Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1428 (MAD)

S. Sivananthavadivel v. District Collector

2012-03-20

M.JAICHANDREN

body2012
Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Mr. N.R. Chandran, the learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that it would suffice if the first respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated, 25.09.2011, for the renewal of the permission to continue the quarrying operations, in the patta land, bearing Survey Nos.1033/A1A, 1033/C1, 1034/A1, 1035/3, belonging to the petitioner, in Vellakoil Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had further submitted that the first respondent had not passed an order in favour of the petitioner, granting the necessary permission to continue the quarrying operations, in view of certain objections raised by rival parties, stating that a burial ground is to be located, within a distance of 300 meters from the lands belonging to the petitioner. He had pointed out that the burial ground would not fall under the definition of 'inhabited site', as per the explanation to Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Therefore, the objections raised by third parties, with regard to the location of the burial ground, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that the general restrictions, prescribed under Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 have been contemplated only with a view to prevent serious harm being caused to a general public, due to the quarrying operations. Therefore, it cannot be said that the restrictions that may be imposed by the first respondent, on considering the request of the petitioner for permission to continue quarrying operations in his lands, are arbitrary or illegal. 5. Therefore, it cannot be said that the restrictions that may be imposed by the first respondent, on considering the request of the petitioner for permission to continue quarrying operations in his lands, are arbitrary or illegal. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the first respondent, and in view of the records available, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated, 25.09.2011, for the grant of permission to continue the quarrying operations in the lands belonging to the petitioner, and to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, the second respondent and the other parties concerned, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent shall consider the claims made by the petitioner, as well as the objections raised by third parties in respect of the granting of permission for the quarrying operations in the lands belonging to the petitioner, while passing the appropriate orders, as directed by this Court. 6. However, it is made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. Further, the petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the representation, dated, 25.09.2011, to the first respondent, along with a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs.