Madras High Court
R.R.Construction vs / on 27 January, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.(MD)No.30173 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.(MD)No.30173 of 2024
and W.M.P.(MD)No.25392 of 2024
R.R.Construction,
Rep. By its Partner R.Saravanan,
No.4-D, N.C.C.Office Road,
Visalatchipuram,
Madurai North Taluk,
Madurai – 625 014. ... Petitioner
/Vs./
The Sub Collector,
Periyakulam,
Theni District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned
order of the respondent bearing Na.Ka.No.8970/2022/m7 dated
28.10.2024, quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sanjeevi
For Respondent : Mr.Veerakathiravan,
Addl. Advocate General, Assisted by
Mr.S.Shanmugavel,
Additional Government Pleader.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.30173 of 2024
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by
the respondent dated 28.10.2024 thereby imposed penalty of
Rs.2,14,28,549/- as penalty for the illegal quarrying of gravel and rough
stone.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials placed before this Court.
3. The petitioner was issued quarrying lease dated 10.06.2016 to
quarry rough stone and gravel from the patta land comprised in S.F.Nos.
372/1A (0.33.0 Hectare), 372/1B (0.15.5 Hectare), 372/2A (0.30.0
Hectare, 372/2B (0.20.0 Hectare), 372/2C (0.38.0 Hectare), 372/2D
(0.40.0 Hectare), 372/2D (0.03.0 Hectare), 378/1B (0.25.0 Hectare),
378/1C (0.30.0 Hectare) and 378/2 (0.38.0 Hectare), measuring to total
extent of 2.72.5 hectares situated at Thimmarasanayakkanur Bit – 1
Village, Andipatty Taluk, Theni District for a period of five years from
the date of execution of the lease deed. The petitioner also obtained
mining plan approval and environmental clearance. Accordingly, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner was permitted to quarry rough stone and gravel to the tune of
1,73,290 cu.m., and 40,768 cu.m., respectively. The lease period of the
petitioner got expired on 09.06.2021. While being so, the petitioner was
served with impugned order alleging that the petitioner had excessly
quarried gravel and rough stone to the tune of 21057 cu.m., and 28698
cu.m., respectively from the leasehold area and thereby, he was imposed
with penalty under Rule 36A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 1959.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner was not served with any show cause notice and he was
not given opportunity of hearing before passing the order. According to
the respondent, 39 quarries were issued with single enquiry notice and
they were directed to appear for hearing on 08.01.2024 along with files,
on the strength of the report submitted by the Inspection Committee. It
was received by one Ganesan, that too in the name of M/s.Blue Metal
and he himself submitted his explanation. The petitioner firm is
consisting of two partners namely, R.R.Ramamohanrav and R.Saravanan.
The said Ganesan is noway connected with the petitioner and he was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
never engaged by the petitioner to receive any show cause notice or to
attend the enquiry conducted by the respondent. That apart, the
impugned order does not have any discussion about the explanation
submitted by the said Ganesan. Therefore, it is a non-speaking order. In
support of his contention, he relied upon the the following judgments:-
(i) Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 29.10.2018 in
WP(MD)No.19936 of 2017 etc., batch;
(ii) Common order of this Court dated 12.08.2022 made in
WP.Nos.32267 & 32268 of 2012;
(iii) Judgment of the Division bench of this Court reported in
2023-1-Writ L.R. 140 in the case of S.Annadurai vs. The Government
of Tamil Nadu, Secretary to Government Industries Department, Fort
St..George, Chennai – 600 009;
(iv) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.
1711-1712/2021 dated 27.11.2024;
(v) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.
13919 of 2024 dated 05.12.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. On production of the files, the learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was
duly served with enquiry notice dated 29.12.2023 through person. It was
duly received by one Ganesan, on behalf of the petitioner and he
submitted an explanation. Therefore, the petitioner has given an
opportunity to submit the explanation and on receipt of the said
explanation, the respondent passed the orders. That apart, the judgments
cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are not
applicable to the case on hand, since the Rule permits for personal
hearing in the said judgments. Whereas the Rule 36-A (5) of the Tamil
Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 does not provide any
opportunity of hearing and it says only show cause notice.
6. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
respondent further submitted that even if it so, the petitioner was given
an opportunity of hearing and one Ganesan appeared on behalf of the
petitioner and submitted his explanation. Therefore, there is no violation
of principles of natural justice. The order impugned in this writ petition
is appealable one under Rule 36-C (2) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Concession Rules, 1959 before the appellate authority. Hence, without
exhausting the appeal remedy before the appellate authority, this writ
petition is not at all maintainable and prayed for dismissal of this writ
petition.
7. On perusal of the records, it reveals that the enquiry notice
dated 29.12.2023 was marked to the petitioner. According to the
respondent, it was served by person to the petitioner’s address. On
perusal of the acknowledgment, it reveals that one Ganesan received the
enquiry notice on behalf of one M/s.RR Blue Metal. The said RR Blue
Metal is nothing to do with the petitioner. The petitioner is RR
Construction and it a partnership firm consisting of two partners, namely,
R.R.Ramamohanrav and R.Saravanan. The said Ganesan is neither a
partner nor a representative engaged by the petitioner to receive the
enquiry notice or to submit any explanation.
8. Even assuming that the said Ganesan was informed by the
petitioner to receive the enquiry notice and submit any explanation, on
perusal of the order impugned in this writ petition dated 28.10.2024, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent, without even discussing any of the explanation submitted by
the said Ganesan, simply mentioned about the enquiry which was held on
08.01.2024 and 28.10.2024, and passed the impugned order.
Admittedly, the petitioner was not served with any notice and therefore, it
is nothing but a non speaking order.
9. It is relevant to extract Rule 36-A (5) of the Tamil Nadu Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, which is as follows:-
“[36-A. Penalties:
(5) [Whenever any person contravenes any
provisions, other than sub-rule (1) of rule 10 of these
rules, or conditions of a quarrying permit or quarrying
lease granted under these rules the Director of Geology
and Mining or the Chief Conservator of Forests, as the
case may be, or the District Collector or the District
Forest Officer as the case may be, shall after giving
notice, charge and that person and recover from him
enhanced seigniorage fee up to a maximum of fifteen
times the normal rate subject to a minimum of [twenty five
thousand rupees] or in the alternative, he shall be liable
to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one year or with fine which may extend to five
thousand rupees or with both and in the case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
continuing contravention with additional fine which may
extend to five hundred rupees for every day during which
such contravention continues after conviction for the first
such contravention.
[Provided that in respect of minor minerals namely,
building and road construction stones including gravel,
ordinary sand, earth and turf, ordinary clay including silt,
brick and tile clay the powers and duties exercisable and
dischargeable by the District Collectors under this sub-
rule shall be exercisable and dischargeable by the
Revenue Divisional Officer concerned within their
respective jurisdiction.]”
10. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
respondent specifically contended that the rule does not permit personal
hearing and the respondent issued enquiry notice for the enquiry to be
conducted on 08.01.2024 calling upon the petitioner to attend the same,
along with necessary documents. Therefore, it is nothing, but an
opportunity of hearing.
11. Admittedly, the petitioner was not served with any notice of
hearing and it is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. On the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sole ground, the order impugned cannot be sustained and is liable to be
quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.10.2024 is hereby
quashed. This matter is remanded back to the respondent and the
respondent is directed to issue a fresh show cause notice under Section
36-A (5) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959,
within a period of two weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this
order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass
orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four
weeks thereafter.
12. With the above direction, this writ petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
27.01.2025
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
Sm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Sm
TO:-
The Sub Collector,
Periyakulam,
Theni District.
Order made in
Dated:
27.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
