IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 07-02-2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.2490 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 Subbaiah .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The District Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur. 2.Assistant Director, Geology and Mining, Collectorate Campus, Tiruvallur. .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.665/2010/Mine-2, dated 13.10.2011, the same was published in Tiruvallur District Gazette, dated 14.1.2011 and quash the same so far as item No.2 in the Schedule in respect to Survey No.58/2 part (East) in T.C.Kandigai Village and further direct the respondent to forbearing to lease out the said survey number in future. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sounthar For Respondents : Mr.R.Thirugnanam (Spl.G.P) O R D E R
1. It has been stated that the petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 13.10.2011, published in Tiruvallur District Gazette, dated 14.10.2011, in respect of Item No.2 in the Schedule, in S.No.58/2 Part (East) in T.C.Kandigai Village and to forbear the respondents from leasing out the land in the said survey number, for rough stone quarrying, in future.
2. The petitioner has stated that he is performing poojas in `Kanniamman Koil’ situated close to the land leased out for quarrying operations. There are many inhabitants residing within the radius of 300 metres from the place where the quarrying operations are being carried out. He had also submitted that there are hundreds of devotees and pilgrims visiting the temple, on a regular basis.
3. The petitioner had also stated that the temple is situated in the middle of the mountains and the pathway to reach the temple, from the ground level, is in S.No.58/2, which is being leased out by the respondents for quarrying operations. If the respondents are not restrained from leasing out the mine in question there will be no way to reach the temple. He had also submitted that blasting of rocks in the quarry site would cause danger to the public, as well as to those who are visiting the temple. It would also cause irreparable damage to the ancient temple situated in the vicinity.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted a report that the land, in S.No.58/2 Part, with an extent of 1.85.0 hectares had been leased out to Padmavathy Magalir Suya Uthavi Kuzhu, Narasingapuram, Tiruttani Taluk, under Rule 8(10A) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, vide the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 27.11.2006, for a period of five years. No complaint had been received in respect of the said quarrying operations. After the inspection conducted by the Deputy Director (Geology and Mining), Tiruvallur District, all necessary protection had been taken, as per Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Accordingly, the quarrying operations would be permitted at a distance of 50 metres from the temple and 300 metres from the inhabited area.
5. It had also been stated that there are no other permanent structures, monuments, buildings, bridges, or water courses located near the quarry site. It had also been submitted that the tender-cum-auction for leasing out the site in question, for quarrying operations, had been held, on 3.2.2011, and one S.Sriram, who had quoted the highest tender amount of Rs.71,55,500/- had been declared as the successful bidder. The petitioner had not chosen to implead him, as a party in the present writ petition.
6. It had also been stated that the land, in S.No.58/2 of T.C.Kandigai Village is classified as `Mountain Poramboke’ in the village accounts and it is vested with the State Government. The quarrying operations in the land in question would in no way affect the agricultural operations or the water sources. It had also been stated that there is no pathway to the temple in the proposed area.
7. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. From the report filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that sufficient precautions had been taken to ensure the safety of the temple and the people visiting the said temple, as per Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession rules, 1959. Further, from the said report it is seen that there is no pathway in the proposed area. It is also noted that a tender-cum-auction had been held, in respect of the quarry site in question, on 3.2.2011 and one S.Sriram, who had quoted the highest tender amount of Rs.71,55,500/-, had been granted the lease. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
csh
To
1.The District Collector,
Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.
2.Assistant Director,
Geology and Mining,
Collectorate Campus,
Tiruvallur