Madras High Court
N.Athimuthan vs The Government Of India on 10 January, 2022
W.P.No.1649 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.1649 of 2016
and W.M.P.Nos.1423 and 1424 of 2016
(Through Video Conference)
N.Athimuthan ...Petitioner
Vs
1. The Government of India,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Environment & Forests,
Paryavaran Bhavan, Lodi Road,
New Delhi - 110 003.
2. The Government of India,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Mines,
Shastri Bhawan,
Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi- 110 001.
3. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Industries Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
4. The District Collector,
Madurai District. ..Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
pertaining to the impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.No.1649 of 2016
G.O.Ms 79 Industries (MMC-1) dated 06.04.2015 and the consequential
order passed by the 4th respondent in Na.Ka.513 - 28/2015 - Mines dated
25.04.2015 and quash the same as per Rule 41 (viii) and Rule 42 (iii) and
(iv) and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to
continue the lease for quarrying rough stone as per agreement dated
24.08.2011 in so far as rough stone quarrying operations comprised in
Survey No.52/2 (p.II) Admeasuring 2.00 Hectares of Palamedu Village,
Vadapatti Taluk, Madurai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.Mohamed Ismail
For RR 1 and 2 : M/s.N.K.Nithilavani
Central Govt. Standing Counsel.
For RR 3 and 4 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan,
Government Advocate.
******
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition for continuance of
the lease for quarrying rough stone is no more res integra and this Court
has elaborately considered the issues involved in a batch of writ petitions
comprised in W.P.Nos.32563 of 2019....etc(batch of cases) and delivered
the judgment on 23.12.2021. The relevant paragraphs are extracted
hereunder:
"90. In the backdrop of the factual position, above, this
Court is of the considered view that the above aspects have
been gone into in detail by C.V.Karthikeyan, J., and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1649 of 2016
learned Judge had come to the conclusion that the non-
issuance of notice would in no way be termed to be violation
of principles of natural justice and this Court, for the reasons
recorded by it, as aforesaid, is in agreement with the view
expressed by C.V.Karthikeyan, J. In view of the above, this
Court is of the view that the order passed by C.V.Karthikeyan,
J., being a binding precedent, this Court has to necessarily
accept the said view, as even on an independent application of
mind, this Court has expressed its view that nonissuance of
notice in the present case could not be termed to be in
violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, no
reference is required to be made in this regard by following
the reference made by G.R.Swaminathan, J. In doing so, this
Court is not also in any manner breaching judicial discipline,
which has been time and again pointed out by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, more recently in its recent decision in
M.S.Bhati's case (supra).
91. For the reasons aforesaid, all the writ petitions fail
and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. However, in the
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
92. Before parting with the case, it is to be pointed out
that even in the reference, G.R.Swaminathan, J., has made the
following observation :-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1649 of 2016
15. The notification dated 15.01.2016 did not direct
the lease holders to desist from operating the leases if
they have not obtained EC. Such a direction came to be
issued only on 15.04.2017. The Common Cause judgment
came in August, 2017. Rule 42 also did not bar the lessees
from continuing their operations during the period of 630
days from the commencement of the rules. What amazes
me is the conduct of the State Government. Deepak
Kumar judgment which came on 27.02.2012 prohibited
grant of quarry leases after the said date unless EC was
obtained. I must record here that the Government of
Tamil Nadu did issue quarry licenses even after this date
to the applicants who did not have EC. In my view, such
issuing of licenses constituted contempt of the order
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. During the period
in question, for the existing lease holders, the respondents
issued permits for transportation. The respondents
collected seigniorage fees. Having done so, the
respondents have now turned the tables and characterize
the actions of the petitioners as without lawful authority.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
93. From the above, it is clear that even the learned
Judge, who had referred the matter to a Larger Bench, had
lamented at the act of the Government in aiding the petitioners
in continuing with their mining operation with scant regard to
the environment inspite of the categorical orders passed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1649 of 2016
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar's case and
Common Cause case (supra). It is crystal clear from the facts
enumerated by the learned Judge that without the connivance
of the officials at the helm of affairs, the petitioners could not
have mined the minerals, in utter disregard to the directions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as the officials had aided the
petitioners by providing them transport permits and other
requisite permits to mine the minerals and collecting
seigniorage fees, thereby allowing the petitioners to degrade
and deteriorate the environment for satisfying their needs.
When the petitioners, for their act in causing deterioration of
the environment, have been penalised with levy of penalty, the
officials, who were equally responsible for allowing the
petitioners to mine without submitting environmental
clearance, should also be dealt with in an appropriate
manner, which would be befitting the injury that they have
caused to the environment and put in jeopardy the interest,
safety and health of the public and, therefore, in the fitness of
things and in the interest of justice, necessary action by way of
departmental proceedings should be initiated on such of those
officials, who, with scant regard to the environmental
degradation, had allowed the petitioners to continue their
reprehensible acts. No amount of cost imposed on the
petitioners would be a lesson to the erring officials, who have
committed this unpardonable act. "
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1649 of 2016
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
nti
2. In view of the above judgment, this Writ Petition stands
Dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
10.01.2022
Internet:Yes
Index : Yes
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
nti/sts
To:
1. The Secretary,
The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Industries Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector,
Madurai District.
Order made in
W.P.No.1649 of 2016
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
