Madras High Court
The District Collector vs J.Senthil Kumar on 25 October, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A(MD)No.1220 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.A(MD)No.1220 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.9313 of 2024
1.The District Collector,
O/o. District Collector,
Theni District,
Theni.
2.The Assistant Director,
Department of Geology and Mining,
Theni District, Collectorate Campus,
Theni. ... Appellants / Respondents
-vs-
J.Senthil Kumar ... Respondent / Petitioner
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the
order dated 19.03.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.29912 of 2023.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Additional Advocate General,
Assisted by,
Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran,
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.Sricharan Rengarajan,
Senior counsel,
For Mr.Ramsundar Vijayaraj
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 5
W.A(MD)No.1220 of 2024
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]
The prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition, seeking extension of
lease for the period during which he was prevented from quarrying was
granted by the learned single Judge on the ground that the writ petitioner
was not responsible for not carrying out the quarrying operations during
the said period. Hence, this appeal is by the state.
2. We have heard Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Additional Advocate
General, assisted by, Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran, learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the state and Mr.Sricharan Rengarajan,
learned Senior counsel, For Mr.Ramsundar Vijayaraj, learned counsel
appearing for the writ petitioner.
3. The fact that the petitioner was prevented from quarrying for a
period of 13 months and 19 days is admitted. But it is claimed that the
prevention was due to the fact that the petitioner quarried in the non-lease
area. As regards the quarrying in the non-lease area, separate proceedings
were launched, the loss was assessed and the same was collected along
with a penalty from the writ petitioner. Therefore, the loss due to quarrying
in the non-leased area has been fully compensated. The explanation of the
writ petitioner for quarrying in the non-leased area is that it was done by
his servants without his knowledge and it was not deliberate. However, as
per the provisions of the Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959, the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
penalty had been levied and the same has been paid. The writ Court took
note of it and found that if the petitioner is not allowed to quarry for the
lost period, it will amount to a double punishment.
4. Mr.Baskaran, learned Additional Advocate General on instructions
would submit that since there is no rule which enables extension of
quarrying operation, the single Judge ought not to have granted extension.
5. On the other hand, Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan, learned senior
counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would contend that the learned
single Judge has found that condition No.14(1) in the proceedings dated
05.02.2021 cannot be enforced and it was obtained under threat of
suspending operations for the remaining period of the lease also. The writ
Court also found that the question of grant of extension did not arise at the
relevant point of time and it was wholly unnecessary for the Department to
have obtained such an undertaking from the writ petitioner that he would
not seek extension. Reliance is also placed on the Division Bench of this
Court reported in (2011) 4 MLJ 643 wherein under similar circumstances,
the absence of a Rule providing for an extension was considered, and the
portion of the judgment of the Division Bench extracted by the Writ Court
supports the view of the Writ Court.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. We find that the Division Bench in turn had relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Beg Raj Singh .Vs. State of
U.P. & Ors. (2003 (1) SCC 726). In the light of the above, we do not see
any reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. We are
in complete agreement with the view of the learned single Judge that non
extension would amount to double jeopardy, since the petitioner has
already been punished for quarrying in non-leased area.
7. Hence, the writ appeal fails, and it is accordingly dismissed. It is
needless to point out that the petitioner will get the other clearances as
required under law. The extension will be for a period of 13 months and 9
days from the date on which the permission to quarry is granted. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]
25.10.2024
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet: Yes
Sml
To
1.The District Collector,
O/o. District Collector,
Theni District,
Theni.
2.The Assistant Director,
Department of Geology and Mining,
Theni District, Collectorate Campus,
Theni.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Sml
25.10.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
