Madras High Court
Sri Vidhya vs K.Sabarimalai : 1St on 28 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)Nos.1196 & 1246 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)Nos.1196 & 1246 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.5074 & 5238 of 2021
Sri Vidhya : Appellant in both Writ Appeals
Vs.
1.K.Sabarimalai : 1st respondent in W.A.(MD)No.1196/21
1.K.Santhanam : 1st respondent in W.A.(MD)No.1246/21
2.The District Collector,
District Collector Officer,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Director of Geology and Mining,
Alandur Road, Guindy Institutional Area,
SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
3.The Deputy Director of Geology and Mining,
Office of the Deputy Director of Geology and Mining,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.A.(MD)Nos.1196 & 1246 of 2021
5.The Tahsildar,
Office of the Tahsildar,
Rajapalayam Taluk,
Virudhunagar. : Respondents 2 to 5 in both Writ Appeals
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, praying to set aside the common order dated 26.04.2021, in W.P.
(MD)Nos.13406 of 2020 and 18575 of 2019.
For Appellant : Mrs.Narmada Sampath
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.Sricharan Rengarajan
for Mr.Malayendhiran
For Respondents 2 to 5 : Mr.Veerakathiravan,
Senior Counsel for State Govt.
Assisted by Mr.A.K.Manickam,
Standing Counsel for State Govt.
[In both Writ Appeals]
COMMON JUDGMENT
**************************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
We have heard Mrs.Nirmala Sampath, learned Counsel
appearing for the appellant, Mr.Sricharan Rengarajan for
Mr.V.Malayendran, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent
and Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Senior Counsel for State Government
assisted by Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Standing Counsel for Government
appearing for the respondents 2 to 5.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.1196 & 1246 of 2021
2.With the consent on either side, these Writ Appeals are taken
up for disposal.
3.These appeals by the fifth respondent in the writ petitions
challenge the common order dated 26.04.2021, in W.P.(MD)Nos.13406 of
2020 and 18575 of 2019.
4.The petitioners filed the writ petition praying for issuance of
Writs of Mandamus, to forbear the appellant from carrying on stone
quarrying operations in S.No.846/1 of Mottamalai Village, Ayan
Kollankondan Village, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
5.Before approaching the Writ Court, a representation dated
19.09.2020, is shown to have been sent to the official respondent. We
find that the said representation was sent by speed post on 22.09.2020
and the writ petition was filed on 24.09.2020, without even giving
reasonable time for the parties to act. The writ petitions were pending,
the authorities filed counter affidavit stating that there is no statutory
violation committed by the appellant / fifth respondent. Equally, the fifth
respondent also filed counter affidavit and the learned Writ Court
imposed total ban of the quarrying operation done by the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.1196 & 1246 of 2021
6.On a total reading of the impugned order, we find the
observations and findings contained in paragraph Nos.9 to 17 of the
impugned order are all pertaining as to how natural resources needs to
be conserved, how illicit mining is to be curbed and the duty cast upon
the State to regulate such mining activities and various other doctrines
propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court such as public trust doctrine,
doctrine of sustainable development etc. We are in full agreement with
the learned Single Bench qua the observations made in this regard. But,
to be noted that the writ petitions were not filed as Public Interest
Litigations, rather by two writ petitioners who are brothers, alleging that
the appellant has violated the conditions of lease granted to her for
mining rough stone. If such was the case, the Court is to record the
finding that there is a violation or direct the authorities to submit a report
to ascertain as to whether there is any violation as alleged by the
petitioners being committed.
7.On a perusal of the representation dated 19.09.2020
submitted by the petitioners, we find that there is no specific allegation
made by the writ petitioners. Rather, vague averments have been made
stating that indiscriminate blast operations have been carried on etc. If
such was the contention raised by the writ petitioners which was denied
by the official respondents as well as the appellant/fifth respondent, then,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.1196 & 1246 of 2021
this Court is to examine the correctness of the allegations and counter
allegations made to come to a conclusion as to whether the remedy
sought for by the writ petitioners can be granted. In the absence of any
such endeavour made by the learned Writ Court and as already observed,
the writ petitions not being Public Interest Litigations, no directions on
such vague observations could have been issued by the Writ Court which
is of far reaching consequence, virtually setting at not or cancelling the
lease granted to the appellant.
8.In the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents, it has
been stated that the quarry was an existing quarry and prior to lease
being granted to the appellants, women self help groups were operating
in the quarry. It is not clear as to why at that juncture the writ petitioners
did not raise that issue. Be that as it may, based on the facts that were
available on the Writ Court, without a decision on the issue as to whether
there is violation or not, a general ban could not have been granted. The
learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent / writ petitioners
pointed out about the observations made in paragraphs 17 & 18 of the
impugned order, wherein the learned Writ Court, while taking note of the
fact that earlier stone quarry was operated by women self help groups
came to the conclusion that those women self help groups would have
been manually operating the quarry without using explosives.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.1196 & 1246 of 2021
9.In our considered view, there was no material before the Writ
Court to come to such a conclusion. In any event, the lis before the Writ
Court was whether the appellants have violated the terms and conditions
of the lease or not. Therefore, it was incumbent on the learned Writ Court
to examine as to whether there was a violation, without which the final
conclusion and direction issued in paragraph No.19 cannot be sustained.
As we are satisfied that the merits of the claim made by the writ
petitioners have not been gone into and other observations are beyond
the scope of the writ petitions pending before the Writ Court, the order
passed calls for interference.
10.For the above reasons, the Writ Appeals are allowed, setting
aside the common order dated 26.04.2021 passed in the writ petitions.
Consequently, the writ petitions in W.P.(MD)Nos.13406 of 2020 and 18575
of 2019 are dismissed. However, if the writ petitioners are so aggrieved,
it is open to them to point out specific allegations, which shall be
considered by the authorities in accordance with law. However, there
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
28.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
MR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.1196 & 1246 of 2021
Note: 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 District Collector,
District Collector Officer,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Director of Geology and Mining,
Alandur Road, Guindy Institutional Area,
SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
3.The Deputy Director of Geology and Mining,
Office of the Deputy Director of Geology and Mining,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
4.The Tahsildar,
Office of the Tahsildar,
Rajapalayam Taluk,
Virudhunagar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.1196 & 1246 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
MR
COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)Nos.1196 & 1246 of 2021
28.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
