Judgment : Petitioners are residents and agricultural land owners of Karanai, Nizampet Village, Tiruvallur Taluk and District. Their lands are situated adjoining the river kosasthalai which passes through several villages including petitioners village and ultimately joins the Poondi Reservoir. They have prayed for the issue of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to stop illicit quarrying in the bed of Kosasthalai river. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows: Kosasthalai river is a seasonal one. Water flows only during the rainy season., i.e., from November to January. The villages Karanai, Nizampet No.62 are situated on the banks of the river, having a Survey No.8. The bed of this river contains a good quality river sand with an easy access for extraction of sand. Taking natural advantage of the location and easy access, there have been indiscriminate, relentless and illegal quarrying of sand from this river in the immediate past one year. According to the petitioners, such removal has resulted in the formation of deep pits, affecting the free flow of water and deprivation of water storage for percolation in the river, weakening of the bridge near Periyakuppam and Tiruvallur Railway Station and also the Karanodai Highway Bridge in the great Northern trunk Road beyond Red Hills. Petitioners estimate that hundreds and thousands of lorries per day are being illegally operated without permit and leases, in collusion with the officers and political backing. The village wells supplying water both for drinking as well as cultivation purposes have gone and dried down, causing economic loss and run-in to the residents of the village and the petitioners in particular. .3. In the above circumstances, petitioners made repeated representations to the higher authorities and the respondents in particular. Finding that there was no response but there was continued illegal mining and finding that the officers are turning a blind eye to their complaints, petitioners were constrained to move this Court in W.P.No.10977 of 1998. The Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 37. 1998 directed the District Collector to pass appropriate orders on the complaint made by the petitioners. The Bench also directed that in case any illicit quarrying is taking place, the authorities are expected to act according to law and appropriate orders may be passed within three months from the date of receipt of the order. 1998 directed the District Collector to pass appropriate orders on the complaint made by the petitioners. The Bench also directed that in case any illicit quarrying is taking place, the authorities are expected to act according to law and appropriate orders may be passed within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The copy of the order along with a request to take immediate action was communicated to the District Collector on 198. On 28. 98, the “Indian Express” carried a news item under the heading, “Manmdae disaster waiting to strike Tiruvallur. The said report reported graphically, the devastation that is caused by illegal mining, all done inspite of the Division Bench order to take prompt action. The Express team noticed, as pointed out in the report, that there is a well organised network functioning for such an illegal quarrying. The Express team also noticed that the ”river bed presents a pitiable sight with the illegal quarry operators going on a mindless spree by digging trenches 10 to 15 feet deep in certain places, some lorries were not visible even from an elevation of 25 metres above the ground level.“ It was pointed out that the villagers, predominantly farmers, seem to be severely hit by the massive quarrying as the water level has started receding at an alarming rate. The report concluded.” It is intriguing how the District Administration failed to take action against the illegal sand quarry operators. “A similar report came in the” Dinamani “ newspaper also. The petitioners again, through their lawyer, represented to the District Collector as well as the Tahsildar on 23. 1999. Petitioners also met the District Collector on 14. 1999 during the grievance day. They were asked to meet the Assistant Director of Geology, Tiruvallur, on 15. 1999, the villagers have written a letter to the District Collector stating that even though the Tahsildar visited the village on 15. 1999 and saw actually how the illegal quarrying is going on, he did not move his little finger and failed to take any concrete action. They have represented to the District Collector that inspite of the innumerable representations and attempts made by them, when such illegal, quarrying is being permitted, they would be forced to boycott the polling in the Parliament elections. They have represented to the District Collector that inspite of the innumerable representations and attempts made by them, when such illegal, quarrying is being permitted, they would be forced to boycott the polling in the Parliament elections. Ultimately, they were constrained to file the above writ petition for the relief sought for, namely, to stop the illegal quarrying and to direct the respondents to perform their statutory duty.” .4. Considering the fact that the petitioners have made out a prima facie case of illegal quarrying going on, to the detriment of their interests, and also finding no proper explanation from the respondents side. I appointed an Advocate Commissioner to have a personal inspection of the river area in question and report to the court on the nature and extent of extraction of sand and similar particulars so as to assess the situation. The Advocate Commissioner, Mr.Srinath Sridevan had a site inspection of the river adjoining the petitioners’ village No.62 Karanai. Nizampet in the presence of the petitioners and all the connected officers on the respondents side. The Advocate Commissioner also had the advantage of a Surveyor to measure the particulars of the river and excavations done in the river. The Advocate Commissioner had also taken photograph of the river and has submitted a report along with the negatives of the photographs taken on that day. The report was filed on 27. 1999 the matter came up on 27. 1999. After perusing the report, the respondent viz., the Additional Government Pleader was given opportunity to respondent. It was submitted that he will file his objection. If any, in the next hearing. The Government Pleader also under took on that day that he will instruct his officials not to permit anybody to quarry in the area of the river concerned. In the light of the said undertaking, no interim order was passed on 27. 1999 and the matter was directed to be posted on 8. 1999 and the matter was directed to be posted on 8. 1999. When the matter came up on 8. 1999, no objection was filed to the report by the Government Pleader, but he agreed with calculation memo as to the extent of quarrying. Hence, the matter was heard and arguments concluded. 5. The report of the Advocate Commissioner as to the nature of the quarrying undertaken in this part of the survey number is alarming and disturbing. 1999, no objection was filed to the report by the Government Pleader, but he agreed with calculation memo as to the extent of quarrying. Hence, the matter was heard and arguments concluded. 5. The report of the Advocate Commissioner as to the nature of the quarrying undertaken in this part of the survey number is alarming and disturbing. It follows from the report that about 46,213 lorry loads have been quarried from this part of the survey number alone. This will give a rough estimate of the nature of removal of sand. The highlights and the gist of the report are as follows: “The total width of the river from bank to bank was measured and found to be 417.4 meters. The total extent of river bed comprised in S.No.8 is hectares and 55. acres. There are lesser extents in other survey numbers, i.e., 81. hectares in S.No.7/2, 1.07.0 hectares S.No.5/4, O-11-0 hectares in S.No.5/2, O-20.5 hectares in S.No.15 and O.60.5 hectares in S.No.21. The report categories three areas in the same Survey numbers for the purpose of measuring the nature and extent of extraction with the rough plan marked in the annexure to the report. (1) Southern flood plain: The extent of excavation is 625 M × 62 M. The depth of the excavation varies from 2M × 2.5 M=77,500 Cub. Mts. (2) Central river bed: The extent of excavation is 238 M to 311 M × 76 M. The depth of excavation varies from 1.5 M to 3 M. 250 × 76 × 2 ------------- = 19,000 Cub.Mts. 2 (Triangle) (3) Northern Flood Plain: (Purple Colour) The extent of excavation is 625 M × 50 M. The depth varies between 5 m to 7 M. 625 × 50 × 6 Total = 1,87,500 Cub. Mts. 2,84,000 cub.Mts. 6. The excavation on the flood plains is such that there is no flood plain anymore on the southern bank. The river banks stop abruptly as the flood plain has been removed. There are lorry tracks all over the place. The area has has got access from three sides. There are fields on either side of the river where paddy, Sugarcane and Groundnuts are grown. The river banks stop abruptly as the flood plain has been removed. There are lorry tracks all over the place. The area has has got access from three sides. There are fields on either side of the river where paddy, Sugarcane and Groundnuts are grown. The Commissioner has noted the claim of the petitioners that the pits found in the Central River Bed are very recent which were done within a period of one or two months from the date of the inspection. The Assistant Director of Mines is said to have stated that these pits were older than the pits” on the flood plains, which are recent ones. The Commissioner has also noted that the petitioners have informed that over 1000 lorries dig sand everyday. It was considered by the Assistant Director of Mines that if flood plains of the river are removed, it will alter the course of the river. The learned Advocate Commissioner has also submitted that the quarrying has resulted in a huge canal like formation. In the southern side, it is 625 m × 62 M, on the central area, it is about 250 M × 76 M. and on the northern side, it is again 625 M × 50 M. Apart from this canal like excavations, there are pits dug up at different parts of the area. On a measurement of these excavations, he roughly estimated that the quantity of sand that would have been removed would be 2,57,180 cub. mts. In terms of lorry loads it will be about 46,213 lorry loads (a lorry load of sand is equivalent to 5.565 cub mts.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cost of the lorry load at the quarry site is Rs.300 and the value at the selling point in the city even at a conservative estimate is Rs.2,000 per load. The total value of the lorry loads of sand that would have been removed thus comes to: 46.213 × 2000 = Rs.9,24,27,700. Whereas, the learned Government Pleader has given a Memo as follows: 7. The total value of the lorry loads of sand that would have been removed thus comes to: 46.213 × 2000 = Rs.9,24,27,700. Whereas, the learned Government Pleader has given a Memo as follows: 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners had made specific allegation in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in paragraph 5 as follows: “The authorities make a farce of a show and they are moving hand-in-glove with third parties quarrying sand illegally and there has been an ‘inert’ action inspite of such representations.” Again in paragraph 9, it is stated, “we reliably understand and believe the same to be true that all the officials who are bound to see that the mandatory provisions of Mineral Concession Rules are strictly adhered to and implemented, have set their face against the same and are hand-in-glove with third parties for their selfish aggrandizement by such illegal quarrying of sand.” Petitioners have specifically stated that the quarrying is not only causing damage to the villagers, but also causes huge loss of seigniorage and royalty, which the Government is otherwise entitled. .8. These specific averments have not been controverted in the counter-affidavit filed by the District Collector. On the contrary, the counter proceeds with evasive and general reply. They have stated that whenever complaints of illicit quarrying of sand are received, the District Collector and other authorities have taken immediate action and stopped such illegal quarrying. Raids are being conducted to arrest illicit quarrying of sand. No specific denials have been made in reference to paragraphs 5 and 9. They have sited two instances of seizure of vehicles, one wherein 11 vehicles were seized on 28. 1978 and the other wherein 23 lorries were seized on 26. 1999 (this is after filing and notice in this writ petition). The authorities also admit that permits were granted to certain persons to remove and transport sound and gravel after collecting the required charges in patta lands in certain areas as per the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Thus, there is only one seizure of 11 vehicles and it is not stated as to what had happened to the vehicles seized on 19. 1998 till date. The learned Government Pleader is not able to explain that as to why when such a huge voluminous quantity of sand is being removed from a public river, no action worth a name had been taken. 1998 till date. The learned Government Pleader is not able to explain that as to why when such a huge voluminous quantity of sand is being removed from a public river, no action worth a name had been taken. .Inspite of two writ petitions having been filed, the respondents did not simply bother to stop their illicit quarrying even now. The petitioners have specifically stated before the Advocate Commissioner that 100 lorries dig sand everyday, which has not been denied by the respondents before the Advocate Commissioner. The Governments stand about the extent of sand quarried and removed and the loss is not disputed as it could be seen from their memo. 9. It cannot be stated that this removal of sand and formation of huge canals would have been done for several years earlier. Since the water flow in the river is only during the period between October and January and in normal course, these pits would have been filled up or at least altered, it is obvious that the digging had taken place in the course of this year. The photographs which were taken by the Advocate Commissioner and submitted along with negatives, especially photograph Nos.C.2/4, C-5/1, C-5/2 and C-5/5 clearly establish that this is nothing but tearing add destruction of a natural river and indiscriminate removal of sand beyond one metre. Sometimes going upto 10 metres. The Mineral Concession Rules prohibit digging of sand from the river below one metre and also impose a condition of payment of royalty and other charges. It is therefore obvious that petitioners have established, based on the factual materials in the form of the unchallenged Commissioners report and photographs, that there has been a huge illicit quarrying going on in the river bed. The representations given by the petitioners along with other villagers on several dates, the legal notices issued by the counsel for the petitioners, the new items that appeared in the “Indian Express”. Dinamalar “ etc. apart from the order passed by this Court on 37. 1998 allege to show in unmistakable terms that illicit quarrying has been going on unhindered. The extent of quarrying, which roughly works out to 46,213 lorry loads, would make it clear that this would not have been possible but for the connivance of the respondents. Dinamalar “ etc. apart from the order passed by this Court on 37. 1998 allege to show in unmistakable terms that illicit quarrying has been going on unhindered. The extent of quarrying, which roughly works out to 46,213 lorry loads, would make it clear that this would not have been possible but for the connivance of the respondents. The evasive reply given in the counter affidavit would support the case that the respondents are fully aware of what is going on and it is established in my view they who have colluded to permit the illegal operation of the quarrying. Therefore, it is clear in my mind that the culprits of this quarrying are none other than the officials. of the respondents. .10. Art.48-A of the Constitution of India directs the States to make endeavours to protect and improve the environment. One of the fundamental duties imposed on every citizen under Art.51-A is to protect and improve the natural environment including the rivers. Sec.4 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 restricts any mining operation in any area without a mining lease. Sec.21 of the said Act provides for imposing penalties on whoever contravenes Sec.4(1), Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.21 provides for impounding of the vehicles which are removing the minerals without any lawful authority, Sub-sec.(5) provides for imposition of royalty, tax etc. for the minerals which have already been disposed of without lawful authority. Sub-sec.(1) imposes a penalty of punishment with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extent to Rs.10,000 or both. Even from patta land, there is no provision for removal of sand or soudu without permission except for domestic use. Rule 36-A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 provides for imposition of penalty upto 15 times of the normal rate of seigniorage fee subject to minimum of Rs.10,000 on any contravention of Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.4 of the Act. The seigniorage fee fixed under the Mineral Concession Rules for sand is Rs.6.50 per cartload upto 10 cub Feet. The quantity that is now said to have been removed is 2.57,180 cub. mts. Therefore, it is obvious that statutory provisions are made clearly against the illegal quarrying of minerals. The seigniorage fee fixed under the Mineral Concession Rules for sand is Rs.6.50 per cartload upto 10 cub Feet. The quantity that is now said to have been removed is 2.57,180 cub. mts. Therefore, it is obvious that statutory provisions are made clearly against the illegal quarrying of minerals. However, these provisions have been given a go-by and large quantity of minerals have been permitted to be removed without any authority, causing great loss to the public as well as to the revenue of the Government and against the public interest. Even according to the Government Pleaders estimate, the loss by way of seigniorage fee alone is Rs.61,53,290. .11. In M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath , (1997)1 S.C.C. 3881 the Supreme Court held that the notion that the public has a right to expect certain lands and natural areas to retain their natural characteristics is finding it way into the law of the land. Under the doctrine of public trust, certain resources like air, sea water and the forests have such a great importance to the people and they are gifts of nature, and it enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for commercial purposes. The Supreme Court came down against a permission granted on large areas of the bank of River Beas purely for commercial purposes. The Supreme Court directed the motel to pay compensation by way of cost for the restitution of the environment and ecology of the area. In this case, there is not even a semblance of permission obtained. On the contrary, the whole of the natural formation of river bed is sought to be removed and exploited commercially indiscriminately [Italics added]. In Lucknow DevelopmentAuthority v. M.K.Gupta Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K.Gupta Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K.Gupta , (1994)1 S.C.C. 243 the Supreme Court held that the administrative law of accountability of public authorities for their arbitrary and ultra vires actions has taken many strides. It is now expected that the State is liable to compensate for the loss or injury suffered by citizens due to arbitrary actions of its employees. The law has always maintained that the public authorities who are entrusted with statutory functions cannot act negligently. It is now expected that the State is liable to compensate for the loss or injury suffered by citizens due to arbitrary actions of its employees. The law has always maintained that the public authorities who are entrusted with statutory functions cannot act negligently. Public authorities acting in violation of Constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behaviour before authorities created under statute like the Commissioner or the courts entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining the rule of law. The authority empowered to function under a statute, while exercising power, discharges public duty. It has to act to subserve general welfare and common good. In discharging this duty honestly and bona fide, loss may accrue to any person. Where it is found that exercise of discretion was mala fide, the complainant is entitled to compensation and the officer can be no more under protective cover. The jurisdiction and power of the courts to indemnify a citizen for injury suffered due to abuse of power by public authorities is founded on the principle that an award of exemplary damages can serve a useful purpose in vindicating the strength of law. An ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match the mite of the State or its instrumentalities. That is provided by the rule of law. It acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercises of power. 12. Applying the above principle, it could be seen that a valuable mineral which serves the public interest has been indiscriminately removed without authority of law against public interest and loss of revenue. This has been done, in my view, with the full knowledge and in collusion with the respondents. In other words, the respondents, who have been empowered to take interest in the protection of environment and authorities and authorise the removal of minerals and check any removal which is done without authority of law, have themselves acted against the law. The loss of the natural environment is incalculable and irreparable. The loss that had been caused to the State could at least be calculated in terms of the lorry loads that have been removed, in the light of my finding that such a huge quantity of 47,333 lorry loads could not have been removed overnight and without the knowledge of the concerned officers. The loss that had been caused to the State could at least be calculated in terms of the lorry loads that have been removed, in the light of my finding that such a huge quantity of 47,333 lorry loads could not have been removed overnight and without the knowledge of the concerned officers. Learned counsel for the petitioners pleaded that the petitioners are poor villagers and they have been fighting against the mighty officers inspite of the threat and suffering. They had to collect money and spend as litigation expenses to safeguard their just right and also to protect the interests of the State and the loss of revenue. Hence, they pray that they must be awarded the expenses incurred by them towards the Advocate Commissioner and cost of the litigation. Therefore, I have to mould the relief sought for in this writ petition on the following terms: • (1) I direct the State Government represented by the Secretary to Industries, who is not a party to this proceeding to take appropriate action against officers of the respondents for permitting the illegal removal of sand and causing damage to the river. The State Government must also consider whether these officers should continue at the present place for a future remedial action. To initiate action against the violations under Sec.21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act. .• 2. The respondents are directed to take immediate action for arresting the unlawful quarrying. .• 3. The Government and the District Collector shall restore the river to its natural formation within a period of six months. .• 4. In the abvoe circumstances, the respondents are directed to pay to the Advocate Commissioner,a sum of Rs.5,000 which has already been paid by the counsel for the petitioners, in addition to another Rs.5,000 as additional remuneration to the Advocate Commissioner, totally Rs.10,000. .• 5. The respondents shall pay Rs.10,000 as cost of this litigation to the petitioners. 13. The writ petition is allowed with exemplary cost of Rs.10,000 in addition to the above directions. Consequently, the related W.M.Ps. are closed.