Madras High Court
Remibai Jeppiar vs The District Collector on 20 July, 2023
W.P(MD)No.16453 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.16453 of 2014
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015
Remibai Jeppiar
(Petitioner is substituted vide order
of this Court dated 04.07.2023 in
W.M.P(MD)No.7042 of 2023) ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District – 629 001.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Padmanabapuram,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Kalkulam Taluk,
Kanyakumari District.
4.S.Nagarajan ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
W.P(MD)No.16453 of 2014
comprised in proceedings No.ROC No.283/G&M/2014 on the file of the
Collector, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil dated 20.09.2014 in confirming
the order of the RDO, Padmanabhapuram as made in his proceedings No.
A1/5308/2012 dated 08.03.2014 and to quash the same and consequently
forbear the respondents from initiating any action against the petitioner in
regard to illegal mining in respect of Survey No. 498/2 situate in Velimalai
Village , Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ajmal Khan
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.S.RA.Ramachandran
Additional Government Pleader
for R.1 to R.3
No Appearance for R.4
ORDER
Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and
the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official
respondents.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
One C.Thangaraj owned petition mentioned lands. He was issued with mining
lease dated 30.11.2006 to quarry rough stones in Survey No.498/2. It was
followed by execution of lease deed dated 16.03.2007 for five years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16453 of 2014
C.Thangaraj executed a registered sale deed dated 30.10.2008 in favour of
M/s.Jeppiaar Fishing Harbour Muttom Private Limited. M/s.Jeppiaar Fishing
Harbour Muttom Private Limited sold the property in favour of M/s.JET
Associates. M/s.JET Associates entered into lease agreement with C.Thangaraj
so as to enable him to continue his quarrying operations. The lease period
expired on 15.03.2012.
3. While so on 13.09.2012, mining officials received information that
even after the expiry of the lease period quarrying operations were illegally
continuing. Two Taurus lorries bearing Registration Nos.TN 21/AD 0717 and
TN 21/AC 9806 belonging to Jeppiaar Blue Metals Private Limited were
seized. An inspection was conducted in Survey No.498/2. The authorities
came to the conclusion that 21,201 units (60,000 cubic meter) of rough stones
had been illegally quarried. Crime No.217 of 2012 was registered on the file of
Kottricodu Police Station for various offences. The second respondent without
issuing any show cause notice passed order dated 07.11.2012 called upon
Thiru.Jeppiaar to pay Rs.3,53,76,750/- (Rupees Three Crores Fifty Three Lakhs
Seventy Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only). It was challenged in
W.P(MD)No.14796 of 2012. The writ petition was allowed on 10.09.2013 in
the following terms:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16453 of 2014
“6.Of-course, it is true that in general, this Court will
not entertain a writ petition, when there is an alternative
remedy available for the party aggrieved. But, at the same
time, it is a settled law that if the order impugned in the writ
petition had been passed in gross violation of the principles of
natural justice i.e., without affording any opportunity to the
aggrieved, then this Court will entertain such a writ petition
(Vide a Division Bench judgment of this Court in
V.Kottaiveeran Vs. The District Collector, Madurai District,
Madurai, reported in 2012(1) CWC 451).
7.In the case on hand, admittedly a copy of the letter of
the Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, dated 26.09.2012,
was not furnished to the petitioner and no show cause notice
was issued to the petitioner and no opportunity whatsoever
was afforded to the petitioner, in respect of above allegations
of illegal mining. Thus, undoubtedly, the impugned order has
been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice.
Therefore, the said order cannot be sustained.
8.In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and
the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded
back to the second respondent, who shall issue an appropriate
show cause notice, afford sufficient opportunity to the
petitioner, supply a copy of the order of the Deputy Director,
dated 26.09.2012 and then, pass appropriate orders, strictly in
accordance with law, within a period of six months.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16453 of 2014
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No
costs.”
Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, show cause notice dated
10.10.2013 was issued. Notice was issued to Thiru.Jeppiaar in his capacity as
Managing Director of M/s.Jeppiaar Blue Metals Private Limited. The said
company submitted reply dated 28.10.2013. Memo dated 11.11.2013 was also
submitted pointing out that relied upon documents have not been furnished.
Not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram issued proceedings dated 08.03.2014
confirming the demand set out in the show cause notice. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner filed W.P(MD)No.6693 of 2014. The said writ petition was
dismissed on 22.04.2014 on the ground that the petitioner can very well avail
the alternative remedy of appeal. Thereupon Thiru.Jeppiaar filed an appeal
before the District Collector. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated
20.09.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all
the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. His
primary ground is that issuance of notice to Thiru.Jeppiaar alone was bad in
law. The facts on record indicate that the land was owned by M/s.JET
Associates. The seized lorries belonged to M/s.Jeppiaar Blue Metals Private
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16453 of 2014
Limited. The limited companies are in law separate and distinct from the
shareholders or directors. The learned Senior Counsel emphasized that proper
notice was not been given. His second argument is that the foundational
documents on which the authorities have placed reliance have not been
furnished. It is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. Thirdly, the
impugned orders do not specify as to how the illicitly quarried quantity was
arrived at. He therefore submitted that the impugned orders deserve to be set
aside.
5. The respondents have filed counter affidavit and the learned
Additional Government Pleader took me through its contents. He submitted
that the mining lease was originally issued in favour of C.Thangaraj only. He
could not have sold the property in violation of the terms and conditions. In
any event, the mining lease period expired on 15.03.2012 itself. The illicit
activities came to light in September 2012. The involvement of the original
writ petitioner is become evident on account of seizure of lorries belonging to
M/s.Jeppiaar Blue Metals Private Limited.
6. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that in such
cases this Court should apply the doctrine of lifting the veil. He submitted that
all the relied-on documents have been supplied to the petitioner and that there
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16453 of 2014
is no violation of the principles of natural justice. He would also add that the
petitioner can very well file an appeal before the Government. He pressed for
dismissal of the writ petition.
7. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the
materials on record.
8. When the petitioner suffered an order at the hands of the Revenue
Divisional Officer, he came to this Court and the matter was remanded for fresh
consideration. That was on the grounds of violation of principles of natural
justice. But when Revenue Divisional Officer passed an adverse order on the
second occasion and the petitioner moved this Court by filing W.P(MD)No.
6693 of 2014, a learned Judge of this Court declined to intervene and relegated
the petitioner to move the District Collector by availing the statutory remedy. I
could have non-suited the petitioner on the very same grounds by calling upon
the petitioner to move the Government. But then, for almost nine years the writ
petition has been pending. At the final hearing stage, I would not be justified in
non-suiting the petitioner on the ground of non-exhaustion of alternative
remedy.
9. Now, let me deal with the objections of the learned Senior Counsel
one by one. The land belongs to M/s.JET Associates. Thiru.Jeppiaar was its
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16453 of 2014
Managing partner. Therefore, notice was rightly issued to him. Of course, now
Thiru.Jeppiaar is no more and his wife has come on record.
10. The writ petitioner is directed to intimate the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Padmanabhapuram within a period of three weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order, the partnership details of M/s.JET Associates
during the relevant time (2012). Since two lorries belonging to M/s.Jeppiaar
Blue Metals Private Limited were seized it is reasonable to prima facie
conclude that the said company can also be fastened with liability. The
petitioner is directed to furnish the address for service of M/s.Jeppiaar Blue
Metals Private Limited and the person authorized to receive the notice. The
second respondent is directed to issue notice to all the parties concerned.
11. The entire case against the petitioner rests on the inspection report.
In the audit note it is mentioned that inspection was conducted on 13.09.2012
in Survey No.498/2 by the Tahsildar, Kalkulam Taluk, the Surveyor as well as
the Assistant Geologist. Obviously based on their inspection notes and reports,
the quantity of quarried mineral would have been arrived at. This report has to
be necessarily furnished to the petitioner herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16453 of 2014
12. I also find considerable force in the contention of the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the authorities have not explained as
to how the quantity of 21,201 units of rough stones was arrived at. This burden
is on the Department. Since I come to the conclusion that the impugned orders
suffer from the aforesaid twin defects they are set aside. The matter is remitted
to the file of the second respondent. The second respondent shall fix the first
enquiry date on 21.08.2023 at 11.00 a.m. The first respondent shall in the
meanwhile issue notices to all the persons mentioned above. The petitioner
through her counsel gives an undertaking that all the noticees shall appear
before the second respondent either in person or through counsel or any
authorized representative. The second respondent shall conduct enquiry and
pass appropriate order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of
three months after the first enquiry date. I make it clear that I have not gone
into the merits of the matter. All the defenses of the noticees are left open.
13. The matter cannot rest there. On 18.10.2012, Crime No.271 of 2012
was registered on the file of Kottricodu Police Station for the offences under
mining laws as well as TNPPDL Act. The matter was charge sheeted and taken
on file in PRC.No.6 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Padmanabhapuram. Thiru.Jeppiaar filed Crl.O.P(MD)No.6257 of 2013 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16453 of 2014
vide order dated 25.07.2014, the petition was allowed and proceedings in
PRC.No.6 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Padmanabhapuram was quashed. It was observed in the said order that the
benefit of the order will extend not only to the petitioner but also to
C.Thangaraj who was shown as A.2, even though he was not a party before the
Court and that is why the proceedings were quashed in their entirety. Of
course, the said order has become final and the matter cannot be reopened as
against Thiru.Jeppiaar or C.Thanga Raj. If the second respondent at the end of
the enquiry comes to the conclusion that there was illicit quarrying, it is open to
the second respondent to lodge a fresh criminal case against the persons who
had actually carried out the illegal quarrying.
14. This writ petition is allowed on the above terms. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
20.07.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
MGA
To
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District – 629 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16453 of 2014
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Padmanabapuram,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Kalkulam Taluk,
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16453 of 2014
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
MGA
W.P(MD)No.16453 of 2014
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015
20.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
