BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 02/11/2006 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.P(MD)No.6163 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 P.K.Periakaruppa Thevar ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director Collector, Madurai. 2.The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Madurai. 3.V.S.Thayappa Pillai. ... Respondents Prayer Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in Roc.No.1087/2005/Mines-A dated 29.4.2006 and quash the same and further forbear the third respondent from doing quarry work in S.Nos.18/3A-1A and 18/3A-1C over an extent of 0.78.0 hectares in Achankulam village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District. !For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Vallinayagam ^For Respondents 1 and 2 ... Mrs.Jessi Jeeva Priya, Special Govt.Pleader For 3rd Respondent ... Mr.V.Sitharanjandas :ORDER
In this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order of the first
respondent in Roc.No.1087/2005/Mines-A dated 29.4.2006 and to forbear the third
respondent from doing quarry work in S.Nos.18/3A-1A and 18/3A-1C over an extent
of 0.78.0 hectares in Achankulam village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.
2. Petitioner is the owner of the lands in S.Nos.18/3A, 19 and 20, an
extent of 13 acres in Kallanai Achankulam Village, Thirumangalam Taluk. The
third respondent has got property in S.Nos.18/3A-1A and 18/3A-1C and the said
property lies on the western side of petitioner’s property. Petitioner states
that he is having a farm house and cattle shed in his property and he is
residing with his family there and doing agricultural operations in his lands.
Third respondent is doing quarry work in his lands, adjacent to the petitioner’s
property, using explosives for quarrying stones. Petitioner further states that
on many occasions, the blasted stones fell on petitioner’s house, pump set and
cattle shed. On one occasion, petitioner’s daughter by name Panchavarnam got
injured due to the fall of stone on her back. It is also stated that the
petitioner’s cattles were also injured many times. According to the petitioner,
the police complaint given to the authorities was not entertained. Petitioner
further states that he submitted his objections to the respondents 1 and 2 on
29.11.2005, 5.12.2005, 13.2.2006, 12.4.2006 and 15.4.2006, but without looking
into the objections made by the petitioner for the grant of quarry mining lease
to the third respondent, the first respondent granted permission by his
proceedings dated 29.4.2006 for five years. The grievance of the petitioner is
that the first respondent in spite of receipt of petitioner’s objections
referred above, without conducting any enquiry, granted permission to the third
respondent as if no objection has been received for the grant of quarry permit.
Hence the petitioner challenges the said order in this writ petition on the
ground that the order of the first respondent is passed on total non-application
of mind and the petitioner’s objections were not considered, particularly when
the petitioner has pointed out that petitioner’s family members, cattles and the
belongings of the petitioner were damaged due to the blast of quarry stones.
3. First respondent filed counter affidavit on 25.9.2006 and stated
that for the past 10 years the third respondent is doing quarrying operation and
if really there is any objection in the Village stating that the public or the
cattle had been affected due to quarrying of the rough stones, the third
respondent would not have continued quarrying operations. It is further stated
that the Tahsildar’s report was considered and thereafter only the impugned
order was passed. It is also stated that the objection raised by the petitioner
is due to personal gain and there is no truth in the said objection as stated by
the Tahsildar in his report.
4. First respondent again filed an additional counter affidavit on
31.10.2006 and stated that the representation of the petitioner submitted
earlier were considered and thereafter only the impugned order was passed.
5. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is
stated that petitioner’s complaints were considered by the Tahsildar,
Thirumangalam and the Assistant Geologist, Madurai, and based on the report of
the said officers, he was granted the quarrying permit and therefore the same is
perfectly in order.
6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties.
7. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 29.4.2006 it is seen that
the field applied for quarrying operation was inspected by the Assistant
Geologist and the Tahsildar, Tirumangalam Taluk and they have submitted their
reports and A-1 notice was also published in the village by the Village
Administrative Officer, Achankulam and as there was no objection received for
the grant of quarry lease, based on the Assistant Geologist (Mines) Inspector’s
report, the mining lease was renewed for five years as the first respondent is
empowered to grant the lease as per the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession
Rules, 1959. In the impugned order it is stated that on receipt of the
application for grant of mining lease under Rule 19, the District Collector has
to see that whether there is any objection for the grant of lease.
8. In this case, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, petitioner has submitted his objections on several occasions, to the
first respondent on 6.9.2004, 17.4.2006 and to the second respondent on
24.10.2005, etc., pointing out the damages caused to the petitioner due to the
quarrying work done by the third respondent and the petitioner has made repeated
complaints to the authorities on 10.1.2000, 27.3.2000, 6.8.2002, 6.9.2004 etc.,
even prior to the expiry of earlier period of lease. In the complaint dated
6.8.2000, the petitioner has stated that due to the blast of stones, one of his
cattle died on 30.5.2000 and a police complaint was given for which receipt
No.119 of 2000 was also issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, Koodakovil Police
Station.
9. Petitioner also gave written complaint to the District Collector on
6.9.2004 and 17.4.2006 which are acknowledged by the first respondent. The
first respondent who is bound to consider the objections has not chosen to
consider the same by conducting enquiry by himself. Even in the counter
affidavit it is stated that he has passed the impugned order based on the
reports submitted by the Tahsildar and the Assistant Geologist.
10. The impugned order further states that objection has not been
received for the grant of quarrying lease in favour of the third respondent.
The same is factually incorrect in the light of the objection submitted by the
petitioner stated supra. Hence it is to be held that the first respondent
passed the impugned order on total non-application of mind and without reference
to Rule 19(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, which
mandates the first respondent to consider the objections, if any received, give
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then pass appropriate orders. For
proper appreciation, Rule 19(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession
Rules, 1959, is extracted hereunder,
“On receipt of an application for grant of a quarrying permit under clause
(a), the District Collector, if he sees no valid objection, may grant quarrying
permission to the applicant. If there is any valid objection, the District
Collector shall give the applicant an opportunity of hearing before rejecting
the application.”
Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 prescribes
disposal of application wherein also consideration of objection is contemplated,
which reads as follows,
“On receipt of any application referred to in rule 19, the District
Collector, if he sees no valid objection, may grant quarrying lease to the
applicant subject to the conditions stipulated in these rules, but no such lease
shall be granted except with the previous sanction of the State Government if
the minerals are to be worked by or on behalf of any person who is not a citizen
of India. The minimum period for grant of quarrying lease for stone shall not
be less than one year and the maximum period shall not exceed 5 years and the
minimum period for grant of quarrying lease for sand and other minerals except
granite shall not be less than one year and the maximum period shall not exceed
three years. Where the District Collector refuses to grant quarrying lease, the
reasons therefor shall be communicated to the applicant in writing.”
Hence it is the duty of the first respondent to see that no valid objection is
there for the grant of quarry lease.
11. The contention of the first respondent that based on the report
submitted by the Tahsildar and Assistant Geologist the impugned order has been
passed also cannot be sustained because copy of the reports have not been
furnished to the petitioner and the petitioner was not heard by the first
respondent before passing the impugned order. Hence the said contention is also
rejected.
12. Since the impugned order is passed in violation of Rule 19(2)(b) and
20 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, the same is set
aside. The first respondent is directed to pass fresh orders after conducting
enquiry and considering the objections of the petitioner and pass fresh orders
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
vr
To
1. The Director Collector, Madurai.
2. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Madurai.