Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Page 1 Of 48 on 27 February, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 17.01.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 27.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
W.A.No.1168 of 2015:
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Secretary to Government,
Industries Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The Special Committee appointed under G.O.Ms.No.156,
Represented by its Chairman,
Mr.Gagandeep Singh Bedi, I.A.S.,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
3.Mr.Gagandeep Singh Bedi, I.A.S.,
Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
4.The Collector,
Tirunelveli District.
5.The Collector,
Tuticorin District. ... Appellants
Vs.
Page 1 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
1.Transworld Garnet India Private Limited,
Represented by its General Manager, Stephen David,
No.34/46, MGR Road,
Kalakshetra Colony,
Besant Nagar, Chennai – 90.
2.D.Dhaya Devadas
3.Southern Region Mines and Mineral Based
Workers Welfare Association,
Registered No.3/95,
Ittamozhi Road,
Keeraikaranthattu,
Tisayanvilai – 627 657,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB),
Panagal Maaligai,
76, Mount Salai, Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032.
5.Principal Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009. ... Respondents
[R3 impleaded vide order dated 07.06.2018 made in CMP.Nos.9714
& 9715 of 2018 in W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015]
[R4 and R5 impleaded vide order dated 12.11.2021 made
in W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015]
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
orders of the Learned Judge except the findings in the first issue passed in
W.P.No.16716 of 2014 dated 29.07.2015.
For Appellants : Mr.Aravind P.Dattar
Page 2 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
Senior Counsel
Assisted by Mr.B.Vijay
Additional Government Pleader
For R1 : Mr.Srinath Sridevan
Senior Counsel
For Mr.T.K.Bhaskar
For R2 : Mr.V.Selvaraj
For R4 : Mr.B.N.Suchindran
Standing Counsel
[For TNPCB]
For R3 & R7 : No Appearance
W.A.No.1169 of 2015:
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Chief Secretary to Government,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The Special Committee appointed under G.O.Ms.No.156,
Represented by its Chairperson,
Mr.Gagandeep Singh Bedi, I.A.S.,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
3.Mr.Gagandeep Singh Bedi, I.A.S.,
Secretary to the Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
4.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by Secretary to Government,
Industries Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
5.The Commissioner of Geology and Mining,
Chepauk, Chennai. ... Appellants
Vs.
Page 3 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
1.V.V.Minerals, a firm,
Represented by Managing Partner,
Mr.S.Vaikundarajan,
Keeraikaransthattu,
Tisaiyanvilai, Tirunelveli District.
2.D.Dhaya Devadas
3.Southern Region Mines and Mineral Based
Workers Welfare Association,
Registered No.3/95,
Ittamozhi Road,
Keeraikaranthattu,
Tisayanvilai – 627 657,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB),
Panagal Maaligai,
76, Mount Salai, Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032.
5.Principal Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009. ... Respondents
[R3 impleaded vide order dated 07.06.2018 made in CMP.
Nos.9714 & 9715 of 2018 in W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015]
[R4 and R5 impleaded vide order dated 12.11.2021 made
in W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015]
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
orders of the Learned Judge except the findings in the first issue passed in
W.P.No.19641 of 2014 dated 29.07.2015.
Page 4 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
For Appellants : Mr.Aravind P.Dattar
Senior Counsel
Assisted by Mr.B.Vijay
Additional Government Pleader
For R1 : Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Counsel
For Mr.T.K.Bhaskar
For R2 : Mr.V.Selvaraj
For R4 : Mr.B.N.Suchindran
Standing Counsel
[For TNPCB]
For R3 & R7 : No Appearance
W.A.No.1220 of 2015:
D.Dhaya Devadas ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Transworld Garnet India Private Limited,
Represented by its General Manager, Stephen David,
No.34/46, MGR Road,
Kalakshetra Colony,
Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Secretary to Government,
Industries Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
3.The Special Committee appointed
Under G.O.Ms.No.156,
Represented by its Chairperson,
Mr.Gagandeep Singh Bedi, I.A.S.,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
4.The Member Secretary, 6
Page 5 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB),
Panagal Maaligai,
76, Mount Salai, Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032.
5.Principal Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
6.Mr.Gagandeep Singh Bedi, I.A.S.,
Secretary to the Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
7.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District.
8.The District Collector,
Tuticorin District. ... Respondents
[R4 and R5 are impleaded vide order dated
12.11.2021 made in W.A.Nos.1220 of 2015]
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to allow the writ
appeal and set aside the order passed by the Learned Judge in
W.P.No.16716 of 2014 dated 29.07.2015.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Selvaraj
For R1 : Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Counsel
For Mr.T.K.Bhaskar
For R2, R3, R5, R6, R8 : Mr.Aravind P.Dattar
Senior Counsel
Assisted by Mr.B.Vijay
Additional Government Pleader
Page 6 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
For R7 : Mr.B.N.Suchindran
Standing Counsel
[For TNPCB]
W.A.No.1221 of 2015:
D.Dhaya Devadas ... Appellant
Vs.
1.V.V.Minerals, a firm,
Represented by Managing Partner,
Mr.S.Vaikundarajan,
Keeraikaransthattu,
Tisaiyanvilai, Tirunelveli District.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Chief Secretary to Government,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
3.The Special Committee appointed
Under G.O.Ms.No.156,
Represented by its Chairperson,
Mr.Gagandeep Singh Bedi, I.A.S.,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
4.The Member Secretary, 6
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB),
Panagal Maaligai,
76, Mount Salai, Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032.
5.Principal Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
6.Mr.Gagandeep Singh Bedi, I.A.S.,
Secretary to the Government,
Page 7 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
7.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Secretary to Government,
Industries Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
8.The Commissioner of Geology and Mining,
Chepauk, Chennai. ... Respondents
[R4 and R5 are impleaded vide order dated
12.11.2021 made in W.A.Nos.1221 of 2015]
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to allow the writ
appeal and set aside the order passed by the Learned Judge in
W.P.No.19641 of 2014 dated 29.07.2015.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Selvaraj
For R1 : Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Counsel
For Mr.T.K.Bhaskar
For R2, R3, R5, R6, R8 : Mr.Aravind P.Dattar
Senior Counsel
Assisted by Mr.B.Vijay
Additional Government Pleader
For R7 : Mr.B.N.Suchindran
Standing Counsel
[For TNPCB]
Page 8 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
COMMON JUDGMENT
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
S.No. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.
III. Contentions on Behalf of the Respondents 22
V. Allegations of Bias Against the Chairman of Special 25
Committee
VI. Whether Prior Notice is Required Before Inspection 34
of the Mines?
VII. Whether Opportunities of Hearing to the Parties to 36
Represent their Views Before Closure of Mining
Operations is a Sine Qua Non?
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
(D) Issuance of Notices and Enforcement Actions 42
(E) Natural Justice and Administrative Discretion 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
Under assail is the order dated 29.07.2015 passed in W.P.Nos.16716
and 19641 of 2014. The writ petition in W.P.No.16716 of 2014 was
instituted by the Transworld Garnet India Private Limited, challenging the
Government orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.156, Industries (MMD.1)
Department dated 08.08.2013 and consequential G.O.Ms.No.173,
Industries (MMD.1) Department dated 17.09.2013.
2. The writ petition in W.P.No.19641 of 2014 was instituted by
M/s.V.V. Mineral, a firm represented by its Managing Partner
Mr.S.Vaikundarajan, seeking directions against the Special Committee
appointed by the State Government under G.O.Ms.No.156, dated
08.08.2013. The petitioner sought to ensure that the Committee would
comply scrupulously, unbiasedly, and fairly with the directions issued in
order dated 12.12.2013, made in a batch of writ petitions, including
W.P.(MD).No.1233 of 2012, while conducting inquiry and before submitting
a report in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.156 dated 08.08.2013 and
G.O.Ms.No.173 dated 17.09.2013, and also for the relief to forbear
Chairman of the Committee, Mr.Gagandeep Singh Bedi, I.A.S from heading
the Special Committee in submitting the report.
3. The Writ Petitions were adjudicated and allowed by the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
Single Judge of this Court. Consequently, the present writ appeals have
been instituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu and Mr.D.Dhaya
Devadas.
I. Background of the Writ Appeals:
4. The Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court
considered the Government order issued in G.O.Ms.No.156 dated
08.08.2013 and G.O.Ms.No.173 dated 17.09.2013 issued in terms of
Section 24 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957 [hereinafter referred to as the 'MMDR Act']. The Division Bench
granted liberty to all the private lessees and companies to place all the
relevant materials before the Committee of experts constituted by the State
Government. The Division Bench left the issues to be adjudicated by the
Committee concerned to check and verify the claims and counterclaims. On
receipt of the report from the Special Committee constituted under
G.O.Ms.Nos.156, dated 08.08.2013 and 173, dated 17.09.2013, the
Government was directed to take steps and pass necessary orders in
accordance with law.
5. The said judgment became final, and private lessees participated in
the process of adjudication without raising any allegations against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
Committee or the Chairman of the Committee appointed by the State
Government to conduct inspection under Section 24 of MMDR Act. The
Special Committee was appointed based on the report of the District
Collector on massive illegal beach sand mining and the consequential
recommendations of the Commissioner of Geology and Mining.
6. Paragraph 35 of the order of the Division Bench dated 12.12.2013
is extracted hereunder:
“35. In such circumstances, in view of the fact
that the parties concerned have been given the liberty
to place all the relevant materials before the
committee of experts, constituted by the State
Government, we are not inclined to make any
observations, with regard to the validity and
correctness of the claims and the counter claims made
by the parties before this Court. It would be left to the
Committee concerned to check and to verify such
claims, if necessary, by providing an opportunity of
hearing to the parties concerned and to file its report
before the State Government, as directed by this
Court, by this order. On receipt of such report it is for
the State Government to take appropriate steps and to
pass necessary orders, as it finds fit and necessary, in
accordance with law. As it is an admitted fact that
subsequent proceedings had been issued pursuant to
the impugned show cause notices issued by the
respondent concerned, the writ petitions in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
W.P.Nos.14399 and 14400 of 2011 have become
infructuous. As such, they are dismissed, as
infructuous. In such circumstances, as no further
orders are necessary, the writ petitions in
W.P.No.5549 of 2007 and W.P.No.1233 of 2012 and
the impleading petitions filed therein stand closed.”
7. In pursuance of the orders of the Division Bench referred above,
representations were submitted by the writ petitioners / lessees along with
the documents to the Special Team headed by Mr.Gagandeep Singh Bedi,
I.A.S. Opportunities were granted by the Special Team to the lessees to
submit their representations and documents. Further representations /
explanations were also submitted by the mining companies in the year
2014.
8. The Special Committee constituted commenced inspection by
appointing various teams of officials from different departments. Several
teams were constituted by the Chairman of the Special Team,
Mr.Gagandeep Singh Bedi, I.A.S to inquire into allegations of massive
illegal beach sand mining activities in three southern districts of Tamil Nadu
namely Thoothukudi, Tirunalveli and Kanyakumari.
9. Suddenly writ petitions are filed by the M/s.Transworld Garnet India
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
Private Limited and M/s.V.V. Mineral represented by its Managing Partner
Mr.S.Vaikundarajan in W.P.Nos.16716 and 19416 of 2014 respectively. The
first writ petition was filed challenging the two Government orders appointing
Special Team in G.O.Ms.Nos.156, dated 08.08.2013 and 173, dated
17.09.2013. The second writ petition was filed seeking a direction to comply
with the directions issued by the Division Bench of Madurai Bench of
Madras High Court dated 12.12.2013 made in W.P.(MD).1233 of 2012, etc.,
and batch.
10. Both the writ petitions were heard by a learned Single Judge of
the Madras High Court, and a final order was passed on 29.07.2015,
allowing the writ petitions by setting aside the Government orders issued in
G.O.Ms.No.156 dated 08.08.2013 and G.O.Ms.No,173, dated 17.09.2013.
The learned Single Judge quashed the Government orders mainly on the
ground that the Committee Chairman, Mr.Gagandeep Singh Bedi, I.A.S.,
was biased. In lieu, the Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.K.Sharma, a retired High Court
Judge was appointed to undertake the task of conducting inspection and to
submit a report. The Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.K.Sharma will proceed in
accordance with the directions given by the Division Bench in
W.P.MD.No.1233 of 2012 dated 12.12.2013. The said common order in
both the writ petitions is under challenge in the present writ appeals.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
11. The 'State' preferred two writ appeals mainly on the ground that
the learned Single Judge erroneously set aside the G.O.Ms.No.156 dated
08.08.2013 and G.O.Ms.No.173 dated 17.09.2013, issued in exercise of the
powers conferred under Section 24 of the MMDR Act.
12. During the hearing of the earlier batch of writ petitions, including
W.P.(MD).No.1233 of 2012, the Division Bench of this Court took note of
the Government order issued in G.O.Ms.Nos.156, dated 08.08.2013 and
173, dated 17.09.2013 and passed an order on 12.12.2013, granting liberty
to place all relevant materials before the Committee of experts constituted
by the State Government. The Division Bench further held that it would be
left to the Committee to verify the claims of the lessees, if necessary, by
providing an opportunity for hearing to the parties, and to file its report
before the State Government as directed in the said order.
13. Pertinently, the writ petitioners, including M/s.V.V.Mineral,
Federation of Indian Placer Minerals Industries, M/s.Beach Minerals
Company Private Limited. Mr.S.Vaikundarajan, M/s. Indian Garnet Sand
Company Private Limited, M/s. Southern Enterprises, represented by its
Managing Partner, Dr.D.Dhaya Devadas, M/s.Beach Minerals Sand
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
Company, Transworld Garnet India Private Limited, Mr.K.Thankaraj,
Mr.M.Ramesh, Mr.S.Vaikundarajan are parties to the common order dated
12.12.2013 passed at the first instance by the Division Bench of the Madurai
Bench of Madras High Court.
14. None preferred appeal against the said order of the Division
Bench and it became final. The petitioners did not raise any objection
against Mr.Gagandeep Singh Bedi, I.A.S. Instead, all the parties accepted
the Special Committee headed by Mr.Gagandeep Singh Bedi, and
submitted their representations / explanations defending their cases before
the Special Committee constituted by the Government.
II. Contentions on Behalf of Appellants:
15. Mr.Aravind P.Dattar, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Mr.B.Vijay, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of
the Government of Tamil Nadu would strenuously contend that the learned
Single Judge committed AN error in setting aside the Government orders
appointing a Special Committee to conduct inspection under Section 24 of
the MMDR Act into the serious allegations of massive illegal beach sand
mining in three southern districts in the State of Tamil Nadu.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
16. The Special Committee appointed by the State Government is
within its powers conferred under Section 24, and there is no violation of
any provision of law. Thereafter, Government constituted Taluk, District and
State Level Committees vide G.O.Ms.No.179 dated 27.07.2015, pursuant to
the advise given by the Hon'ble First Bench of High Court of Madras to deal
with the complaints against massive illegal beach sand mining in three
southern districts of Tamil Nadu. The Taluk, District and State Level
Committees are constituted in order to afford opportunities to all the parties
and to find out the truth regarding allegation of illegal beach sand mining. It
is a mechanism formulated to comply with the rules of natural justice and to
deal with the complaints raised by the various persons.
17. The inspection ordered to be conducted under Section 24
became imminent for the purpose of culling out the truth regarding the
allegations of illegal beach sand mining. In pursuance to the orders of the
Central Government, actions were initiated to cancel the leases prematurely
by invoking provisions of MMDR Act. The Central Government passed
orders on 01.03.2019.
18. The Special Committee did not conduct inspections and inquiries
on a solo basis, but worked with a team of responsible officials from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
Revenue, Geology and Mining, Environment and Forests and Survey
Departments. The team consisted of over 40 officials in Thoothukudi
District, over 120 officials in Tirunelveli District and over 30 officials in
Kanniyakumari District, based on the volume of work. With responsible
officials working as a different teams, no prejudices can hold ground.
Therefore, the respondent lessees have now unearthed flimsy grounds,
attributing prejudice against the Chairman of the Special Committee,
Mr.Gagandeep Singh Bedi, I.A.S.
19. Garnet is a major mineral and the mining of this major mineral is
governed by the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 (Central Act No.67 of 1957) and the relevant rules
framed under the said Act namely, the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and
the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988. The State
Government is competent to grant mining leases for mining Garnet on
Government Poromboke lands and the Commissioner of Geology and
Mining, Chennai is competent to grant mining lease in respect of patta
lands. However, the grant of lease for major minerals specified in the first
schedule is subject to the prior approval of Central Government as per
Section 5(1) of MMDR Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
20. Section 23-C of the MMDR Act gives power to the State
Government to make rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and
storage of minerals. The State Government is also the implementing
authority of MMDR Act. As per Section 24 of the MMDR Act any person
authorised by the Central or State Governments by general order may
enter, inspect, survey, weigh and examine the position of working, actual or
prospective, of any mine or abandoned mine or for any other purpose
connected with the Act and Rules made thereunder.
21. In the present case, the Indian Bureau of Mines, Ministry of
Mines, Government of India has suspended the mining activities of 13
leases belonging to the respondent companies, as per Rule 13(2) of the
Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 for the reasons that the
companies have not got the approval of scheme of mining as per Rule 13(1)
of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988.
22. Mr.V.Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ
appellant in W.A.Nos.1220 and 1221 of 2015 though supported the
contentions of the State Government regarding the validity of the
appointment of Special Committee under Section 24 of MMDR Act, disputed
the actions of the State Government. He would submit that large-scale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
illegal beach sand mining were noticed by many people in that locality. The
massive illegal beach sand mining caused environmental damage and
livelihood of the people residing several villages in three southern districts.
23. Since no action was taken by the State Government and large-
scale collusion and corrupt activities between lessees and Government
officials were noticed, writ petitions were filed before the High Court. The
Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Madras at the first
instance allowed the Committee to conduct inspections with reference to
Section 24 of MMDR Act. Therefore, the subsequent writ petition filed by
few private lessees challenging the validity of the Committee is not
entertainable. The validity of the Committee has been decided by the
Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court vide order
dated 12.12.2013 and any challenge made thereafter before the learned
Single Judge is not maintainable. Thus, the learned Single Judge has
committed a serious error in entertaining the writ petition and setting aside
the Special Committee constituted by the Government vide
G.O.Ms.Nos.156, dated 08.08.2013 and 173, dated 17.09.2013.
24. Large-scale political, bureaucrat, and private lessees nexus are
brought to the notice of this Court in earlier writ petitions by the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
appellants Mr.D.Dhaya Devadas. The State Government has no powers to
grant lease to mine atomic minerals without the prior approval from the
Central Government. But in the present case, the provisions of the MMDR
Act mineral concession Rules, Atomic Energy Act and the Rules framed
thereunder and the consequential notifications were completely flouted by
the State Government on extraneous considerations.
25. Mr.V.Selvaraj, learned counsel would rely on Section 23-B of the
MMDR Act, which contemplates “Power to Search”. Section 23-C
contemplates “Power of State Government to made rules for preventing
illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals”. Section 24 deals with
“Power of entry and inspection”. The delegation of powers conferred under
Section 26 have no application with reference to the Special Committee
constituted under Section 24 of the Act by the State Government.
26. The power conferred to enter and conduct inspection is stand
alone under Section 24 of MMDR Act. Thus, the grounds raised on behalf of
the respondents that no notification was issued under Section 26 of MMRD
Act is irrelevant and deserves to be rejected. Section 24 is stand alone
provision empowering the State Government to enter and conduct
inspection to ascertain the position of working, actual or prospective, of any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
mine or abandoned mine or for any other purpose connected with the Act or
the rules made thereunder.
27. The constitution of the Committee became necessary in view of
the massive illegal beach sand mining in three southern coastal districts of
Tamil Nadu. Thus, the learned Single Judge has committed a serious error
in not considering the earlier judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
dated 12.12.2013, wherein, the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the
Madras High Court upheld the validity of the constitution of the Special
Committee, allowed the Special Committee to conduct inspection and
submit a report.
28. Pertinently, the private lessees submitted their representations /
explanations before the Committee, which were taken into consideration.
That being so, subsequent writ petitions filed challenging the validity of the
Committee is not maintainable and thus, the impugned order is liable to be
set aside.
III. Contentions on Behalf of the Respondents:
29. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.Srinath
Sridevan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.T.K.Bhaskar and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
respective learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents in all
the writ appeals would mainly contend that if the impugned Government
orders in G.O.Ms.Nos.156, dated 08.08.2013 and 173, dated 17.09.2013
were to be read to mean a perpetual ban, then the Government orders
would be ultra vires to Section 24-A of the MMDR Act. The Division Bench
of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has not expressed its approval,
either directly or indirectly, about the ban. Therefore, the ban imposed in the
impugned Government orders cannot sustain. The respondents have not
sought for any variance of the orders of the Division Bench of Madurai
Bench of Madras High Court, but seeing strict enforcement of the said order
dated 12.12.2013 in letter and spirit. The Government has no power to
impose blanket, indefinite, ban on beach sand mining. Therefore, the State
Government is bound by the directions of the Division Bench dated
12.12.2013 in W.P.(MD).No.1233 of 2012, etc., and batch.
30. The conduct of the Committee has been questioned on behalf of
the respondents. The respective learned Senior Counsels mainly contended
that the Special Committee has not afforded sufficient opportunity nor
issued notice to the lessees, while conducting inspections. Contrarily, they
have invited the complainant and conducted inquiry. Therefore, unilateral
examination of the complainant without affording opportunity to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
respondents herein are in violation of rules of natural justice and the
provisions of the MMDR Act.
31. The Division Bench, no doubt, permitted the Committee to
conduct an inquiry under Section 24 of MMDR Act. However, the Committee
acted beyond its scope under Section 24 of the MMDR Act. Therefore, the
conduct of the Committee is not in accordance with the provisions of the
MMDR Act.
32. It is mainly contended that Mr.D.Dhaya Devadas was heard in
person. He was a petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.5549 of 2007 and
W.P.(MD).No.1233 of 2012. However, such personal hearing was not
granted to the respondents including M/s.V.V. Mineral and to other lessees.
Thus, the inspections conducted under Section 24 MMDR Act is not in
conformity with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench in its
order dated 12.12.2013.
33. The respondents would further contend that the State
Government has no power to deal with the major minerals. Under Section
15 of the MMDR Act, the State Government is empowered to deal with the
minor minerals and therefore, the appointment of Special Committee
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
invoking the powers under Section 24 of MMDR Act is untenable.
IV. Discussion:
34. The key issues to be considered in the present writ appeals:
(a) Bias against the Chairman: Whether Mr.Gagandeep Singh
Bedi, I.A.S., the Chairman of the Special Committee appointed
by State Government, is biased in conducting inspection under
Section 24 of the MMDR Act, as ordered by the Government in
G.O.Ms.No.156, Industries Department, dated 08.08.2013 and
G.O.Ms.No.173, Industries Department, dated 17.09.2013.
(b) Prior Notice Requirement: Whether prior notice is required
before conducting any inspection into the mines under Section
24 of the MMDR Act.
(c) State Government's Power: The scope of State Government's
power under Section 24, 24A and Rule 50 of Mineral
Concessions Rules.
V. Allegations of Bias Against the Chairman of Special
Committee:
35. The argument of bias against the expert committee cannot be
sustained. Vague allegations of bias without any sound reasoning cannot
survive, that too in the latter part of the inquiry proceedings. It is pertinent to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
note that the respondents herein did not raise any objections against
Mr.Bedi at the preliminary stage. In fact the Division Bench of this Court in
its order dated 12.12.2013 had given an explicit permission to the mining
companies including the respondents herein to submit their representations
to Mr.Bedi and that the Committee shall act on such representations and
submit its report at the earliest. The specific portion of that Order is as
extracted below:
“34. In such circumstances, in view of the fact
that a committee of experts under the Chairmanship of
Thiru Gagandeep Singh Bedi, I.A.S., Secretary,
Revenue Department has been constituted by the
State Government to examine, investigate and to file a
report, after physical verification of the mining sites in
questions, we find it appropriate to permit the
petitioner in the writ petitions, including those who are
wanting to implead themselves in the writ petitions, to
submit their representations to Mr.Gagandeep Singh
Bedi, the Chairman of the Committee, along with the
necessary documents, if any, within 15 days from
today. It is also made clear that it would also be open
to the private respondents who are parties herein, to
submit their representation to the Chairman of the
Committee, within the time specified above. On receipt
of such representations, the Committee concerned
shall examine the issues by making necessary
enquiries and investigations, and if necessary, by
serving appropriate notices on the parties concerned,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
and file a report before the State Government, for
necessary action, as expeditiously as possible.”
36. Further, the Division Bench took note of the two impugned
Government orders, G.O.Ms.Nos.156, dated 08.08.2013 and 173, dated
17.09.2013, and recorded the formation of the expert committee to probe
the issue of illegal beach sand mining. It goes on to explicitly direct the
committee constituted by the State Government under Mr.Bedi to examine
the issues and conduct investigation and file a report before the State
government. This can be elaborated by its observations as laid down in
paragraph 35 of its order, which reads as follows:
“35. In such circumstances, in view of the fact
that the parties concerned have been given the liberty
to place all the relevant materials before the
committee of experts, constituted by the State
Government, we are not inclined to make any
observations, with regard to the validity and
correctness of the claims and the counter claims made
by the parties before this Court. It would be left to the
Committee concerned to check and to verify such
claims, if necessary, by providing an opportunity of
hearing to the parties concerned and to file its report
before the State Government, as directed by this
Court, by this order. On receipt of such report it is for
the State Government to take appropriate steps and to
pass necessary orders, as it finds fit and necessary, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
accordance with law. As it is an admitted fact that
subsequent proceedings had been issued pursuant to
the impugned show cause notices issued by the
respondent concerned, the writ petitions in
W.P.Nos.14399 and 14400 of 2011 have become
infructuous. As such, they are dismissed, as
infructuous. In such circumstances, as no further
orders are necessary, the writ petitions in
W.P.No.5549 of 2007 and W.P.No.1233 of 2012 and
the impleading petitions filed therein stand closed.”
37. Therefore, from the above observations of the Division Bench of
this Court, it is clear that the Committee constituted vide G.O.Ms.No.156,
Industries (MMD-I) Department dated 08.08.2013 headed by
Mr.Gangandeep Singh Bedi, to inspect and to verify the illicit mining
activities had already found the approval of the Division Bench of this Court.
Further, there is an express direction to the Committee to submit its report
as expeditiously as possible.
38. Hence, the very core of the order passed by the learned Single
Judge loses its significance as the order directly contradicts the judgment
rendered by the Division Bench of this Court. It is relevant to note that the
Division Bench had already accorded their stamp of approval to the expert
Committee constituted vide G.O.Ms.No.156, dated 08.08.2013. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
respondents raising such vague and whimsical allegations of bias at a later
stage ought not to have been entertained, when there is no reasonable
apprehension of bias.
39. Hence, the learned Single Judge has erred in delivering a
judgement, which runs contrary to the directions issued by the Division
Bench. Furthermore, this judgment was followed in an order passed in a
connected writ petition W.P.(MD).No.8562 of 2014 dated 29.05.2014,
whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court reiterated the order of the
Division Bench and directed the Committee to submit the report within a
month and to comply with the directions issued by the Division Bench.
Hence, by passing the present impugned judgment, the learned Single
Judge has contradicted the orders of the Division Bench thereby paving way
for confusion.
40. It is also pertinent to note that, subsequent to the order of this
Court dated 12.12.2013, the respondent mining companies had also
submitted their respective representations to the Chairperson of the
Committee, Mr.Bedi. A perusal of these representations dated 30.12.2013
and 19.05.2014 does not indicate any doubts or aspersions on the
Committee or on the Chairperson. In fact the wordings in those letters does
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
not suggest any instance of bias and on the contrary, the respondents had
requested the 'August' Committee to complete the inspection at the earliest.
41. Hence, this Court finds it dubious as to why the sudden allegation
of bias is being levelled against the Expert Committee Head only at the time
of filing of Writ petition in the year 2014. If the allegations of bias stems from
an alleged series of events pertaining to the year 2002, the respondent
companies could very well have objected to the committee headed by
Mr.Bedi at the time of its constitution itself or at least could have raised its
reservations when the matter was heard by the Division Bench of this Court
in W.P.No.1233 of 2012 and batch. Instead the respondent companies went
on to submit representations without even raising a tiniest shred of doubt on
the Committee steered by Mr.Bedi. Hence, this Court doubts the veracity of
allegations of bias levelled by the respondents.
42. Furthermore, relying on vague allegations of bias stemming from
events that is said to have happened years ago without substantial
reasoning cannot be a valid argument. There must be an actual bias or
reasonable likelihood of bias. To sustain a plea of bias, there must be
cogent, uncontroversial and undisputed material, and the court cannot go by
vague, whimsical and capricious suspicion.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
43. Moreover the test of 'real likelihood of bias' ought to be applied in
the instant case and this test can be applied in tandem with “fair-minded
and informed observer” standard test. This can be elaborated further by
the following explanation; To disqualify a person from adjudicating on the
ground of interest in the subject matter of lis, the test of real likelihood of the
bias is to be applied. In other words, one has to enquire as to whether there
is real danger of bias on the part of the person against whom such
apprehension is expressed in the sense that he might favour or disfavour a
party. In each case, the Court has to consider whether a fair minded and
informed person, having considered all the facts would reasonably
apprehend that the Judge would not act impartially.
44. Both the above tests have been applied effectively across various
decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As detailed elaborately
in the case of P.D.Dinakaran (1) vs. Judges Inquiry Committee and
Others1, both these tests ought to be applied in tandem to effectuate a
viable result. It is important to establish a real likelihood of bias rather than
mere apprehensions and suspicions. Also the “fair minded and informed
observer test” rests a notch higher than the 'reasonable man test' thereby
1. (2011) 8 SCC 380
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
raising the bar of assessment. This also paves way for a case to case
analysis of the 'rule against bias' thereby ensuring compliance of the
principles of natural justice.
45. The natural justice principles are clear in terms that the Judge
should be impartial and neutral. To invite the allegations of bias, there must
be some personal or pecuniary interest for the Judge in the subject matter
of consideration. In the case on hand the allegation of bias against Mr.Bedi
is pertaining to events that is alleged to have happened in the year 2002
whereby in the course of performance of his duty as a Collector, he had
passed some administrative orders on illegal beach sand mining. The
present Chairman of the Committee as District Collector in the year 2002
issued a report to the department of Geology and Mining observing
generally that mining lease should not be granted in coastal area as there
was a possibility of law and order problem and the lessees quarrying in
Government poromboke lands.
46. Moreover, as the then Collector of Kanyakumari District, illicit
sand lorries and trucks were seized by the revenue officials under his
instruction. These actions per se cannot pave way to cement the argument
of bias against Chairperson of the committee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
47. An analysis of these allegations showcases that he had only
acted in the course of performance of his official function and does not
indicate a personal or pecuniary bias on his part. Hence to throw away the
entire enquiry proceedings on these irrelevant allegations that too raised
much belatedly does not find any merit. Moreover the respondents herein
had initially submitted representations and their contentions before the
committee without any objection, it was only at a later stage that suddenly
this argument of bias was raised at the time of filing of the Writ petition in
2014. This raises several questions as to the genuinity in the submissions of
respondents in raising the plea of bias against the appellants. Also it paves
way for a fair surmise that the respondents have waived their right to object
the appointment of the Chairperson of the Committee. Furthermore the
accusations of the respondents against the Chairperson does not reflect any
direct or indirect nor personal or pecuniary interest in the subject matter of
inspection.
48. At the outset the allegations have no direct bearing on the
inspection conducted and is too far fetched an argument to be coloured with
bias.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
49. It is also pertinent to note that the Committee consists of 230
Government officials from across various departments and is not a single
man committee. Further, it is not an adjudicatory committee, but an
inspection committee, whose duty is refrained to conducting inspection and
verification of reports on illegal beach sand mining along the coast. Hence,
the final decision making authority is the Government. Thereby to insinuate
charges of bias against the Committee that too long after the
commencement of the inquiry is highly unwarranted and irrelevant
considering the nature of proceedings in hand.
VI. Whether Prior Notice is Required Before Inspection of the
Mines?
50. The very object of surprise inspection would be defeated if prior
notice is issued to the defaulting parties. Moreover the wordings in Section
24 of MMDR Act nowhere prescribes any issuance of notice prior to
inspection. The Section clearly states that “For the purpose of ascertaining
the position of the working, actual or prospective, of any mine or abandoned
mine or for any other purpose connected with this Act or the rules made
thereunder, any person authorised by the [Central Government or a State
Government] in this behalf, by general or special order, may—
(a) enter and inspect any mine;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
(b) survey and take measurements in any such mine;
(c) weigh, measure or take measurements of the stocks of minerals
lying at any mine;
(d) examine any document, book, register, or record in the
possession or power of any person having the control of, or connected with,
any mine and place marks of identification thereon, and take extracts from
or make copies of such document, book, register or record;
(e) order the production of any such document, book, register, record,
as is referred to in clause (d); and
(f) examine any person having the control of, or connected with, any
mine.”
So the Section explicitly lays down the power of entry and inspection in the
mines. Nowhere does it specify the need for prior notice to inspect. In the
absence of provision to issue notice, this issue finds no merit and is liable to
be dismissed at the threshold.
51. A distant argument that the Division Bench of this Court in its
order dated 12.12.2013 had specified the issuance of notice also is devoid
of any merit. For the sake of perusal, the relevant portion of the Order relied
on by the respondents is as extracted below:
“34. .................... It is also made clear that it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
would also be open to the private respondents, who
are parties herein, to submit their representations to
the Chairman of the committee, within the time
specified above. On receipt of the representations, the
Committee concerned shall examine the issues, by
making necessary enquiries and investigation, and if
necessary, by serving appropriate notices on the
parties concerned, and file a report before the State
government, for necessary action, as expeditiously
possible.”
52. The Division Bench nowhere mandates the issuance of notice. It
merely suggests that if necessary appropriate notice may be issued. These
words cannot be construed as a substitute to Section 24. When the Act is
clear in its terms, no new meaning/procedures can be accorded to to it.
Courts cannot read down the provisions unless its constitutional validity is
challenged.
VII. Whether Opportunity of Hearing to the Parties to Represent
Their Views Before Closure of Mining Operation is a Sine Qua
Non?
53. The learned Single Judge has erred in placing reliance on Section
24A of the Mines Act read with Rule 50 of the Mineral Concession Rules. It
is noteworthy that both the impugned G.O's were issued with relation to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
inspection to be conducted in the said mines. It is a G.O issued under
Section 24 of the Mines Act to conduct inspection and submit a report.
There is no further adjudication ordered but a mere inspection. Whereas the
provisions relied on by the learned single judge is pertaining to Prohibition of
working of mines which is not at all applicable in the instant scenario. The
Appellant herein on reports of illegal beach sand mining had merely formed
a probe committee to inspect the sites and submit its report. Therefore the
contention of the respondents that the appellants had completely stopped
the working of mines in totality is unfounded. The G.O.Ms.No.156, dated
08.08.2013 is clear in its terms that; The Commissioner, Geology and
Mining has recommended that in view of the report of the District Collector,
a Special team may be formed by the Government consisting of Officers
from the Departments of Revenue, Environment and forests and Geology
and Mining to inspect the mining in all the leased areas of Garnet, Ilmenite
and Rutile in Thoothukudi district as per Section 24 of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The Commissioner of
Geology and Mining has recommended that till the completion of the
inspection by the Special teams, mining operations in respect of these
leases may be directed to be stopped to facilitate inspections. The
Commissioner of Geology and Mining has also recommended that the
Assistant Director (Mines), Thoothukudi may be directed to stop forthwith
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
the issuance of permits to transport the minerals. Further the G.O goes on
to instruct the special team to exercise powers as enumerated under
Section 24 of the MMDR Act, 1957. Hence, in order to facilitate the
inspection the mining operations had halted. This power to stop mining
operations pending inspection is an ancillary power flowing from Section 24.
54. Therefore the reliance placed by the respondents on Rule 50 of
the Mineral Concession Rules is misplaced. The stoppage of work pending
inspection cannot be construed as complete prohibition of working of mines.
There is a clear distinction between both. Rule 50 deals with prohibition of
working of mines which finds no place in the present scenario as the
inspection was conducted under Section 24 of MMDR Act.
55. Moreover it is relevant to note that Rule 50 of Mineral Concession
Rules applies only in cases of violation of lease conditions. The Chapter V
of the Mineral Concession Rules, where Rule 50 finds place deals with
Procedure for obtaining a Prospective License or Mining Lease in respect of
Land in which the Minerals vest in a person other than the government.
Further, under Rule 41, which deals with the “Applicability of the Chapter”, it
states that - “The provisions of this chapter shall apply only to the grant of
prospecting licences and mining leases in respect of land in which the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
minerals vest exclusively in a person other than the Government”. To
elucidate clearly the Rule is reproduced as below:
(a) Prohibition of working of mines: If the State Government has
reason to believe that the grant or transfer of a prospecting licence or
mining lease or of any right, title or interest in such licence or lease is in
contravention of any of the provisions of this chapter, the State Government
may, after giving the parties an opportunity to represent their views and with
the approval of the Central Government, direct the parties concerned not to
undertake any prospecting or mining operations in the area to which the
licence or lease relates.
56. Hence a conjoint reading of all the above provisions makes it
clear that Rule 50 application in the present case is completely misplaced
and incorrect.
57. By applying a completely irrelevant and unsuitable provision to the
present case, the learned single judge has erred in setting aside
G.O.Ms.156, dated 08.08.2013 and G.O.Ms.173, dated 17.09.2013. When
the Appellant Government has not invoked its power under Rule 50, but
rather had merely stopped work in mines for conducting inspection under
Section 24 of the MMDR Act, a grave error is committed in setting aside of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
the impugned G.O. The learned single Judge ought to have examined the
unsuitability of Rule 50 to the present case.
VIII. Personal Hearing to the Respondents:
(A) Personal Hearing Not Mandatory:
58. Personal hearing is not a conferred right in every case, but a
generous act of discretion by an Inspecting Authority, particularly when the
relevant statute is silent about affording personal hearing and when already
the case of the petitioner in his written representation was fully considered
and answered by the authority.
59. Oral hearing is not an integral part of hearing, unless the
circumstances or so exceptional that without oral hearing a person cannot
put up an effective defence.
60. The rule of audi alteram partem does not require full judicialization
in every case. An opportunity of being heard does not necessarily
mean an opportunity of oral hearing is to be provided. It depends upon
the nature of inquiry and the nature of right involved in a given case.
61. Oral hearing may not be necessary where there is no adjudication
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
as such. Oral hearing as such may be necessary in cases where the
decision takes away some existing right or possession.
(B) Personal Hearing Under the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957:
62. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957 does not require a personal hearing during the inspection of mining
operations. The inspection is intended to assess compliance with the law,
and if violations are found, subsequent enforcement actions such as issuing
a show-cause notice may lead to a hearing, but this happens after the
inspection, not as part of it.
(C) Powers of Inspectors (Section 24):
63. Section 24 of the MMDR Act grants inspectors the authority to
enter and inspect any mine, examine records, and check whether the mine
is complying with the provisions of the Act and the rules.
64. The role of the inspector is to carry out the inspection, ensure
compliance, and issue notices or orders if violations are found.
65. The MMDR Act does not require a personal hearing during
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
this inspection process. The inspection is focused on verifying safety,
operational standards, and adherence to the Act’s provisions.
66. Personal hearings are typically not part of the routine inspection
but might be part of any enforcement proceedings following the inspection if
violations or issues are identified.
(D) Issuance of Notices and Enforcement Actions:
67. If violations are detected during the inspection, the inspector may
issue a show cause notice or a notice of contravention. This is when the
mine operator is given a chance to respond.
68. A personal hearing could be offered as part of the adjudication
or enforcement process if serious penalties (such as suspension or
cancellation of mining rights) are involved. However, this is not automatically
required during the inspection itself.
69. A personal hearing is more common in the show-cause or
penalty stages following an inspection, not as a part of the inspection
procedure.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
(E) Natural Justice and Administrative Discretion:
70. While natural justice dictates that an individual or entity facing
significant penalties should be given an opportunity to present their case,
this typically happens after the inspection when an enforcement action is
being considered. A personal hearing could be provided when there are
legal consequences like the suspension of a mining lease or fines.
However, during the inspection itself, this is not a requirement under the
MMDR Act.
71. The Division Bench in its order dated 12.12.2013 had explicitly
mentioned that representations can be submitted to the Chairman of the
Committee by the parties concerned and if necessary, appropriate notices
may be issued. This is not a mandatory order of issuance of notice, but a
mere discretionary approach by which notice may or may not be given but it
was never mandated by the Division Bench nor under any Statute
applicable to the present case.
72. The powers conferred to the committee is clearly enumerated
under Section 24 of MMDR Act and is confined to the same. The surprise
inspection is conducted to verify and inspect the reports of illegal sand
mining. It is a bizarre argument on the part of the respondents that notices
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
must be served prior to surprise inspection. The inspection will no more be
'surprise' if notices are served. Hence this argument falls flat.
73. The Committee has powers under Section 24 to conduct
inspection sans notice and the Division Bench order nowhere makes it
mandatory to serve notice prior to inspection. Also the concerned parties
were free to submit representations to the committee and in fact the
committee forwarded the representations sent by the 6th respondent / Dhaya
Devadas in the original petition on 28.10.2014 so as to enable the
respondents to reply to the representation. When the communication
channels for submitting representation and replies are open, the contention
that personal hearing ought to have been granted is a discretion and not a
matter of right. Further it is to be noted that the process was at a premature
stage of mere inspection and not any adjudication.
74. It is also the contention of the appellant that personal hearing was
accorded to representative of the writ petitioners in both Writ petitions on
19.08.2013. Moreover, the wordings of Section 24 does not suggest or
mandate grant of personal hearing to the concerned parties at the time of
inspection. It is amply clear that there is no necessity for personal hearing to
be compulsorily granted at the time of inspection itself. Hence this is an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
insufficient ground to disregard the very formation of the committee.
75. Further, when Section 24A read with Rule 50 of the Mineral
Concession Rules does not apply to the present case, the question of grant
of personal hearing does not arise. The power exercised by the committee
flows from Section 24, which is the power only to enter and inspect.
76. The respondents from the very beginning are trying to stretch their
contentions away from the prime point. This Court doubts that, whether the
diversionary contentions by the respondents and misplaced application of
provisions of law is to deviate the case from the moot issue which is the
allegations of illegal beach sand mining. This is a serious concern, which
can hamper the environmental balance.
IX. Conclusion:
77. The infirmities in the inspection process as suggested by the
respondents are unsatisfactory and has no strong pedestal. The non-
serving of notice for surprise inspection or stopping mine work pending
inspection are all unjustified points of contention which finds no place in the
provisions of law quoted by the respondents. The learned single Judge has
erred in law by interfering with the impugned G.O's based on such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
untenable and unsubstantiated arguments.
78. Consequently, the impugned order passed in W.P.Nos.16716 and
19641 of 2014 dated 29.07.2015 is set aside and the Writ Appeals are
allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J .]
17.02.2025
Jeni
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
To
1.The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB),
Panagal Maaligai,
76, Mount Salai, Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032.
2.The Principal Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Secretary to Government,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Industries Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
4.The Special Committee appointed
Under G.O.Ms.No.156,
Represented by its Chairperson,
Mr.Gagandeep Singh Bedi, I.A.S.,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
5.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District.
6.The District Collector,
Tuticorin District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
Jeni
W.A.Nos.1168, 1169, 1220 & 1221 of 2015
17.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
