Madras High Court
The District Collector vs S.Duraisamy on 5 December, 2023
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: Sanjay V.Gangapurwala, D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.A.No.3375 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.12.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.3375 of 2023
1. The District Collector
Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
2. The Assistant Director of Geology and Mines
Tiruppur, Tiruppur District. .. Appellants
Vs.
1. S.Duraisamy
2. M.Palanisamy
3. R.Sivakumar .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 11.12.2018 in W.P.No.958 of 2018.
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Silambannan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.T.K.Saravanan
Government Advocate
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3375 of 2023
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Heard Mr.S.Silambannan, learned Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate for the
appellants.
2. The appellants are challenging the order passed by the
learned Single Judge, thereby disposing of the writ petition filed by
the present respondents. The learned Single Judge passed the
following orders:
8. The District Level Experts Appraisal Assessment
Committee recommended for the rejection of the
Environment Clearance for the proposed stone
quarry in S.F.Nos.134/1 and 134/9. But, in the
counter affidavit, it is stated that no final order
has been passed. Therefore, in the interest of
justice, this Court is inclined to pass the following
orders:
i) the first respondent is directed to pass
appropriate orders within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
after providing opportunity to the parties
concerned.
ii) It is made clear that in the event of any
rejection order passed by the District Collector for
execution of the lease deed and for granting
permission for quarry operations in the aforesaid
period, the respondents are directed to consider
awarding of reasonable interest for the period
from the date of deposited amount, till the date of
realisation.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that under
the Rules, there is no provision for grant of interest. Interest cannot
be granted de hors the provisions. The amount has been refunded
to the original petitioners in March, 2022. No question would arise
for grant of interest.
4. It appears that there was an impediment for the petitioners
to carryout the stone quarry operation. The petitioners could not get
environmental clearance because of the impediment. In fact, the
appellants ought not to have auctioned the land in such case. Be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that as it may, the amount is refunded to the petitioners in March,
2022. Learned Single Judge has directed to award reasonable
interest. The appellants have retained the amount for almost 4 ½
years. In the light of that, we do not find any error on the part of
the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order.
5. The writ appeal, as such, stands dismissed. There will be no
order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.27562 of 2023 is closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
05.12.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
drm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
(drm)
05.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
