respondent and the first respondent passed the impugned order confirming the penalty.8.The original authority as well as the appellate authority including the Government have elaborately considered the issue raised by the petitioner by providing opportunity to the petitioner and the same cannot be re-agitated before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless the order of the respondents is perverse and this Court finds no perversity in the orders impugned in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 17.11.2025priIndex: Yes/ No Speaking Order: Yes/ No NCC: Yes/ No6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13489 of 2024To1 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT NATURAL RESOURCES (MMC.2) DEPARTMENT, FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI – 600 009.2 THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, GUINDY, CHENNAI – 600 032.3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, DINDIGUL.4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALANI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13489 of 2024M.DHANDAPANI,J. priW.P.No.13489 of 2024AndW.M.P.Nos.14655 and 14658 of 202417.11.20258/8