Madras High Court

K.T.Chenthamarai vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 22 May, 2025

Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy

Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy

    2025:MHC:1201




                                                                                               W.P.No.38460 of 2024

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                        ORDERS RESERVED ON : 24.04.2025

                                    ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON                        : 22.05.2025

                                                          CORAM :

                        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

                                               W.P.No.38460 of 2024
                                            and W.M.P.No.41648 of 2024

                 K.T.Chenthamarai                                                                ..    Petitioner

                                                               Vs.

                 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
                 Natural Resources(MM1) Department,
                 Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

                 2.The Commissioner
                 Department of Geology & Mining
                 Thiru Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate
                 Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

                 3.The District Collector
                 Coimbatore District,
                 Coimbatore.




                 Page 1 of 36




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )
                                                                                                W.P.No.38460 of 2024

                 4.The Sub Collector,
                 Pollachi.

                 5.The assistant Director,
                 Department of Geology and Mining,
                 Coimbatore.                                                               ..    Respondents




                 Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
                 a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in
                 G.O.(D).No.102, Natural Resources (MMC.1) Department dated 29.10.2024 and
                 quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and without any basis and pass such further or
                 other orders.




                                  For the Petitioner                  : Mr.V.Raghavachari
                                                                        Senior Counsel
                                                                        for Ms.V.Srimathy

                                  For the Respondents                 : Mr.Stalin Abimanyu
                                                                        Additional Government Pleader
                                                                        for RR1 to 5




                                                               ORDER

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

A.The Writ Petition:

This writ petition challenges the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.102,

Natural Resources (MMC.1) Department dated 29.10.2024.

B. The Case of the Petitioner:

2. The petitioner herein represents M/s. YENCEES Blue Metals(P) Ltd, as

its Managing Director. The petitioner company applied for separate quarry

quarry licenses regarding its patta lands and was granted for the periods

including renewals as follows:

(i) S.No.495/2A to an extent of 2.43.0 hectares, 5 years from 27/02/2009 to

26/02/2014 and renewed from 02/06/2014 upto 01/06/2019;

(ii) S.No.504/2A and 504/2B to an extent of 1.75.0 hectares, 5 years from

06/04/2010 to 05/04/2010 and renewed from 04/02/2016 to 03/02/2021;

(iii) and S. No. 503/1A, 503/1B, 503/2 (Part) to an extent of 2.27.0 hectares,

5 years from 22/12/2018 to 21/12/2023.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

2.1. Meanwhile, one Radhakrishnan, who is involved in the real estate

business around the village of Puravipalayam, has made frivolous claims and

demanded money from the petitioner. The petitioner has also lodged complaints

against this individual with the Respondents on various occasions. In an earlier

Writ Petition, WP.No.17367/2020, filed by Radhakrishnan to direct the

respondents to take appropriate action regarding illegal mining at Quarry-3

owned by the petitioner, the court ordered an inspection and the submission of a

status report on the quarry site. Pursuant to the court’s order, the Commissioner

of Geology and Mining formed a Joint Committee to conduct an on-site

inspection. Inspection was conducted from 6th to 8th of March, 2021. Only minor

violations were noticed and a report was filed. Considering the report that was

filed, the W.P. No. 17367 of 2020 was closed as having become infructuous.

2.2. Upon receipt of the report, the Sub-Collector, the 4th respondent

herein, levied a penalty of Rs. 32,29,77,792/- on 29.01.2022 without notice to

the petitioner company for illegal mining and transportation of minerals from the

leased property. In response to this order, the petitioner filed an appeal on

24.11.2022 before the 2nd respondent, namely, the Commissioner of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

Department of Geology and Mining, to revise the order dated 29.01.2022.

Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a writ petition against the order of the 4th

Respondent in W.P. No.23470/2022 for a stay of the operation, and the Court

granted an interim stay on 02.09.2022. While disposing of the appeal, the 2nd

respondent, on 25.11.2022, passed orders affording the petitioner an opportunity

for a hearing and, based on the report, concluded that the petitioner, while

conducting mining operations, had removed and transported rough stones

without a valid transport permit. Consequently, the 2nd respondent imposed

costs on the petitioner under several categories, totaling Rs.2,48,09,119/-. The

Joint Committee also inspected another quarry, which had previously been

quarried by the petitioner, and concluded that rough stone was removed and

transported without valid permits. However, they also confirmed that no

quarrying was currently taking place in the said area.

2.3 The 2nd respondent issued an order dated 25.11.2022 to set aside the

order of the 4th respondent, namely, the Sub-Collector. The order directed the

petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs immediately and the remaining amount in

instalments of Rs. 8,00,000/- every month within the expiry of the existing lease

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

period, i.e., 30.06.2025.

2.4. Pursuant to the aforementioned order, the petitioner submitted a

revised mining plan. This was approved by the Deputy Director of Geology and

Mining, Tirupur, through an order dated 10.02.2023, and the lessee was directed

to obtain Environmental Clearance from SEIAA-TN. Additionally, it was

advised that consent be obtained from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

through the proceedings R.C.No.394/Mines/2019 dated 10.02.2023.

Furthermore, a supplementary lease deed was executed on 24.05.2023, extending

the lease period until 30.06.2025. The approved revised mining plan dated

10.02.2023 allowed the petitioner to quarry 2,26,745 cbm of rough stone and

32,118 cbm of gravel for the remaining period of the lease from the non-

operative area to a maximum depth of 42 metres.

2.5. The petitioner paid Rs.25,00,000/- on 28.11.2022 and has

subsequently paid instalments up to November 2024. On 27.03.2024, the writ

petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn. While so, the said

Radhakrishnan again filed a Writ petition in W.P. No.5293/2023 against the order

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

issued by the 2nd Respondent on 25.11.2022. At this juncture, the 1st Respondent,

suo motu, set aside the order issued by the 2nd Respondent through proceedings

in R.C.No.7958/MM1/2022 dated 25.11.2022, upholding the proceedings of the

4th Respondent dated 29.01.2022 by invoking Rule 40 of the Tamil Nadu Minor

Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, and issued the impugned order in G.O. (D).

No. 102. Aggrieved by this, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

2.6. As a matter of fact, of the total cost amount imposed on the petitioner,

which is Rs. 2,48,09,119/-, a sum of Rs. 2,31,60,000/- has already been paid by

the petitioner. The impugned Government Order has been passed in complete

violation of the principles of natural justice, and the lawful order issued by the

2nd respondent has been unnecessarily interfered with. Therefore, it is prayed

that the Government Order be set aside, thereby allowing the order of the 2nd

respondent to come into effect and enabling the petitioner to continue his

quarrying activities.

C. The Case of the Respondents:

3. The writ petition is opposed by the 1st respondent through a detailed

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

counter affidavit. It states that the petitioner's first lease for quarrying rough

stone and gravel was granted over an area of 2.43.0 hectares in patta lands in

S.F.No.495/2A in Puravipalayam Village, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District,

initially for a duration of five years from 27.02.2009 to 26.02.2014, and

subsequently from 02.06.2014 to 01.06.2019, on which date the lease expired.

Secondly, it states that the petitioner's second lease for quarrying rough stone and

gravel was granted over an area of 1.75.0 hectares in patta lands in

S.F.No.504/2A and 504/2B in Puravipalayam Village, Pollachi Taluk,

Coimbatore District, initially for a duration of five years from 06.04.2010 to

05.04.2015, and subsequently from 04.02.2016 to 03.02.2021, on which date the

lease expired. The petitioner submitted a third application for quarrying rough

stone and gravel in the patta lands, measuring 2.27.0 hectares in S.F.No.503/1A,

503/1B and 503/2(part), for which permission was granted for five years from

22.12.2018 to 21.12.2023.

3.1. One K.A.Radhakrishan has filed a public interest litigation in

W.P.No.17367/2020 to direct the officials to take necessary action on illegal

mining in Quarry No.-3 of the petitioner, and the court ordered the filing of a

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

status report with supporting documents and photographs after inspecting the

petitioner ’s quarry site. Based on the order, the Assistant Director, Coimbatore

inspected the area, and a status report was filed by the District Collector. The

court, by order dated 16.02.2021, directed the Principal Secretary to the

Government to file an affidavit confirming the report filed by the District

Collector of Coimbatore, and this court, in its order dated 02.03.2021, directed

the Principal Secretary to file a report. Pursuant to that, the Commissioner of

Geology and Mining, vide R.C.No.216/MM1/2021 dated 05.03.2021, constituted

a Joint Committee, carried out an inspection in the disputed area, and furnished

the report with findings and recommendations.

3.2 Accordingly, the Assistant Director had inspected the aforementioned

areas on 01.12.2022. He reported that apart from the above-mentioned lands, no

other unauthorized quarrying was noticed in any of the non-leased out survey

fields owned by the lessee company.

3.3 It was found that the third quarry covers an area of 2.27.0 hectares, and

the Joint Committee estimated that excess mining of 5,65,221 cubic metres of

rough stone and 31,466 cubic metres of gravel/ topsoil with weathered rock was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

removed by the petitioner without permits. The Joint Committee, upon

inspecting non-leased areas, estimated that the petitioner had illegally removed

74,077 cubic metres of rough stone and 33,370 cubic metres of gravel/topsoil

with weathered rock without any permit. A Writ petition was filed by K.A.

Ramakrishnan to call for a record of the impugned order dated 25.11.2022 in

W.P.No.5293/2023 has directed the Commissioner of Geology and Mining to file

a detailed counter on what basis the penalty amount was reduced from Rs .

32,29,77,792 to 2,48,09,119/- and extended the licence. Based on this report, the

2nd respondent levied a penalty of Rs. 2,48,09,119/- and directed the petitioner

to remit Rs. 25 Lakhs as the first instalment and to pay the balance in equal

instalments by his order dated 25.11.2022.

3.4. Meanwhile, up to December 2024, the petitioner had remitted a total

of Rs. 2,31,60,000/-. At this juncture, after a careful examination of the orders,

the Government decided to exercise the power of revision under Rule 40 of the

Rules. Due opportunities were granted for all parties, and after hearing them,

orders were passed, upholding the proceedings of the 4th Respondent dated

29.01.2022 and setting aside the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 25.11.2022.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

Regarding the quarry lease in Patta lands from 2014 to 2023, subject to the

conditions for the lease granted in the inspected area on 06.03.2021, the Writ

petitioner has removed 29,815 cbm of rough stone in S.F.No. 495/2A(Q1),

50,805 cbm of rough stone in S.F.No. 504/2A, 504/2B (Q2), and 69,405 cbm of

rough stone in S.F.No. 503/1A, 503/1B, 503/2(part), which exceed the approved

quantity as per the mining plan and also violated the conditions incorporated in

the Environmental clearance.

3.5. The joint committee report dated 06.03.2021 stated that the

dimensions of the quarried pit in Quarry No.1 are 1.22.0 hectares x 31 metres,

and Quarry No.2 is 1.57.0 hectares x 22 metres, with a total quantity of 7,23,725

cubic metres of rough stone mined and transported from Quarries No.1 and 2.

Transport permits were issued for the transportation of 4,16,976 cubic metres of

rough stone concerning Quarries No.1 and 2 of the petitioner company.

Therefore, a quantity of 3,06,740 cubic metres of rough stone was mined and

transported illegally without valid transport permits. At that time, the

Commissioner of Geology and Mining, the petitioner/lessee submitted a

modified mining plan, which was approved, and the petitioner company was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

directed to obtain Environmental Clearance and to get consent from the TN

Pollution Control Board. A supplementary lease deed was executed on

24.05.2023, extending the lease period up to 30.06.2025.

3.6. The report of the joint committee dated 06.03.2021 also highlighted

that the writ petitioner has dumped boulders, M-Sand, and size-reduced stones

amounting to 18,645 cbm. It further reported that 3,17,648 cbm of top-

soil/gravel and weathered rock have been dumped on non-permitted patta lands,

violating sub-rules (2) & (3) of Rule 3 of the Illegal Mining rules. Additionally, it

pointed out that unlawful quarrying operations are taking place in adjacent non-

lease patta lands in S.F.No.495/2B(part), 502/1(part), and 503/2(part) of

Puravipalayam village, Pollachi Taluk, with the removal of 74,077 cbm and

33,370 cbm of rough stones, respectively. Therefore, the writ petitioner ’s

contentions, which downplay the material facts and suggest only minor

violations in mining, are entirely false.

3.7. The Commissioner of Geology and Mining issued orders dated

25.11.2022, levying a total penalty of Rs. 2,48,09,119/- for the quarrying and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

transportation of 3,36,287 cbm of rough stones without a valid permit from the

lease areas. Similarly, the orders granting permission to commence quarry

operations by paying an initial amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs is beyond the provisions

of the rules. Therefore, the Government considered all facts and circumstances

before issuing the impugned Government Order. Thus, the Writ Petition must be

dismissed.

3.8 The collection of compensation being the value of the mineral has

already been deemed mandatory by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

Common Cause Vs. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 499. According to Rule 36-A

(1) of the Rules, a penalty of up to 15 times the seigniorage fee must be imposed.

Therefore, the impugned order has rightly been passed and the same does not

require any interference.

D. The Submissions:

4. Heard, Mr.V. Raghavachari, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner. Taking this Court through the impugned order, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

learned Senior Counsel submits that, on its face, the impugned G.O.(D)No.102,

dated 29.10.2024, is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural

justice. He would submit that when the minerals have been removed only from

the permitted pasta lands and imposition of the value of the mineral as penalty

was without jurisdiction. The Commissioner of Geology and Mining has

submitted remarks based on the District Collector, Coimbatore's comments, and

these were considered while passing the order. Therefore, the impugned order is

liable to be quashed, and the matter should be remanded back to the 1st

respondent for fresh consideration.

4.1. The learned Senior Counsel submits that, as a matter of fact, after the

orders of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has already commenced quarrying

activities. Therefore, the petitioner must be allowed to continue these activities,

as he has also been paying the instalments ordered by the 2nd respondent. The

learned Senior Counsel submits that the complaints of the said

K.A.Radhakrishnan lack any proof whatsoever, and he is not an affected person

at all. The entire mining activity has been carried out after obtaining the requisite

environmental clearance, and even the inspection teams have found that the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

private respondents have not been affected in any manner as a result, indicating

that their complaints are motivated.

4.2. Mr.Stalin Abimanyu, the learned Additional Government Pleader

appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 5, submits that the order issued by the

2nd respondent is entirely unacceptable and has been rightly revised by the

Government. The full value of the mineral must be recovered from the

petitioner. The petitioner has got no right to continue the quarry. In any case, the

order of the 2nd respondent cannot be allowed to remain.

E. Consideration and Discussion:

5. I have considered the submissions made by both sides and reviewed the

case records.

5.1. It is undisputed that the petitioner was allowed to quarry rough stone,

topsoil with weathered rock, and gravel. It can be seen from the Order of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

Sub-Collector dated 29/01/2022 that the joint inspection report has quantified

that a total quantity of 457774 cbms of rough stone has been illegally quarried

from the three approved quarries. The committee found that 107447cbms of

rough stone has been unauthorisedly quarried from the sites where no permission

is granted. Further it has noted that gravel of 31,466 cbms have also been

quarried from unauthorized site by the petitioner. The same is also concisely

tabulated in the Original order passed on 29/01/2022 which is as follows:

Sl.No. Survey No. Etc. Type of Quantity (cbms) Cost of Mineral Seniorage Fee mineral illegally quarried (Rs.) (Rs) 1 495/2A (quarry Rough Stone 29,815 1,13,29,700 1759,085

-1) 2 504/2A,504/2B Rough Stone 51805 1,96,85,900 30,56,495 (Quarry -2) 3 503/1A, 503/1B, Rough Stone 69405 2,63,73,900 40,94,895 503/2(p) (quarry

-3) 4 495/2A, 504/2B Rough Stone 306749 11,65,64,620 1,80,98,191 (Quarry -1) 5 495/2B(P) Rough stone 74077 2,81,49,260 43,70,543

Unauthorized site 6 502/1(p) &503/2 Rough stone 33370 1,26,80,690 19,68,830

Unauthorized site 7 497(P), 502/1(P) Gravel 31,466 50,34,560 10,38,378 Total 5,96,687 21,98,18,540 3,43,86,417

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

5.2 There is no dispute over the same. The petitioner has not disputed the

measurements. No grievance whatsoever is expressed by the petitioner in the

entire affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. No arguments attacking the

report or quantum is made. The commissioner who had reversed the order in

appeal also does not find any error in the inspection committee report.

5.3 In the Order of the Commissioner dated 25/11/2022, in paragraph 7 (i)

to 7(v) the Commissioner lists as many as five quarry leases that are granted in

favour of the petitioner. Strangely, in paragraph 7(vi) of the following quantity

alone is noted to be quarried and removed without valid permits:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

Sl. No. Survey Number Mineral Quantity (cbms) 1 503/1A, 503/1B, 503/2(P) Rough Stone 29538 2 495/2A, 504/2A, 504/2B Rough Stone 306749 3 495/2B(P) Rough Stone 74077 4 502/1B, 503/2B Rough Stone 33370 Total 443734

5.4 Thus, as against, a quantity of 5,65,221 cbms of rough stone, only part

quantity of 4,43,734 cbms of rough stone alone noted. Gravel is totally left out.

Further, in paragraph 8, for the reasons best known to the Commissioner, even

lesser quantity of 3,36,287 cbms alone is noted and only seigniorage fee for the

said quantity, with 10% for District Mineral Fund, 10% for Green Fund and

Penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- in all totalling to Rs. 2,48,09,119/- was levied by the

impugned order

5.5 Given the above circumstances, any reasonable officer exercising

power would typically have considered the following:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

(a). PROSECUTION:

6. First and foremost, it can be seen that when the mining plan was

completely given a goby. The petitioner has quarried huge excess quantity and

also quarried from other unauthorized sites and have illegally quarried and

transported a total unauthorized quantity of 5,96,687 cbms of minerals. The

violations are not minimal; rather, they are manifold, mammoth, and significant.

Admittedly, the quantity of minerals were transported without any valid permit.

This was done in violation of the rules framed by the State Government under

Section 23 (C) of the Act. As per Section 21 (1) of the Act, whoever contravenes

the provisions of Subsection (1) or Subsection 1 (1-A) of Section 4 is punishable

by imprisonment for a term that may extend up to five years and with a fine that

may extend to Rs. 5 Lakhs per hectare of the area. Section 4 (1 – A) of the Act

categorically states that no person shall transport, store, or cause to be

transported or stored any minerals otherwise than in accordance with the

provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder. Thus, this is a grave offence

punishable by five years of imprisonment, and the power of compounding is

only with reference to offences that are punishable solely by fine. Therefore, any

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

Commissioner or officer would first direct the appropriate competent officer to

file a complaint as per Section 22 of the Act.

(b) VALUE OF THE MINERAL:

7. As per Section 21 (5) of the Act, whenever a person raises any mineral

from any land without lawful authority, the State Government may recover from

that person the minerals raised or, if those minerals have already been disposed

of, the price thereof. Additionally, the State Government may recover from such

person any rent, royalty, or tax for the period during which the land was

occupied without lawful authority. The explanation categorically explains the

term is extracted hereunder:-

“[Explanation.—On and from the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2021, the expression “raising, transporting or causing to raise or transport any mineral without any lawful authority” occurring in this section, shall mean raising, transporting or causing to raise or transport any mineral by a person without prospecting licence, mining lease or composite licence 3[exploration licence] or in contravention of the rules made under section 23C.]”

7.1 Thus, in this case, it is an admitted position that the rules framed by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

the Government under Section 23-C have been violated. Obviously, Section 21

(5) of the Act comes into play. The matter is no longer within the discretion of

the authorities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the Judgment in

Common Cause's case (cited supra), has considered the scope of Section 21 (5)

of the Act and its meaning, and has already held that there can be no compromise

on the quantum of compensation that should be recovered from the defaulting

lessee. It should be 100%. Secondly, it has categorically held that any violation

within the lease area also falls under Section 21 (5) of the Act. Paragraph Nos.

151, 153, and 154 of the said Judgment are extracted hereunder for ready

reference:

“151. In our opinion, Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act is applicable when any person raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land. In that event, the State Government is entitled to recover from such person the mineral so raised or where the mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof as compensation. The words “any land” are not confined to the mining lease area. As far as the mining lease area is concerned, extraction of a mineral over and above what is permissible under the mining plan or under the EC undoubtedly attracts the provisions of Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act being extraction without lawful authority. It would also attract Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act. In any event, Section 21(5) of the Act is certainly attracted and is not limited to a violation committed by a person only outside the mining lease area — it includes a violation committed even within the mining lease area. This is also because the MMDR Act is intended, among other things, to penalise illegal or unlawful mining on any land including

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

mining lease land and also preserve and protect the environment. Action under the EPA or the MCR could be the primary action required to be taken with reference to the MCR and Rule 2(ii-a) thereof read with the Explanation but that cannot preclude compensation to the State under Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act. The MCR cannot be read to govern the MMDR Act.

……

153. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Amicus were of the opinion that the provisions of Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act require that the entire price of the illegally mined ore should be recovered from each defaulting lessee. Similarly, in its affidavit, the Union of India differs with the recommendation of CEC. According to the affidavit of the Union of India this would be contrary to the statutory scheme and in fact 100% recovery should be made under the provisions of Section 21(5) of the MMDR. We may note that only to this extent, the learned Attorney General differed with the view expressed by the Union of India and submitted that the recommendation of CEC to recover only 30% of the value of the illegally mined ore should be accepted.

154. In our opinion, there can be no compromise on the quantum of compensation that should be recovered from any defaulting lessee — it should be 100%. If there has been illegal mining, the defaulting lessee must bear the consequences of the illegality and not be benefited by pocketing 70% of the illegally mined ore. It simply does not stand to reason why the State should be compelled to forego what is its due from the exploitation of a natural resource and on the contrary be a party in filling the coffers of defaulting lessees in an ill-gotten manner.” (Emphasis supplied)

7.2 As a matter of fact, Rule 36-A (3) of the Rules categorically states that

the price of the mineral should be recovered. The said rule is extracted hereunder

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

for ready reference:

“(3) Whenever any person raises without any lawful authority any mineral from any land, the District Collector or the District Forest officer, as the case may be, may recover from such person the mineral so raised or where such mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person, area assessment, seigniorage fee or tax, as the case may be, for the period during which the land was occupied by such person without any lawful authority:

[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 subrule shall be exercisable and dischargeable by the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned within their respective jurisdiction.]” (Emphasis supplied)

7.3 Therefore, there is no doubt whatsoever that the value of the entire

quantity of mineral must be recovered. Thus, the total quantity of rough stones

illegally mined and transported and the cost thereof and one time seigniorage fee

totally amounting to Rs. 25,43,04,957/- is recoverable as per Section 21(5) of

the Act, read with Rule 36A of the Rules as stated above. Further penalty upto 15

times the seigniorage fee can be levied. The Sub-Collector had chosen to levy

twice the same amounting to Rs. 6,87,72,834/-. In all a total sum of Rs.

32,29,77,792/- was ordered to be paid. The same is perfectly in order. Thus, any

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

reasonable officer/appellate authority would recover the value of the mineral,

following the directives of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

(c ) PENALTY:

8. The Rule 36-A (1) of the Rules, along with the Judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the Judgment in Common cause (cited supra),

categorically held that in cases of such violations, all fees, including the

seignorage fee, that are due to the Government shall also be recovered, along

with a penalty of up to 15 times the seignorage fee. Normally, in cases of such

grave violations, penalties should be commensurate with the violation and

should have a deterrent effect; thus, a penalty of 15 times is envisaged under

Rule 36-A (1) of the Rules. Though harsher penalty can be levied upto fifteen

times, considering the gravity of the situation, the original authority has

exercised its power which is valid and as per law. The appellate

authority/Commissioner is duty bound to see to that the violator is levied with

this penalty.

(d) THE LICENCE:

9. The entire exercise of framing the Tamil Nadu Minor and Mineral

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

Concession Rules, 1959, along with the mandate of Rule 41 to have a mining

plan and obtain environmental clearance, aims to protect Mother Earth from

unscrupulous, greedy, and selfish miners. Mother Earth can only feed us for our

needs. But unscrupulous operators for their insatiable greed would cut the

mother's breast and suck blood. The second respondent shockingly overlooked

that the very existence of their Department is to save the environment, in

accordance with Article 48 A of the Constitution of India. Any reasonable officer

aware of the purpose behind Rule 41, which mandates the submission of a

mining plan and the granting of environmental clearance, would only

recommend the cancellation of the quarry license and ensure the immediate

cessation of operations.

(e). The Unconscionable & Illegal Order:

10. While the lawful and logical conclusions would be the above, in this

case, the orders passed by the 2nd respondent were exactly the opposite.

Regarding prosecution, it was not even on the radar of the 2 nd respondent.

Concerning the recovery of the value of the minerals, the same is completely

given a goby. No reasons whatsoever is mentioned in the impugned order as to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

how the Original authority was wrong in imposing compensation being the cost

of the minerals amounting to Rs. 25,42,04,957/-. Thus, loss to the government to

above extent to the government is willfully caused. Regarding the penalty of 15

times the seignorage fee, only Rs. 10,00,000/- is imposed. The same is in gross

violation of the express Rule 36A.

10.1 While the barest minimum amount is levied, what is shocking is that

even this minimum penalty is not collected, and, quite generously, for a grave

polluter, instalments were allowed, with a mere payment of Rs . 25 lakhs. In fact,

the volume in which the quarrying has been done makes the penalty a meagre

sum for the petitioner. That is not all; the final blow is that the suspension of the

quarrying operation is cancelled, and the petitioner is allowed to continue

quarrying, with a revised mining plan directed to be submitted, which is then

duly approved by the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining (FOR

WHAT?!!).

10.2 The Thamasha of wasting the government's time in approving the

mining plan has occurred once again. One can understand the revised mining

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

plan in cases of deviation or minor violation. When the licensee went berserk

regarding the quantity and also quarries at unauthorized sites, cheating the

government and taking away far more minerals than accounted for, without the

slightest hesitation or conscience, the revised mining plan was directed, and the

concerned authority granted it. Thus, the order passed by the 2nd respondent on

25.11.2022 is unfathomable, unimaginable, and shocking to one's conscience.

Therefore, I have no hesitation in stating that the entire exercise points only

towards extraneous considerations. The order, on its face, is fraudulent, cheating

the government and the people of the State out of their lawful dues while leaving

Mother Earth battered and bruised.

(f). The Exercise of Power of Revision:

11. Thus, I believe that the order has been rightly revised by the 1st

respondent. In this regard, Rule 40 of the Rules is extracted below for ready

reference:

“40.Power of revision of the State Government – The State Government may, of their own motion or otherwise, for good and sufficient reasons, revise any order of any authority subordinate to them made in exercise of the powers conferred on the authority

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

under these rules:

Provided that no order in exercise of the above power shall be passed by the State Government without giving an opportunity of being heard to the person who will be considered to be adversely affected by such an order.”

11.1 Therefore, the 1st respondent was competent to revise such an order

of significant illegality and severe perversity. The only ground raised is that the

order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

11.2 In this regard, notice was issued to the petitioner. It had submitted its

written submissions, and a personal hearing was granted to Mr.Chenthamarai,

the petitioner herein, being the Managing Director of the Company. He appeared

through counsel. The findings related to the personal hearing were also included

in the impugned order.

11.3 Therefore, it is not as though the order was passed without

opportunity for the petitioner. The other argument made by the learned Senior

Counsel is that the value cannot be collected, which has already been expressly

considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Common Cause (cited

supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India categorically held that Section 21(5)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

comes into play with respect to violations of rules, etc., in both approved and

unapproved sites. No discretion is vested in the state, and it is mandatory to

recover 100% of the minerals. Therefore, this contention is rejected.

11.4 Further, the submissions made by the petitioner were duly considered

and answered in paragraph No. 10 of the impugned order.

11.5 In any event, the order of the 2nd respondent is completely

fraudulent, aberrational, and unconscionably illegal, and it is an affront to the

environment, as well as to the entire set of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India regarding the obtaining of a revised mining plan, recovery of

compensation, the polluter pays principle, and the rules framed by the

Government in that regard. This course of action is taken to defraud the

Government of a significant sum of money, certainly more than Rs.30 Crores.

Thus, fraud is an anathema to the procedural violation that is claimed.

11.6 By passing the order, a representation was made as if the entire

amount due for the violations is being recovered, and it is agreed upon by the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

petitioner, as if he is complying with the same, to resolve the issue. Thus,

through the letter and conduct, the exercise deceives the Government and the

people. Fraudulent representation is made and agreed upon with the motive to

deceive the huge sum of money due to the Government. An act of fraud vitiates

every solemn act. Fraud is anathema to all equitable principles, and any affair

tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or upheld on equitable doctrines,

including the principles of natural justice. In this case, the deception is clear and

categorical, posing a false front as though lawful action is being taken, creating a

loss for the Government and granting unlawful permission. Thus, there can be no

invocation of any principles of natural justice at all in this case. The order dated

25.11.2022 was rightfully set aside and cannot be revived even for a moment at

any cost. Therefore, I hold that the impugned order passed in G.O.(D). No.102,

dated 29.10.2024, has been rightly passed.

11.7 In the instant case, citing violations, Radhakrishnan had filed W.P.

No. 17367 of 2020 with a prayer to close down the illegal mining activity of the

petitioner. When the matter came up for hearing, it was specifically represented

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

before the Hon’ble Division Bench that mining activities are closed. Para 4 of

the order reads thus:

“4. It is stated that not only the mining activities are stopped, but the amount to be recovered has also been assessed, followed by a notice. The process for recovery of the amount would be taken. In the meantime the request of the eighth respondent to allow it to operate the mining has been declined. Challenging the same, the eighth respondent filed a writ petition and the same is pending before the Court.” (Emphasis supplied)

11.8 After noting the above submissions, the writ petition was disposed of

as having become infructuous. In this background, even if the appellate authority

felt that the permission for quarrying should be granted, it cannot do so in the

teeth of the representation made before this Court. At least an appropriate

application should have been filed for granting permission. Thus, when a public

interest litigation is entertained, to get it closed by making a representation and

thereafter, allowing the appeal to continue the mining operations, amounts to

interference with the due process of law and a fraud is played on the Court. The

period of the last of the quarry ended in the year 20023 and there is no need for

any further orders of cancellation. The quarrying operations were rightly stopped

by the authorities. Therefore, the power of revision has rightly been exercised by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:39:50 pm )

the government.

12. This case demonstrates a shockingly unconscionable and unreasonable

exercise of power in the guise of an appeal. Even the authorities granting the

revised mining plan and renewing the EC are showing complete apathy. Above

all, when such a huge quantity of illegal mining was taking place, the field

officials at the relevant point in time completely abdicated their duty. All this

does not seem to be mere coincidence and prima facie exhibits a deep-rooted

conspiracy and extraneous considerations.

(g). The Result: