BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22/10/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.13007 of 2010 S.Andiappan ... Petitioner Vs The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai. ... Respondent Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the respondent made in Rc.No.1372/2009 (G&M) dated 07.10.2009 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to grant quarrying lease in respect of Survey No.39/1A, 1B and 4B over an extent of 0.48.5 hectares situated at Virachilai I Bit Village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District. !For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Arun Jayatram ^For Respondents ... Mr.R.Janakiramulu, Spl.G.P.(takes notice) :ORDER
The petitioner has come forward to challenge the order passed by the
District Collector, Pudukottai (1st respondent) dated 07.10.2009.
2.In the impugned order, the District Collector, Pudukottai, rejected the
case of the petitioner for quarrying roughstone in Survey No.39/1A, 1B and 4B to
an extent of 0.48.5 hectares of Patta land. The petitioner wanted to quarry
rough stone, which is admittedly coming under the purview of Tamil Nadu Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Therefore, it requires a permission from the
competent authority. The competent authority on entertaining the application,
called for a report from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukottai. The
Revenue Divisional Officer gave a report and on the basis of the said report,
the petitioner’s request was refused. In the said impugned order, it was stated
as follows:
“In this connection, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai was called for
a detail report regarding whether the field applied for lease attracts the Rule
36(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 in the reference 4th
cited which stipulates that there should be no quarrying within a radial
distance of 300 mtrs from habitations. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Pudukkottai has further reported in the reference 5th cited that at about 89
mtr.distance, a terraced house belonging to Thiru.Mathiyalagan, S/o Manikkam
servai is situated to the Northern side and at about 41 mtr.distance a thatched
house belonging to applied for lease. There is dwelling houses situated within
300 mtrs distance from the fields applied for the lease and the public also have
objected to grant lease in the proposed site by the applicant.
Finally, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai has reported that
there is no provision for a grant of quarry lease in patta land over an extent
of 0.48.5 hect. in S.F.Nos.39/1A, 1B and 4B of Virachilai I Bit village.
Since, the fields applied for quarry lease with an extent of 0.48.5
hect.in S.F.Nos.39/1A, 1B and 4B of Virachilai I Bit Village, Thirumayam Taluk
is lying within 300 mtrs. from the dwelling houses, the quarry lease application
is liable for rejection as it attracts Rule 36(1-A)(a) of Tamil Nadu Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.”
3.It is by this order and by stating these reasons, the petitioner’s
request was rejected in terms of Rule 36(1)(A) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 1959. The petitioner made two submissions. The first
submission was that along with the application, he had also produced no
objection letter from the persons, who are put up houses in the natham puramboke
land in the nearby area. The second submission was that no opportunity was
given in terms of Rule 19(2)(B) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules,
1959.
4.It is also claimed that the petitioner has already been granted licence
for quarrying rough stone in the neighbouring Survey Nos.36 and 38. Therefore,
the reason is not valid. However, this Court is not inclined to entertain the
Writ petition. The petitioner do not have any fundamental right to carry the
quarry operation subject to the relevant statutory Rule 36(1)(A). Those
conditions are under which such licence can be granted. Therefore, if the
authority, who is empowered to grant licence, after taking into account of the
relevant circumstances, based upon the report sent by the field officer, no
exception can be taken. In such circumstances, the petitioner merely because he
is having licence for quarrying in the neighbouring survey numbers that by
itself will not vitiate the reason given by the respondent.
5.On the other hand, if the petitioner is quarrying on in the other survey
numbers 36 and 38 and if that was also under prohibited by Rule 36(A), it may be
a good ground to revoke the licence already granted. When once the District
Collector take into account the safety of the local habitations, the petitioner
cannot be heard to urge on any other ground other than the ground available
under the rules. Merely because the petitioner had produced a no objection
certificate from some local people, that will not vitiate the report send by the
RDO, who is the field officer.
6.Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the
Writ petition. Hence, the Writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
nbj
To
The District Collector,
Pudukottai District,
Pudukottai.
K.CHANDRU,J.