Madras High Court
The District Collector vs R.Murugesan on 2 November, 2022
W.A(MD)No.1305 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.11.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.A(MD)No.1305 of 2022
1.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Theni District.
2.The Assistant Director,
Geology and Mining,
Office of the District Collector,
Theni District. ... Appellants/Respondents
vs.
R.Murugesan ... Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside
the order, dated 27.04.2022 passed in W.P(MD)No.8316 of 2022, on the file
of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.C.Jeganathan
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1305 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)
Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
2. Originally, the respondent herein was issued with a show cause
notice dated 16.03.2022 by the first appellant, based on the aerial survey
conducted, pursuant to the order of this court in a public interest litigation
viz., WP.(MD)No.16194 of 2020 dated 18.11.2020, as if, he was involved in
the illegal quarrying. Challenging the same, the respondent preferred a writ
petition in W.P(MD)No.8316 of 2022 stating that without issuing any notice
before conducting the survey and without providing an opportunity to study
the inspection report, the first appellant issued the said show cause notice
by predetermining the issue.
3. By order dated 27.04.2022, the learned Judge disposed of the
aforesaid writ petition, by directing the respondent herein to submit a reply
to the show-cause notice within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of the order and thereafter, the first appellant should pass
final orders within a period of two weeks. In the said order, the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1305 of 2022
Judge further observed as follows:
“7..... In order to protect the interest of the
respondent, in case, any adverse orders are passed against
them, the first appellant shall keep the adverse order, if any, in
abeyance for a period of one month from the date of final order
to enable the respondent to challenge the same, if so advised,
in the manner known to him under law.”
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Government authorities have filed this
intra-court appeal.
4. The main submission of the learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing for the appellants is that the respondent is resorting to
the illegal quarrying of rough stone and gravel in the not permitted
adjoining patta and poramboke lands and transport them, in violation of
Section 4(1A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957 and Rule 36(5)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules,
1959. Taking note of the gravity of offence committed by the respondent,
the learned Judge permitted him to continue the quarrying operation till the
passing of the final order and thereafter, another period of one month to
enable the respondent to file appeal, by the order impugned herein, which is
illegal and contrary to law. The learned Additional Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1305 of 2022
further submitted that in an identical case in District Collector, Theni
District and others v. Sunderaj by judgment dated 01.09.2022 in
W.A(MD)Nos.949 to 961 of 2022, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has
considered the very same issue and deleted the second limb of the order
passed by the learned Judge. The relevant portion of the said judgment is
extracted below for ready reference:-
“7. This Court is unable to sustain the second point on which
these writ appeals are argued. The first appellant cannot prejudge
the issue and try to implement the consequences of final order
even before the adverse order is passed. It is to be noted that
learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petitions observed
that the impugned show cause notices do not indicate that the first
respondent in the writ petitions has predetermined the issue
against the petitioners. The observation is contrary to the
submission of learned Additional Government Pleader as his
request now is that the writ petitioners should suffer an order of
injunction to carry on quarry operations even in respect of the land
for which there is licence, merely because the show cause notices
were issued on the ground that the writ petitioners' licence are
liable to be cancelled for the illegal activities. When the very issue
has to be considered based on the explanation offered by the
petitioners, while passing final orders, this Court is unable to
sustain the arguments of learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the appellants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1305 of 2022
8. In view of the above, these Writ Appeals are partly
allowed by deleting the operative portion of the impugned order of
learned Single Judge of this Court in paragraph 7, in which, the first
respondent is directed to keep the adverse order, if any, in
abeyance for a period of one month from the date of final order to
enable the petitioners to challenge the same, if so advised, in the
manner known to them under law. In all other respects, the order
of learned Single Judge is perfectly in order. No Costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”
Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader sought to allow this
appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Judge to the extent as
indicated above.
5. Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondent / writ
petitioner refuted the allegations made in the show cause notice, which was
impugned in the writ petition, he has agreed to pass a similar order in this
writ appeal, in line with the judgment in W.A(MD)No.949 of 2022 etc. batch.
6. In the light of the aforesaid judgment referred to on the side of
the appellants and having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsel on either side, this Court is inclined to delete the second limb of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1305 of 2022
order, dated 27.04.2022 passed by the learned Judge in W.P(MD)No.8316 of
2022, as extracted in para no.3 of this judgment and is accordingly, deleted.
In respect of other aspects, there is no modification qua order of the
learned Judge, which is impugned herein.
7. In fine, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of, in the above terms.
No costs.
[R.M.D.,J.] & [J.S.N.P.,J.]
02.11.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
ps
To
1.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Theni District.
2.The Assistant Director,
Geology and Mining,
Office of the District Collector,
Theni District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1305 of 2022
R.MAHADEVAN,J.
and
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD,J.
ps
ORDER MADE IN
W.A(MD)No.1305 of 2022
02.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
