High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 4.9.2007CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition Nos.28354 to 28356 of 2007K.Prakash .. Petitioner in W.P.No.28354 of 2007N.Rajamanickam .. petitioner inW.P.No.28355 of 2007K.C.Subramaniam .. petitioner inW.P.No.28356 of 2007 vs. 1. The District Collector, Erode District, Erode.2. The Deputy Director, Geology and Mines Collectorate Campus, Erode.3. The Commissioner and Director of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.. Respondents inall the writ petitions(R.3 impleaded as per order of this Court dated 3.9.2007 in M.P.Nos.3&3&3 of 2007 in W.P.Nos.28354 to 28356 of 2007)W.P.No.28354 of 2007:This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to theproceedings of the District Collector, Erode District, Erode,namely, the first respondent herein, made in Na.Ka.No.1432/2006 X1,dated 1.6.2007, quash the same and to direct the respondents hereinto permit the petitioner herein to run the rough stone quarry asper the terms of lease agreement to the fullest term of five years https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in S.No.84/3 part measuring an extent of 0.50.0 hectares inAgrahara Periyapalayam Village, Perundurai Taluk in Erode District,by issue of necessary transport permit, despatch list without theirbeing any interruption in the performance of their quarryingoperations. W.P.No.28355 of 2007:This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to theproceedings of the District Collector, Erode District, Erode,namely, the first respondent herein, made in Na.Ka.No.1432/2006 X1,dated 1.6.2007, quash the same and to direct the respondents hereinto permit the petitioner herein to run the rough stone quarry asper the terms of lease agreement to the fullest term of five yearsin S.No.84/2 part measuring an extent of 0.59.5 hectares inAgrahara Periyapalayam Village, Perundurai Taluk in Erode District,by issue of necessary transport permit, despatch slip without theirbeing any interruption in the performance of their quarryingoperations. W.P.No.28356 of 2007:This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to theproceedings of the District Collector, Erode District, Erode,namely, the first respondent herein, made in Na.Ka.No.1432/2006 X1,dated 1.6.2007, quash the same and to direct the respondents hereinto permit the petitioner herein to run the rough stone quarry asper the terms of lease agreement to the fullest term of five yearsin S.No.83 part and 84/1 part measuring an extent of 2.23.5hectares in Agrahara Periyapalayam Village, Perundurai Taluk inErode District, by issue of necessary transport permit, despatchslip without their being any interruption in the performance oftheir quarrying operations. For petitioners : Mr.K.Doraisamy Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Rajkumar For respondents : Mr.A.Arumugam Additional Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ C O M M O N O R D E RMr.A.Arumugam, the learned Additional Government Pleader takesnotice for the respondents.2. With the consent of the learned counsels appearing oneither side, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.3. Heard Mr.K.Doraisamy, learned Senior Counsel for thepetitioners as well as Mr.A.Arumugam, learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader for the respondents.4. It is stated by the petitioners that they had been grantedlease to quarry rough stones in their ryotwari land as contemplatedunder Rule 19 of the Mines and Mineral Concession Rules, 1959,(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The lease periods forquarrying the rough stones were for a period of five years, ascontemplated under Rule 8 of the said Rules. After necessaryinspection and enquiry, the petitioners were given the lease for aperiod of five years from 20.2.2006 to 19.2.2011. The petitionershad also obtained necessary transport permits as well as despatchslips issued by the competent authority. While so, one Marappan ofTirupur had objected to the quarrying operations of the petitionersstating that he has a farm house within the prohibited distance.5. It has been further submitted that based on the objectionsraised by Marappan, the District Collector, Erode, by his officeproceedings Na.Ka.No.1432/2006/X1, dated 26.3.2007, had asked thepetitioners as to why the quarry lease granted to them should notbe cancelled. Even though the petitioners had submitted theirexplanations, the District Collector, Erode, by his officeproceedings Na.Ka.No.1432/2006 X1, dated 1.6.2007, had cancelledthe quarry lease granted in favour of the petitioners, withoutproperly considering the explanation submitted by them. 6. It has been further submitted that the orders passed by theDistrict Collector, Erode, cancelling the lease granted to thepetitioners are contrary to law and the principles of naturaljustice and it is therefore, illegal and invalid. 7. Challenging the said orders passed by the DistrictCollector, Erode, the petitioners had filed appeals before theimpleaded third respondent, namely, The Commissioner and Director of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai, on 22.6.2007,under Rule 36 C(2) of The Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral ConcessionRules, 1959. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. Mr.K.Doraisamy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for thepetitioners had submitted that the petitioners have suffered heavymonetary loss due to the cancellation of the lease and manyfamilies of labourers are suffering due to the stoppage of thequarrying operations. 9. The learned Senior counsel had laid stress on his requestto permit the petitioners to carry on the quarrying operationsduring the pendency of the appeals before the third respondent. 10. Mr.A.Arumugam, the learned Additional Government Pleader,appearing for the respondents had submitted that such a reliefcannot be granted as the lease granted to the petitioners had beencancelled. 11. Considering the rival contentions of the learned counselsappearing on behalf of the parties concerned, this Court is of theconsidered view that it would suffice if the third respondent isdirected to dispose of the appeals filed by the petitioners withina specified time. Therefore, the third respondent is directed todispose of the appeals filed by the petitioners, on 22.6.2007, onmerits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after givingsufficient opportunity to the parties concerned.With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of.No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.2 of 2007 are closed. lanSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo:1. The District Collector, Erode District, Erode.2. The Deputy Director, Geology and Mines Collectorate Campus, Erode. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The Commissioner and Director of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032+ 3 ccs to Mr. K. Rajkumar, Advocate SR Nos. 54993, 54994, 54979MA(CO)SR/4.9.2007W.P.Nos.28354 to 28356 of 2007