Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1496 (MAD)

The District Collector v. P. Suresh Babu

2009-04-29

K.MOHAN RAM, M.DURAISWAMY

body2009
Judgment :- K. Mohan Ram, J. 1. The above writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 11. 2008 passed in W.P.No.1088 Of 2008. The respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant in the above writ appeal. 2. It is seen that the respondent herein was granted permission to quarry 3000 lorry loads and he claims to have paid the entire fee of Rs.2,40,000/- towards 3000 lorry loads. According to the respondent, during the period of one month for which permission was granted, the petitioner could quarry only 700 lorry loads. Hence, he sent a representation dated 25. 2007 and on inspection by the Revenue Divisional Officer, it was found that the respondent had quarried 1073 lorry loads from the tank and the remaining lorry loads to quarry is 1927. The authorities had considered the request of the respondent and granted permission to quarry the remaining quantity. But the respondent had not utilised that opportunity, but again he sought for extension of time, which came to be rejected and being aggrieved by that the Writ Petition was filed. 3. The learned Single Judge basing reliance on the orders passed in W.P.Nos.34268 and 11538 of 2007, directed the appellant herein to extend the time for quarrying as per the permission granted in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner originally and the time limit was also fixed. Being aggrieved by that, the appellant herein has filed the above writ appeal. 4. When the above appeal was taken up for hearing, though the name of the respondent/writ petitioner is shown in the cause list, he is neither appearing in person nor representing through any counsel. Hence, the Appeal is taken up for disposal on merits. 5. Mr. A. Arumugam, learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that in W.P.No.34268 of 2007, no positive direction was issued and the learned Single Judge has mistakenly placed reliance on the same. In fact a perusal of the order passed in W.P.No.34268 of 2007 shows that the said writ petition was filed by the very same petitioner seeking for a direction to consider his representation and the same was allowed by directing the authorities concerned to dispose of his representation; only thereafter the present impugned order was passed which was challenged before the learned Single Judge. As far as the order passed in W.P.No.11538 of 2007, the same is not made available. 6. As far as the order passed in W.P.No.11538 of 2007, the same is not made available. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the impugned proceedings being one passed under Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, (hereinafter called as the Rules) which is appelable as per the provisions under Rule 36 C (2) of the Rules. 7. Rule 36-C (2) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, reads as under: "Rule 36-C (2) APPEAL AND SECOND APPEAL (1)......... (2) Any person aggrieved by any order made by the District Collector in exercise of the powers conferred on him by the date rules, except on appeals under sub-rule (1)may, within 30 days from the date of communication of the order to him, appeal to the Director of Geology and Mining against such order. In case, the aggrieved person is not satisfied with the decision of the Director of Geology and Mining, he may prefer a second appeal to the State Government within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order of the Director of Geology and Mining." 8. The learned Special Government Pleader relying upon Rule 36 C (2) of the Rules, submitted that if a statutory remedy of appeal is available, the respondent/ writ petitioner could not be permitted to move this Court without exhausting such an alternative and effective remedy. The learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that it is also not the case of the writ petitioner that the remedy by way of appeal is not an effective remedy. 9. We have considered the said submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader. 10. In our considered view, the submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader merit acceptance. The settled proposition of law is that when an effective and alternative remedy is provided under the Rules, the respondent ought to have exhausted such a remedy and without exhausting such remedy, it is not open for him to straight-away approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, it is not the case of the respondent/writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge that the remedy provided under Rule 36 C of the Rules, is not effective or efficacious. In such circumstances, in our considered view, the Writ Petition ought not to have been entertained. 11. As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, it is not the case of the respondent/writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge that the remedy provided under Rule 36 C of the Rules, is not effective or efficacious. In such circumstances, in our considered view, the Writ Petition ought not to have been entertained. 11. Further, on merits also, the respondent/writ petitioner is not entitled for extension of time sought for. Admittedly, after the original period expired, one extension was granted for quarrying the remaining quantity, but the respondent/writ petitioner had not availed that opportunity also. The respondent/writ petitioner cannot be again and again permitted to seek extension of time. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. 12. Accordingly, the order dated 11.01.2008 made in W.P.No.1088 of 2008 is set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.