Madras High Court
Dhanaraj Mahendiran vs The Principal Secretary To ... on 28 July, 2021
W.P(MD)No.11695 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
W.P(MD)No.11695 of 2021
and
WMP(MD)No.9199 of 2021
Dhanaraj Mahendiran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Ndu,
Industries (MMC.1) Department, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Geology and Mining
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
3.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned G.O.(D)No.13
Industries (MNC.1) Department, dated 03.02.2020, on the file of
the 1st respondent and quash the same and further directing the 3rd
respondent to refund the petitioner the unutilized lease amount
under Lease deed, dated 27.11.01 between the 3rd respondent and
the father of the petitioner in respect of quarrying sand in the lands
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.11695 of 2021
bearing S.F.No.282, 288/1 and 302/2 Thirumalapuram Village,
Sivagiri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajendran
For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar
Govt.Advocate
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the
impugned G.O.(D)No.13 Industries (MNC.1) Department, dated
03.02.2020, on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same
and further directing the 3rd respondent to refund the petitioner the
unutilized lease amount under Lease deed, dated 27.11.01 between
the 3rd respondent and the father of the petitioner in respect of
quarrying sand in the lands bearing S.F.No.282, 288/1 and 302/2
Thirumalapuram Village, Sivagiri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
(i) The petitioner's father K.Mahendiran in the year 2001
participated in the auction conducted by the 3rd Respondent for the
lease of quarrying rights in the sand quarry, situated in S.F.No.282,
288/1 and 302/2 of Thirumalpuram Village, Sivagiri Taluk,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.11695 of 2021
Tirunelveli District, presently Tenkasi District. The petitioner's
father was the highest bidder quoting the sum of Rs.1,13,22,000/-
and that the quarry lease was granted to him by the proceedings of
the 3rd Respondent, dated 20.09.2001. By virtue of the lease deed,
dated 27.11.2001, the petitioner's father was granted quarry lease
for a period of 3 years and that he commenced the quarry
operation immediately thereafter.
(ii) In the year 2002, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenkasi,
imposed a penalty of Rs.77,115/- to the father of the petitioner by
his proceedings, dated 12.11.2002, on the allegation that he
removed 159 units of sand in the non lease hold area. Therefore,
the petitioner's father filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No.1337 of 2003
before this Court and that the said Writ Petition was dismissed by
order dated 09.08.2007, in view of the subsequent development
and the availability of alternative remedy.
(iii) In the meanwhile, the Government of Tamil Nadu in
G.O.Ms.No.95, Industries, dated 01.10.2003 amended the Tamil
Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, by inserting Rule 38-
A, where under all existing leases for quarrying sand in
Government land and permissions / leases granted in Royatwari
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.11695 of 2021
Lands shall cease to be effective and the right to exploit the sand in
the State shall vest with the Government to the exclusion of the
others. The said Rule further provides that the proportionate lease
amount for the unexpired period of lease and the unadjusted
seigniorage fee, if any, will be refunded. Several lessees
challenged the vires of Rule 38-A, before this Court and this Court,
by the Judgment, dated 11.05.2004 reported in 2004 (3) LW 738
upheld the Rule 38-A subject to certain directions contained
therein.
(iv) However, the petitioner's father did not challenge the
vires of the said Rule and in other words, petitioner's father did
not file any Writ Petition questioning the said Rule. Aggrieved
against the directions given by this Court insofar as it directs the
quarrying operation by the existing lessees, the Government of
Tamil Nadu filed a Special Leave Petition, before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, by Judgment
dated 24.03.2006 made in Civil Appeal Nos. 5572-5644 of 2005
disposed of the Civil Appeals and permitted the Petitioners in the
Writ Petitions (respondents therein) whose leases were subsisting
on 02.10.2003 and whose activities were stopped with effect from
that day will be entitled to carry on the quarrying activities for a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.11695 of 2021
period of 6 months or for the actual unexpired period of lease as on
02.10.2003 whichever is less.
(v). The petitioner's father did not challenge the said
amended Rule 38-A and he is not a party to the Judgments of this
Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. After 01.10.2003, the
petitioner's father was not allowed to quarry sand from the above
said land and as such, his father is entitled to get refund of the
proportionate lease amount for the unexpired period of lease, as
per the said Rule 38-A but however, the Respondents delayed the
refund of the said amount under the guise of pendency of the
penalty proceedings against his father.
(vi) The petitioner's father made a representation dated
20/07/04 for the refund of the proportionate leases amount in
respect of the unexpired lease period of 422 days. However, the 3rd
Respondent, by order dated 20.07.2004 unilaterally terminated the
lease. Such termination is a huge blow as that the lease came to an
end one year earlier on 01.10.2003 by the operation of law.
Besides the said order was passed without following the Principles
of natural justice.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.11695 of 2021
(vii) The petitioner's father filed a Writ Petition in W.P.
(MD)No.1464 of 2004 before this Court and that this Court, by
order dated 09.06.2007, directed to prepare an appeal before the
Commissioner of Geology and Mining. As such, his father preferred
an appeal and that the said appeal was dismissed by the Order
dated 07.05.2010. Thereafter, his father preferred a further appeal
to the 1st Respondent and pending the said appeal, petitioner's
father expired on 13.07.2013, leaving behind petitioner's
grandmother, mother, petitioner and the petitioner's brother
Kuppuraj, as his legal heirs. Subsequently, the petitioner's
grandmother also expired on 18.03.2019. As such, petitioner, his
mother and his brother are the only persons, who are entitled to
the estate of his father.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that after petitioner's father's death, the office of the 1st
respondent issued notice in the name of petitioner's father, for
attending the enquiry before the 1st respondent on 30.09.2019 and
only on receiving the same, petitioner came to know about the
above proceedings. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a
representation in person to the 1st Respondent on 03.09.2019,
requesting the 1st Respondent for the copies of the proceedings of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.11695 of 2021
the said Second Appeal, as the petitioner did not have any copies
However, the 1st Respondent proceeded to hear the Second Appeal
and by order vide G.O. (D) No.13 Industries (MNC.1) Department
dated 03.02.2020 dismissed the Appeal, without assigning any
reason. The Order of the 1st Respondent is illegal, arbitrary and
suffers from non application of mind. Hence, the petitioner is
before this Court with the aforesaid relief.
4. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
5. Perusal of the impugned order shows that in order to
dispose the second appeal, the appellant, who is the petitioner's
father, has been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing on
03.09.2019. However, the communication has been returned to the
Government citing that the individual has deceased. Thiru
Dhanaraj Mahendran, the present petitioner, who is none other
than the son of K.Mahendran, has stated that his father expired on
13.07.2013 and that he is not having any knowledge about the
appeal and hence, he has requested to furnish a copy of the second
appeal, dated 28.05.2010 filed by his father, relevant documents
and Government proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.11695 of 2021
6. It is not in dispute that the subject matter involving money
and therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
petitioner is entitled to receive the relevant documents,
Government Proceedings and personal hearing so as to pursue the
matter. The stand of the respondent that since the petitioner is the
legal heir, the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959,
does not contemplate any provisions to deal with the Legal
Representatives, cannot withstand the legal scrutiny and
therefore, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.
(D)No.13, Industries (MNC.1) Department, dated 03.02.2020, is set
aside and the respondents are directed to furnish relevant
documents, Government Proceedings, as requested by the
petitioner and allowing him to agitate in the appeal, in the manner
known to law and the final call may be taken within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
28.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
MPK
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.11695 of 2021
Note:(i) In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the responsibility
of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Ndu,
Industries (MMC.1) Department, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Geology and Mining
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
3.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.11695 of 2021
J.NISHA BANU, J.
MPK
W.P(MD)No.11695 of 2021
28.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
