Madras High Court
D.Murugan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 26 September, 2023
WP(MD)Nos.21064, 21066 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD)Nos.21064, 21066 of 2022
and
WMP(MD)Nos.15294 to 15297 of 2022
D.Murugan ... Petitioner in WP(MD)21064/2022
D.Sivamurugan ... Petitioner in WP(MD)21066/2022
v.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tirumangalam,
Madurai District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Tirumangalam Taluk,
Madurai District. ... Respondents in both WPs
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the
records relating to the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5691/2021/A3
dated 10.08.2022 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)Nos.21064, 21066 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Rajarajan
For Respondents : Mr.D.Farjana Ghoushia
Special Government Pleader
[In both WPs]
*****
COMMON ORDER
The petitioners have filed these writ petitions with a grievance that the
respondents have imposed a penalty without conducting any enquiry and
without providing an opportunity of hearing, as contemplated under Rule 36A
of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.
2.Learned Special Government Pleader, based on the instructions
provided by Mr.B.Ranjith, Revenue Inspector, A.Kokkulam Firks,
Tirumangalam Taluk and Mr.K.Sankara Narayanan, Village Administrative
Officer (i/c), A.Kokkulam, Madurai, who are present before this Court today,
submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioners. She further submitted
that the Act and Rules do not contemplate any such notice before passing any
order under Rule 36A of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules.
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)Nos.21064, 21066 of 2022
3.This Court paid it's anxious consideration to the rival submissions
made on either side.
4.The main grievance of the petitioners is that the penalty was imposed
without conducting any enquiry and without providing them an opportunity
of hearing. Though there is no provision available under the Minor Mineral
Concession Rules for an enquiry / personal hearing before imposing penalty
under Rule 36A, in cases where certain factual ascertainment is required in
order to find out whether the person has actually involved in the illegal
quarrying, an enquiry / personal hearing is mandatory.
5.The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered this principle in Siemens Ltd.
v. State of Maharastra and Others [(2006) 12 SCC 33] and following the
same, this Court in G.Selvaraj and Another v. District Collector, Villupuram
[(2023) 6 MLJ 465] has held as follows:-
“14.This Court placed reliance upon the earlier judgments of
the Apex Court and it was held that personal hearing or enquiry
ought to have been conducted in order to ascertain as to whether
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)Nos.21064, 21066 of 2022
the delinquent actually indulged in illicit quarrying. Even though
Rule 36-A does not specify personal hearing or enquiry, in a case
where factual ascertainment is required in order to find out whether
the concerned persons actually involved in illicit quarrying, such
enquiry / personal hearing will become mandatory, failing which
the concerned persons will not be in a position to prove their
defence.”
6.In the cases on hand, penalty has been imposed on the petitioners for
certain violations in their quarry. Before passing such order, reasonable
opportunity ought to have been provided to the petitioners, which, admittedly,
was not provided. Therefore, the order impugned in these writ petitions dated
10.08.2022 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondents for
fresh consideration. The respondents shall conduct an enquiry by providing
an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and thereafter, pass appropriate
orders. In the event if the petitioners dispute the quantum, it is open to the
respondents to conduct drone survey to identify the extent of quarry
conducted by the petitioners and proceed further in accordance with law. This
exercise has to be completed within a period of six months.
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)Nos.21064, 21066 of 2022
Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No 26.09.2023
NCC : Yes / No
gk
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tirumangalam,
Madurai District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Tirumangalam Taluk,
Madurai District.
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)Nos.21064, 21066 of 2022
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
WP(MD)Nos.21064, 21066 of 2022
26.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
