BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01/04/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P(MD)No. 2766 Of 2008 and W.P.M.P.(MD)No.1 Of 2008 S.Shenbagavalli ..Petitioner vs. $1. The District Collector, Theni District, Theni. 2. The Assistant Director of Geology and Mines,Theni. ..Respondents. PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents particularly the first respondent to stop the auction proceeding for stone quarry for the site under Survey No.2202/1(PartIV) to an extent of 10.67 hectares situated at Allinagaram Village, Theni District notified by the first respondent in the Gazette under Na.Ka.No.242/2008/Minerals, dated20.2.2008 by considering the representation dated 19.03.2008 made to the first respondent within a time frame fixed by this Court. !For Petitioner ... Mr.V.Janakiramulu ^For Respondents ... Mr.Pala Ramasamy 1&2 Special G.P :ORDER
(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY HIS LORDSHIP
S.MANIKUMAR)
The petitioner has sought for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents
particularly, the first respondent to stop the auction proceedings for stone
quarrying for a site in S.No.2202/1(PartIV) to an extent of 10.67 hectares
situated at Allinagaram Village, Theni District notified by the first respondent
in the Gazette under Na.Ka.No.242/2008/Minerals, dated 20.2.2008, by considering
the representation dated:19.03.2008 made to the first respondent within a time
frame fixed by this Court.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she owns lands in Theni
District, Bodi Taluk, Boothipuram Village in Survey No.261/13, 262/7, 266/2 and
307/13B. The lands are fertile and there are mango trees. The lands adjacent
to the petitioner’s land are owned by other agriculturists who are cultivating
Sugarcane, groundnut and other commercial crops. The Government dry lands in
S.No.2202/1 adjacent to petitioner’s agricultural lands were notified for
granting lease for stone quarry and the date of auction was fixed on 25.3.2008.
The quarry site proposed to be leased, to an extent of 10.67 hectares in
S.lNo.2202/1(PartIV) in Allinagaram, Theni District is listed as Item No.3 in
the Gazette notification. The villagers have raised their objection to the
location of the quarry site. Though the petitioner has sent a representation
dated 19.3.2008 to the District Collector, Theni District to take immediate
action to stop the tender-cum-auction to be held on 25.3.2008, the first
respondent has not passed any orders and therefore the petitioner left with no
other option, has approached this Honourable Court for the relief as stated
supra.
3. Referring to rule 36(1)(a) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession
Rules, 1959, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though there
is a positive prohibition under the rules that there should not be any stone
quarrying site within 300 metres from any inhabitated site, the respondents have
arbitrarily earmarked the said site, which would affect the cultivable lands,
irrigation canal and public road in the viscinity of the site. The learned
counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when Rule 36 of Minor Mineral
Concession Rules 1959 contemplates that stone quarrying site should not be
located within the prohibited distance of 50 metres from a public road or canal,
the statutory authorities, have ignored the scheme of the rules. It is also the
grievance of the petitioner that the first respondent has acknowledged the
representation of the petitioner dated 19.3.2008, he has not chosen to pass any
orders.
4. On the other hand, Mr.Pala Ramasamy, the learned Special Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions submitted that as per
rule 8[10-A(a))] of the Taminadu Minor Mineral Concession Rule,notification has
been issued by the District Collector, Theni District inviting applications for
grant of quarry lease to Co-operative Societies registered under the Tamil Nadu
Co-operative Societies Act,1983(Swarna Jayanthi Gram Swarozgar Yojana Scheme
Groups)and that there is no proposal to conduct any auction for grant of lease.
He submitted that S.No.2202/1 is comprised of five parts, each measuring
10.67.5 hectares of Government Poromboke land. He further submitted that out
of five parts in Survey No.2202/1 in Allinagaram village, the petitioner’s
husband is quarrying in in S.No.2201/1(Part III),which is also located closer
to the petitioner’s agricultural lands, for which the petitioner has not made
any objections, Whereas, when quarrying of lease was proposed to be given to a
Co-operative Society viz., Swarna Jayanthi Gram Swarozgar yojana Scheme Group,
the petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition objecting to location of
the quarry site. He further submitted the grievance expressed by the petitioner
reflects only his private interest and that there is not even a iota of evidence
or material to infer any public interest. For the abovesaid reasons, counsel for
the State prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
5. Before adverting to the facts of this case, it is necessary to extract
the relevant of rules of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules,1959 for
the purpose of proper adjudication of the dispute. Rule 8[(10-A)(a)] reads as
follows:
Notwithstanding anything contrary contained in this rule, the District
Collector shall, by notification in the District Gazette published in the month
of April every year, call for applications for direct grant of lease of stone
quarries to the (Swarna Jayanthi Gram Swarozgar Yojana Scheme Groups(hereinafter
called SGSY groups)registered either under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies
Act,1983(Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1983) or under the Tamil Nadu Societies
Registration Act,1975 (Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1975) and the societies formed by
released bonded labourers, subject to certain conditions.”
6. The general restrictions in respect of quarrying operations by the
permit holder or lessee as stated in rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral
concessions rules, 1959 is as follows:
“36. General restrictions in respect of quarrying operations:-
(1) The quarrying permit holder or the lessee or their men shall not work
or carry on or allow to be worked or carried on any mining operations at or to
any point within a distance of 50 metres from any railway line except with the
previous written permission of the Railway administration concerned or under or
beneath any ropeway or any ropeway trestle or station except under and in
accordance with the written permission of the authority owning the ropeway or
from any reservoir, canal or other public works such as public roads and
buildings except with the previous written permission of the Collector of the
District or any other officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf
and otherwise than in accordance with such instructions, restrictions and
conditions, either general or special, which may be attached to such permission.
The said distance of 50 metres shall be measured in the case of railway,
reservoir or canal horizontally from the outer toe of the bank or the outer edge
of the cutting, as the case may be, and in case of building horizontally from
the plinth thereof. In the case of village roads, no working shall be carried
out within a distance of 10 metres and except with the previous permission of
the Collector of the district or any other officer duly authorised by the State
Government in this behalf and otherwise than in accordance with such directions,
restrictions and additions, either general or special, which may be attached to
such permission:
Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time
being in force or any provision in any lease deed or agreement already executed
under these rules, there shall be no quarrying of sand in any river bed or
adjoining area or any other area which is located within 500 metres radial
distances from the location of any bridge, water supply system, infiltration
well or pumping installation of any of the local bodies or Central or State
Government Department or the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board head
works or any area identified for locating water supply schemes by any of the
above mentioned Government Departments or other bodies.
(1-A)(a) No lease shall be granted for quarrying stone within 300 metres
(three hundred metres) from any inhabited site:
Provided that the existing quarries which are subsisting under current
leases shall be entitled for continuance till the expiry of the lease period.
The lessees whose quarries lie within a radius of 300 metres from the inhabited
site shall undertake blasting operations only after getting permission of the
Director of Mines Safety, Corgaum:’
Provided further that the new and existing units of quarries shall also be
required to comply with the pollution control measures [(i.e.,) dust control
measures] besides complying with the other conditions in regard to Pollution
Control Measures.
(b) The Methodology specified in column (2) of the Table shall be adopted
in respect of the operational sources specified in column (1) thereof for rock
quarrying operations.
TABLE
Sl.No
Operational sources
Methodology to be adopted for controlling the dust
( 1 )
( 2 )
( 3 )
1
Drilling
Liquid injection (water with a wetting agent) of capturing and venting emissions
to a control device.
2
Blasting
Adoption of good blasting practices
3
Loading (at mines)
Water wetting
4
Transport
Watering treatment with surface agents, soil stabilization on paving.
(c) No new layout, building plans falling within 300 metres from any
quarry should be given approval by any agency unless prior clearance of the
Director of Geology and Mining is obtained. On receipt of proposals for
according clearance, the Director of Geology and Mining shall decide upon the
continuance or closure, as the case may be, of any quarry which is situated
within 300 metres from the new layout, buildings sought for such clearance.”
24. For the purpose of Rule 1(1-A) “Inhabited site” is explained in
Clause (iii) of Rule 36 sub-Rule (c ), “Inhabited site” shall mean village site,
town site or House site as referred to the revenue records or a house site or
layout approved by a Local Body or Town or Country or Metropolitan Planning
Authority, where the said Body or Authority is created under a statute and
empowered to approve such an area as a house site or lay-out area.
7. Inhabitated site means, a village site, town site or house site as
referred to the revenue records or a house site or lay out approved by a local
body or town or country or metropolitan authority where the said body or
authority is correct in a statute and empowered to approve such an area as a
house site or lay out area.
8. Examination of the definition “inhabited site” under rule 36(1-
A)(C)(iii) of the rules, would make it clear that it has two parts (1) site
should be a village site or town site or house site as referred to in the
revenue records;(2) a house or lay out approved by a local body town or country
or metropolitan authority where the said body or authority is correct in statute
and empowered to approve such an area as a house site or lay out area.
9. It is evident from the pleadings and the Adangal, appended to the
typed set of papers that the lands owned by the petitioner in Survey Nos.261/13,
262/7, 266/2 and 307/13B said to have been located adjacent to the dry lands in
S.No.2201/1, earmarked, are agricultural lands, and does not fall within the
definition house site. A reading of Rule 36 in entirety does not communicate
that there is any prohibition of locating a quarry site nearer to an
agricultural land and the restrictions placed on the authority are that it
should not be located with a distance of 50 metres from any railway land except
with the previous written permission of the railway administration concerned or
under ropeway or ropeway tussle or station except under and in accordance with
the written permission of the authority the ropeway or from any reservoir, Canal
or other public road, building with the previous written permission of the
Collector of the District or any other officer authorised by the State in this
behalf.
10. Excepting the averments made in the Writ petition, the petitioner has
not furnished any details of the existence of a canal or road within the
prohibited distance. Even in the representation dated 19.3.2008 submitted to
the District Collector, Theni District, there is no reference to either a canal
or road within the prohibited distance of quarry site. The apprehension of the
petitioner in the said representation is that, if S.No.2202/1 (Part IV) is
earmarked to be a quarry Site, it would cause damage to the agricultural lands
situated nearer to the site.
11. In a recent decision Holicow pictures Private Limited .vs. Prem
Chandra Mishra and others reported in (2008) 1 MLJ 1075, the Supreme Court has
again reiterated the principles to be followed by courts in dealing with Public
Interest Litigations. The Apex Court has defined the scope and extent of the
exercise of jurisdiction in dealing with such litigations. At Paragraph
10,17,18,20 the Supreme Court has held as follows:
10…Public interest litigation which has now come to occupy an important
field in the administration of law should not be “publicity interest litigation”
or “private interest litigation” or Politics interest litigation”. If not
properly regulated and abuse adverted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous
hands to relase vendetta and wreak vengeance, as well. There must be real and
genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure
or knight errant borne out of wishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a
person or a body of persons to further his or their personal grudge and enmity.
Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants
by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction….”
17. .. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery
proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted , the time
which otherwise could have been spent for disposal of cases of the genuine
litigants…”
“..the busy bodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious
interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or
private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other
extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their
faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts
by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the
valuable time of the Courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside
the doors of the courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration
in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they loose faith in the
administration of our judicial system.”
“18. Public interest litigatilon is a weapon which has tobe used with
great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to
see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice,
vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an
effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to the
citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be
used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of
genuine public oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above,
Courts must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who
approaches the Court is acting bonafide and not for personal gain or private
motive or political motivation or other oblique considerations. The Court must
not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms
who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in
the pastime of medding with judicial process either by force of habit or from
improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich
themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap
popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by
rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.”
“20. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the
applicant:(b) the Prima facie correctness or nature of information given by
him:(c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should
show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two
conflicting interests: (1) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and
reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii)avoidance of
public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for
oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the
Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that
under the guise of redressing a public grievance it does not encroach upon the
sphere reserved by the constitution to the executive and the Legislature. The
court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with impostors and busy bodies or
meddlesome interlopers impesonating as public-spirited holy men. They
masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bobo
Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own
interest.”
12.It is apparent that when the petitioner’s husband is quarrying in
S.No.2201/1Part III, land situated closer to the agricultural lands owned by the
petitioner,as well as others, there was no objection, whereas, the petitioner,
under the banner of Public Interest Litigation, with malafide and private motive
has sought for a Mandamus to forbear the respondents from leasing the quarry
site to the Societies of bonded labourers. The objection of the petitioner is
not bonafide. No public interest is involved in this Writ Petition. The
Principles laid down by the Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts of
this case.
13. In the circumstances, we do not find that the petitioner has made out
sufficient grounds and satisfied the requirements for issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus.
In the result, Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
vsn
To
1. The District Collector,
Theni District,
Theni.
2. The Assistant Director of Geology
and Mines,Theni.