Judgment : The short facts of the case are as follows:- The writ petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company and is engaged in manufacturing of M-sand. As such, the petitioner has purchased patta lands comprised in S.F.Nos.471/1, 472/2 and 473 totally measuring an extent of 12.5.0 hectares in Kaliyal Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District by virtue of registered sale deed dated 11.04.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner has applied for quarry lease in respect of the said lands in and by application dated 04.08.2009 and the same was duly processed in accordance with law and the clearance from all the concerned Departments, including the approval of Hill Area Conservation Authority was given. Thereafter, the second respondent, viz., District Collector, through his proceedings in Roc.No.67/G&M/2008, dated 11.06.2010, has granted the petitioner the mining lease in respect of patta lands in S.F.Nos.471/2, 473 for an initial period of three years with the right to extend the same for a further period of two years, subject to the availability of the minerals. The petitioner, who has got the mining lease, successfully carried on the quarry operations for the initial period of three years. When the initial period of three years was about to expire by 18.06.2013, the petitioner made an application dated 07.03.2013 to the second respondent / District Collector seeking to extend the lease for the full term of lease, i.e., for the further period of two years in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. 2. The petitioner additionally added that once the petitioner has submitted the application for the continuation of lease before the second respondent, the entire problem has been raised and with the sole intention to reject the claim for continuation of lease, the second respondent issued two proceedings in Na.Ka.No.245/G&M/2013, dated 17.04.2013 of one as a show cause notice to the petitioner to cancel the lease and the other one directing the third respondent, viz., The Revenue Divisional Officer to impose penalty on the petitioner on an allegation of illegal mining. A careful reading of the above proceedings and a bare look on the reference column, would show that the above proceedings were clearly issued by creating anti-dated documents as if on 12.12.2012 itself, the second respondent has directed the Tahsildar to conduct an inspection at the quarry of the petitioner and consequently a report has been received from the Tahsildar stating that illegal mining has been carried on in the quarry of the petitioner. A look on the reference column would apparently show that the report of the Tahsildar said to have been received on 08.04.2013 was intentionally shown to have been prepared as early as on 22.01.2013 i.e., prior to the date of application for execution of lease dated 07.03.2013. Though the respondents cleverly fabricated the documents by giving anti-dates, when the documents demanded by the petitioner were furnished, the factum of fabrication of the documents came into light evidently and apparently as well. The proceedings of the first respondent dated 17.04.2013 itself would read that the first respondent through his proceedings dated 12.12.2012, directed the Tahsildar to conduct an inspection and to submit a report as to whether any illegal mining is carried on. While the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 22.01.2013 signed on 05.04.2013, states that as per the order of the first respondent dated 12.12.2012, a team was constituted under the leadership of Firka Surveyor and an inspection was conducted and the date of inspection report of Firka Surveyor is shown to have been signed on 10.12.2012. The claim of an inspection on 10.12.2012, on the basis of a direction issued on 12.12.2012 itself would speak for the truth that no such inspection was conducted and there was no illegal mining as stated by the second respondent. 3. The petitioner further submits that after having instituted the above proceedings, the second respondent, by his order dated 14.06.2013, rejected the claim for continuation of the lease. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.9847 of 2013 and the same was dismissed. 3. The petitioner further submits that after having instituted the above proceedings, the second respondent, by his order dated 14.06.2013, rejected the claim for continuation of the lease. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.9847 of 2013 and the same was dismissed. Against the dismissal order, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD)No.1017 of 2013 and the Division Bench of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, by its order dated 23.10.2013 made open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority with the direction to the appellate authority to consider the same without being influenced by the observations made in the order of the learned Single Judge. The petitioner has also preferred an appeal and the same is now pending before the Commissioner / Director, Geology and Mining, Chennai. 4. The petitioner further submits that again as directed by the second respondent, the third respondent also initiated proceedings in Mu.Mu.A1/3035/2013 and without furnishing the documents relied by him and without giving an opportunity to reply, in a hasty manner, passed an order on 30.09.2013, imposing a decorated penalty of a huge sum of Rs.15,53,24,000/-. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.16695 of 2013 and thereafter as the petitioner was advised to prefer the statutory appeal, the petitioner had withdrawn the same with liberty to file the statutory appeal. It is further submitted that as the law is well settled that the order passed on the direction of the superior authority is illegal and void, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal. However, the statutory appeal lies only before the second respondent / District Collector i.e., the very same officer, who has directed the third respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer to impose penalty. Though the petitioner has filed a stay application along with the appeal, the second respondent has neither granted stay nor has conducted any hearing but for other reason, has simply kept it pending, without proceeding further. On the other hand, the fourth respondent / Tahsildar, through his proceedings in B3/3435/2014, has issued a notice dated 10.02.2014 to recover the penalty which is impugned in the appeal, as the appeal has been simply kept pending without any progress. If the appeal is simply kept pending, leaving the recovery to be proceeded with, there will be no purpose in hearing the appeal and the petitioner will be put to severe hardship. If the appeal is simply kept pending, leaving the recovery to be proceeded with, there will be no purpose in hearing the appeal and the petitioner will be put to severe hardship. 5. The petitioner additionally submits that since the appeal is pending before the very same officer, who himself has directed to impose the penalty, the petitioner apprehends that the petitioner may not receive any fair and impartial justice at the hands of the present District Collector, who is hearing the appeal. Moreover, when it is the specific case of the petitioner that the impugned order was passed by the third respondent, only on the direction of the second respondent, the natural justice would require that the appeal shall not be heard by the second respondent himself, who has directed to pass the impugned order. Hence, it is just and necessary that the appeal has to be decided by any other officer than the present District Collector, who himself has directed the third respondent to pass the impugned order. 6. The petitioner further submits that pointing out the apprehensions of the petitioner and the above circumstances, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 24.02.2014 to the first respondent requesting to withdraw the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 21.10.2013, from the file of the second respondent and to decide the same, either by the first respondent himself or to transfer the same to any other competent officer subordinate to the first respondent. But, in spite of the receipt of the representation, the first respondent has not taken any action to transfer the appeal from the file of the second respondent. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 7. The first respondent has filed a counter statement and resisted the writ petition. The respondent submits that the petitioner applied for permission to quarry rough stone in patta land for a period of five years as detailed below:- Taluk/Village S.F.Nos. Total Area in hectare Area applied in hectare Patta Number VilavancodeKaiyal 471/2 3.50.0 3.50.0 3727 473 9.00.0 1.45.0 967 Total 12.50.0 4.95.0 While obtaining necessary report from the relevant officers for forwarding to Hill Area Conservation Authority, the District Forest Officer did not provide no objection certificate to the petitioner, since the S.F.Nos.471/2, 472/2 and 473 were covered under Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 (Tamil Nadu Act XXVII of 1949). Hence, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.5569 of 2009, before this Court, challenging the notification of the District Collector (made in 1979) declaring the lands to be a private forest covered under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949. This Court in its order dated 30.04.2009, has granted stay, as ordered in similar W.A.No.1336 of 2002, pending before this Court. 8. The respondent further submits that in continuation, the petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.9264 of 2009, before this Court praying to direct the forest officials to issue no objection certificate for rough stone quarrying operations in the applied area. This Court in its order dated 15.05.2009, has directed the forest officials to consider the case of the petitioner for issuance of no objection certificate and pass orders within four weeks of time. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest has issued no objection certificate for granting stone quarry permission to the petitioner. Subsequently, Hill Area Conservation Authority Clearance was also issued in favour of the petitioner vide minutes of the 39th meeting of Hill Area Conservation Authority held on 16.04.2010. On receipt of these clearances, lease had been granted to the petitioner to quarry rough stone for a period of three years vide District Collector's proceedings in R.C.No.67/G&M/2008, dated 11.06.2010. The lease period ceased its validity on 17.06.2013. 9. The respondent further submits that the extension of lease for two years requested by the petitioner on 07.03.2013 had been rejected vide the District Collector's proceedings R.C.No.245/G&M/2008, dated 10.06.2013. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner had filed W.P.(MD)No.9847 of 2013 before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, challenging the rejection order. The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, in its order dated 30.08.2013, was pleased to dismiss the writ petition with the following observations:- "(1) Apparently there is suppression of material facts of serious violation of the conditions of the lease and statutory provisions by the writ petitioner. (2) Nevertheless, the Western Ghats Environmental Expert Panel Report, now under consideration before the National Green Bench, cannot be ignored by the District Collector. (2) Nevertheless, the Western Ghats Environmental Expert Panel Report, now under consideration before the National Green Bench, cannot be ignored by the District Collector. (3) The District Collector cannot be compelled by the petitioner to continue the lease period, ignoring the directions given by the Supreme Court, wherein it has been ordered that Environmental Clearance is required, for lease of mineral, including the renewal for an area of less than five hectares, to be granted by the State / Union Territories. (4) The Courts role is restricted only to examine as to whether, the authorities have taken into consideration the ecological balance, its conservation and preservation and whether the competent authority has taken a decision, as per the statutory provisions, in anticipation, prevention of any degradation of environment and ecology. Therefore, the discretion exercised by the District Collector, cannot be said to be arbitrary. (5) Though in the impugned order dated 14.06.2013, the District Collector, Kanniyakumari has not pointed out the violations yet this Court cannot lose sight of the factum of suppression of the above said materials in this writ petition and issuance of show cause notice, prior to filing of the writ petition. This Court cannot shut down its eyes to such an allegation of large scale irregularity, though no conclusion can be arrived at, at this juncture. (6) This Court is of the view that no manifest illegality can be said to have been committed by the District Collector, Kanniyakumari while rejecting the request of the petitioner for continuation of the balance period of two years." 10. Against the above order, Thiru.Joseph Jacob has preferred a writ appeal in W.A.(MD) No.1017 of 2013, before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. Against the above order, Thiru.Joseph Jacob has preferred a writ appeal in W.A.(MD) No.1017 of 2013, before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, in is order dated 23.10.2013 has directed that it was open to the writ petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner / Director of Geology and Mining, Chennai, as prayed for by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, within the period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and had also mentioned that on such appeal, being preferred by the petitioner, it is for the Commissioner / Director of Geology and Mining, Chennai to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible without being influenced by the observation made in the order W.P. (MD)No.9847 of 2013 and the writ appeal was disposed of accordingly. Subsequently, Thiru.Joseph has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Chennai. In the meanwhile, unauthorized quarrying operation detected has been addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram vide this office letter R.C.No.245/G&M/2013, dated 17.04.2013 requesting to take action as per Rule 36-A(1) and (3) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. It has been identified and found that over and above the legally permitted quantity, the petitioner has removed 82,400/-units of rough stone from the adjacent non-leasehold area in R.S.No.472/2 of Kaliyal Revenue Village, for which Rs.15.53 crores has been levied as penalty by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram vide his proceedings R.C.No.K.Dis.A1/3035/2013, dated 30.09.2013. Aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabapuram, the writ petitioner has preferred an appeal before the District Collector, Kanniyakumari on 21.10.2013 and the same is pending disposal. 11. The respondent submits that at this stage, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The respondent additionally added that a rough stone quarry lease had been granted to the writ petitioner to quarry rough stone in patta S.F.No.471/2 (3.50.0 hectare) and in patta S.F.No.473 (1.45.0 hectare) totally 4.95.0 hectare of Kaliyal Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanniyakumari District vide District Collector's proceeding R.C.No.67/G&M/2008, dated 11.06.2010, after obtaining Hill Area Conservation Authority Clearance and necessary no objection certificate from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Chennai and the Pollution Control Board subject to certain conditions. The respondent further submits that the grant of lease period is the discretion of the District Collector. Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 says that the minimum period for grant of quarrying lease for stone shall not be less than one year and the maximum period shall not exceed five years. Accordingly, as provided in the Rules, the District Collector has exercised his power and granted lease for three years period to the petitioner. Hence, the contentions put-forth by the petitioner are not an acceptable one as per the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and as per law. 12. The respondent further submits that the contention put-forth by the petitioner in paragraph 4 of the affidavit is not correct. As stated by the petitioner, two proceedings have not been issued in R.C.No.245/G&M/2013, dated 17.04.2013 and in R.C.No.245/G&M/2013, dated 17.04.2013. One show cause notice had been issued to M/s.Poabs Granite Products Private Limited for the violation of special condition No.4, General condition No.8 and lease deed agreement condition No.29, calling for his explanation as per Rule 36(5)(h) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959. It is not a proceeding as stated by the petitioner and it is a show cause notice issued to the petitioner for the violation done by him, vide notice R.C.No.245/G&M/2013, dated 17.04.2013. The respondent further submits that another letter R.C.No.245/G&M/2013, dated 17.04.2013 mentioned by the petitioner in the said paragraph is not a proceedings and it is a letter addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram requesting him to take action as per Rule 36-A(1) and (3) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, since the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned are competent authorities to initiate penal action against any unauthorized quarrying operation detected. Accordingly a report has been sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram vide letter R.C.No.245/G&M/2013, dated 17.04.2013. There is no anti-dated document dated 12.12.2012 addressed to the Tahsildar, Vilavancode, as stated by the petitioner. The Tahsildar, Vilavancode has been directed to conduct inspection in the quarry lease which are granted in S.F.No.471/2 and 473 of Kaliyal Village, Vilavancode Taluk and accordingly the Tahsildar, Vilavancode has inspected the lease hold area and his report has been received by their office on 08.04.2013. The Tahsildar, Vilavancode has been directed to conduct inspection in the quarry lease which are granted in S.F.No.471/2 and 473 of Kaliyal Village, Vilavancode Taluk and accordingly the Tahsildar, Vilavancode has inspected the lease hold area and his report has been received by their office on 08.04.2013. Based on the inspection report, action had been taken to issue show cause notice to the petitioner calling for his explanation for the violation done by him. In this case, as per the report, unauthorized quarrying is stated to be carried out by the petitioner and also from the area of unauthorized demarcation by the Firka Surveyor. In order to deviate the main issue, the petitioner has misinterpreted the date of inspection and date on which report was received. 13. The respondent further submits that in respect of paragraph 5 of the affidavit, the petitioner submits that the proceedings order dated 14.06.2013 mentioned by the petitioner is a different issue. The petitioner has requested to grant extension of lease period for further period of 2 years vide his letter dated 07.03.2013. Since there is no rule provision for any extension of quarry lease period after the expiry of the original lease period, the petitioner's request was rejected vide the District Collector's proceedings R.C.No.245/G&M/2013, dated 14.06.2013 by providing an appeal provision as per Rule 36(c)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959. But the petitioner without exhausting the appeal provision, directly approached and filed a writ petition in W.P.No.9847 of 2013, with a prayer to quash the District Collector's proceedings R.C.No.245/G&M/2013, dated 14.06.2013 and requested for issue of direction to the respondent to permit the petitioner to quarry for the balance period of two years from 17.06.2013. The respondent further submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai on 30.08.2013. Against the above order, the petitioner has filed W.A.(MD)No.1017 of 2013. The writ appeal filed by the petitioner was also disposed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, on 23.10.2013 with a direction to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Geology and Mining as prayed for by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Chennai on 08.11.2013. 14. With regard to the averments made in paragraph 6 of the affidavit, the respondent submits that as per Rule 36-A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned are the competent authorities to take penal action against any unauthorized quarrying of rough stone reported within their respective jurisdiction. In this case, the Tahsildar, Vilavancode has reported that the petitioner has indulged in unauthorized quarrying of rough stone in the non lease hold area and based on the Tahsildar's report, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram has been requested to take action against the petitioner as per Rule 36-A(1) and (3) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 vide letter R.C.No.245/G&M/2013, dated 17.04.2013. Accordingly, after observing all the procedures, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram has levied penalty to the petitioner for violation of conditions and Rules. Against the penalty order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the District Collector on 21.10.2013 and it is pending before the District Collector and it is for the District Collector to dispose the appeal as per law and on the merits of the case. With regard to the averments made in paragraph 7 of the affidavit, the respondent submits that as per Rule 36-C(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, an appeal may be filed against the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, concerned before the District Collector within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. Accordingly, in this case, the petitioner has filed the appeal against the Revenue Divisional Proceedings R.C. K.Dis/A1/3035/2013, dated 30.09.2013 before the District Collector. The contention put-forth by the petitioner in that paragraph stating that, the very same officer, who has directed the third respondent to impose penalty cannot hear the appeal. This statement of the writ petitioner is not correct and is unsustainable. Whenever, any report has been received from the subordinate officers, it is bounden duty of the District Collector concerned to forward the report of the subordinate officers to the competent authorities to take appropriate action as per the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and accordingly, in this case also a report has been sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer to take action as per the Tahsildar, Vilavancode report. Based on that, the Revenue Divisional Officer Padmanabhapuram after conducting detailed enquiry and field inspection has levied penalty to the petitioner as per the Rules. The appeal petition filed by the petitioner has been scrutinized correctly as per the existing Act and rules in force. As soon as the appeal petition has been received from the petitioner on 21.10.2013, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram has been requested to furnish the remarks on the appeal petition vide Letter R.C.No.564/G&M/2013, dated 13.11.2013 itself and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuarm has sent remarks with incomplete details vide his letter R.C.No.A1/9153/2013, dated 18.12.2013. In that office letter R.C.No.564/G&M/2013, dated 25.01.2014, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram has been requested to send further remarks for each ground of the appeal petition with connected files. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram has furnished his remarks vide his letter R.C.No.A1/9153/2013, dated 25.03.2014 and the same has been received on 01.04.2014 and it is under scrutiny. There is no intention for keeping the appeal petition pending as stated by the petitioner and action has been taken promptly on the appeal petition filed by the petitioner. Since there was no stay further action on the order passed was initiated. 15. With regard to the averments made in paragraph 8 of the affidavit, the respondent submits that the contention put-forth by the petitioner in that paragraph is not correct. The petitioner's allegation that the very same officer, who himself has directed to impose the penalty is not correct one. It is the bounden duty of the District Collector, whenever any report is received from his subordinate officers about the unauthorized quarrying of minerals, to forward the report to the competent authorities for necessary action as per Rules 36-A(1) and (3) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and in accordance with that, the Revenue Divisional Officer has been requested to take action as per the Rules. Whenever any person is aggrieved with any order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, an appeal may be preferred before the District Collector within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order as per Rule 36-C (1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. When such is the case, the petitioner has prayed to transfer the appeal petition to the first respondent when there is no such rule provision. When such is the case, the petitioner has prayed to transfer the appeal petition to the first respondent when there is no such rule provision. The petitioner has chosen to file a petition to transfer the appeal petition to the first respondent and the reasons therefor is not apparent when there is no such rule provision in the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 to transfer the appeal petition filed to see another authority for such filing of petition directly to the Government, making unsustainable grounds and allegations. The respondent submits that the appeal petition filed by the petitioner will be taken up for personal hearing by the District Collector at the earliest as provided in the Rules and orders passed as per law and on the merits of the case. As per the Rule 36-C(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 any order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, concerned are appealable before the District Collector within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. Likewise, as per Rule 36-C(2) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 any order passed by the District Collector concerned are appealable before the Government within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. 16. The respondent further submits that in this case, the petitioner has filed appeal against the Revenue Divisional Officer's order dated 30.09.2013 before the District Collector and it is under scrutiny. When such being the case and when there is no rule provision in Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 to transfer the appeal petition to another authority, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, which is against the law. The District Collector is the head of the District administration and if any report is received from his subordinates about unauthorized quarrying of minerals, it is the bounden duty of the District Collector, to request the authorities concerned to take action as per law. Accordingly, the District Collector has requested the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram to take action as per the Rules vide letter R.C.No.245/G&M/2013, dated 17.04.2013. As head of mineral administration in the District, the District Collector has rightly given the instructions for taking appropriate action in accordance with law which cannot be faulted. Hence, the action of the District Collector is correct. 17. As head of mineral administration in the District, the District Collector has rightly given the instructions for taking appropriate action in accordance with law which cannot be faulted. Hence, the action of the District Collector is correct. 17. The respondent further submits that the contentions made by the petitioner are not correct. The petitioner himself filed an appeal before the District Collector, as per Rule provision and the request of the petitioner cannot be considered since there is no such rule provision in the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 for any transfer of appeal petition from any authority to another authority. Hence, respondents have prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 18. The highly competent counsel Mr.S.Conscious Elango, appearing for the petitioner submits that the second respondent, viz., the District Collector, in his proceedings in Roc.No.67/G&M/2008, dated 11.06.2010, has granted the mining lease in respect of patta lands in S.F.Nos.471/2, 473 for an initial period of three years with the right to extend the same for a further period of two years, subject to the availability of the minerals. When the initial period of three years was about to expire on 18.06.2013, the writ petitioner made an application on 07.03.2013 to the District Collector, seeking to extend the lease for the further period of two years. In the meanwhile, the third respondent herein / Revenue Divisional Officer, by his proceedings dated 20.05.2013, issued a show cause notice seeking explanation as to why the penalty and seigniorage charges should not be imposed for the illegal mining carried on by the petitioner. Ultimately, the third respondent has made an order in Mu.Mu.A1/3035/2013, dated 30.09.2013 imposing a penalty of Rs.15,53,24,000/-. Against the said order of penalty, the petitioner preferred the statutory appeal dated 21.10.2013 before the second respondent and the same is now pending before him. 19. The very competent counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that when the appeal is pending before the second respondent, the fourth respondent / Tahsildar, through his proceedings dated 10.02.2014 issued a distrained order under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, informing that if the amount due is not paid, the distrained properties will be forthwith brought to public sale. It is further submitted that the second respondent's subordinates i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the third respondent herein had passed an order directing the petitioner to pay a penalty of Rs.15,53,24,000/-. It is further submitted that the second respondent's subordinates i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the third respondent herein had passed an order directing the petitioner to pay a penalty of Rs.15,53,24,000/-. Following the said order, the fourth respondent / Tahsildar had issued a revenue recovery order to pay the said amount. Actually, the third and fourth respondents have been directed by the second respondent to pass order for imposing penalty and also recovery the same. Under the circumstances, if the second respondent decides the said statutory appeal filed by the petitioner, it will be prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to transfer the said appeal from the second respondent's file, to the first respondent authority or any other competent authority subordinate to the first respondent herein. If the said appeal is decided by the first respondent, or any other competent authority, the decision will not be prejudicial to the interests of the respondents 2, 3 and 4 viz., the District Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar respectively. The highly competent counsel Mr.S.Conscious Elango vehemently argued that the writ petitioner never carried any illegal mining in the said property during his three year lease period. Besides, there was no complaints from any public. Further, the petitioner had operated the quarrying in the leased area only. Actually, the petitioner made an application on 07.03.2013 and has sought renewal for a further period of two years from the second respondent. Hence, the second respondent has become prejudiced and directed his subordinate i.e., the third respondent herein to take action against the petitioner. As per direction, the third respondent acted on it to the satisfaction of the second respondent. The third respondent had passed an order without considering the factual position of the case. However, the petitioner's counsel had appeared before the third respondent at the time of enquiry and sought time to submit his report along with the petitioner. But in spite of this, the third respondent had passed the said impugned order, which is not found to be fit for execution against the writ petitioner, since it was a one sided order. Further, in order to prove the illegal mining which was carried out by the petitioner, as alleged by the third respondent, no witnesses had been listed and no documentary evidence had been let in. Further, in order to prove the illegal mining which was carried out by the petitioner, as alleged by the third respondent, no witnesses had been listed and no documentary evidence had been let in. The issue regarding illegal mining was not discussed at the time of enquiry. Further, spot enquiry was not conducted in the presence of the petitioner. From the impugned order passed by the third respondent, it has been alleged that the petitioner had carried out quarrying operations on an unauthorized site of land, measuring a length of 103 meters, breadth of 160 meters, and depth of 15 meters and extracted 82,400 units of rough stones without any permission. This finding has not been supported by any documentary proof and the concocted document has been prepared by the third respondent by using his extraordinary imaginative power, which is unsustainable in law. 20. The very competent counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the calculation given by the third respondent in arriving at the figure of a sum of Rs.15,53,24,000/-is an arbitrary one. Further, the third respondent's impugned order reveals that he and his subordinates had conducted spot inspection on 23.08.2013 and the respondent had come to a conclusion that the writ petitioner had quarried 82,400 units of stones from S.F.No.472/2, which is an unleased land. Supporting this findings, no independent witness had been examined or any documentary proof had been produced and no statements had also been got from the petitioner. As such, the impugned order had been passed only on the basis of second respondent's direction, in his proceeding Na.Ka.No.245/G&M/2013, dated 17.04.2013. The proceedings of the second respondent reveals that the petitioner had illegally quarried the mines in S.F.No.472/2 to an extent of 82,400 units of stones. On the basis of the pre-determined order of the second respondent dated 17.04.2013, the third respondent passed the impugned order on 30.09.2013. As such, the entire order passed by the third respondent is based on the instruction of the second respondent, wherein the statutory appeal is pending. If the second respondent is allowed to decide the statutory appeal, it would be prejudicial to the interest of the writ petitioner. All the four respondents are attached to the State Government and operated their executive power without following proper procedure. 21. If the second respondent is allowed to decide the statutory appeal, it would be prejudicial to the interest of the writ petitioner. All the four respondents are attached to the State Government and operated their executive power without following proper procedure. 21. The very competent counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the second respondent's proceedings reveals that the fourth respondent, viz., Thaluk Thasildar, Vilavancode, had conducted spot inspection and found that the petitioner had taken out 82,400 units of stones from the unauthorized land i.e., S.F.No.472/2. This findings given by the fourth respondent is an arbitrary one and baseless. Following this irregular proceedings of the fourth respondent, the impugned order has been passed and hence, it is not fit for execution against the petitioner. Therefore, the second respondent who is the sole authority has been instrumental in passing of the second order and as such, it is not appropriate. Further, the crucial point to be considered is whether the second respondent had directed the fourth respondent to conduct an inspection to ascertain as to whether the petitioner had quarried outside the leasehold area? The inspection report of the fourth respondent had been signed on 05.04.2013 and conveniently it was anti-dated as 22.01.2013 to show as if the inspection was done prior to the date of application for extension of lease. The learned counsel further submits that the fourth respondent had not conducted any spot inspection. along with his associates, but the fourth respondent had created a document showing that he had duly conducted spot enquiry in order to satisfy the second respondent herein. Further, the date of inspection had neither been mentioned in the inspection report of the fourth respondent nor in the orders of the second and third respondents. The inspection report prepared by the Tahsildar along with his associates is only an imaginary one and as such, based on the irregularities committed by the Tahsildar, the entire proceedings are vitiated. Further, the Firka Surveyor does not have authority to conduct spot inspection as per the judgment reported in J.Joshuvav. Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli (2011) 5 MLJ 253 . 22. Further, the Firka Surveyor does not have authority to conduct spot inspection as per the judgment reported in J.Joshuvav. Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli (2011) 5 MLJ 253 . 22. The very competent counsel appearing for the petitioner has cited the following judgments in support of his contentions:- E. PADMANABHAN, J, as he then was, in K Subba Reddy vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others (W.P.Nos.8207 of 1997 etc., batch, order dated 27.07.1999), under similar circumstance when a show cause notice was issued with great details about various violations, while setting aside the show cause notice, has given permission to the respondents to proceed fresh by issuing proper notices after conducting inspection in the presence of the petitioners concerned. The operative portion of the order is as under:- "In the circumstances, the impugned show cause notices issued by the respondent in all the writ petitions are quashed. The writ petitions are allowed. However, it is made clear that it is open to the respondents to proceed afresh by issuing proper notices, communicating copy of the reports and copy of various reports as well as inspection report of Inspecting Authority and calling upon the petitioners to state their objections, besides conducting inspection and collecting materials or taking measurements in the presence of the writ petitioners or their representatives." P. SATHASIVAM, J,as His Lordship then was, in Karunakaran Vs. District Collector, Sivagangai District (W.P.No.32829 of 2002, order dated 10.09.2003), while considering about the cancellation of lease by the District Collector without furnishing the copy of any report and collecting materials behind the back of the petitioner, has interfered with such impugned order by remanding the matter to authority, with the following direction:- "In as much as the petitioner was not given notice for the inspection made on 24.07.2002 by the Assistant Director (Geology and Mining), that too after the completion of the personal enquiry on 22.07.2002 and also of the fact that a copy of the said report was not furnished to the petitioner, in the light of the decisions referred to above, I hold that the materials that have been collected behind the back of the petitioner cannot be used against the petitioner which vitiates the ultimate decision taken by the first respondent, on this ground, the impugned order of the District Collector dated 01.08.2002 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the respondent for a fresh disposal." Relying upon the above judgments, P.JYOTHIMANI, J., as he then was, in J.JoshuvaV. Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli (2011) 5 MLJ 253 , while setting aside a show cause notice for various violations, has held that the inspection report that was not made after giving notice to the petitioner and not in the presence of the petitioner, cannot at all be put against the petitioner. 23. The very competent Additional Advocate General, Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian submits that all the four respondents are competent authorized persons to initiate legal action against the writ petitioner, who had illegally quarried stones from unauthorized site in S.F.No.472/2, measuring an extent of 103 meters in length, 160 meters breadth and 15 meters in height and removed stones measuring a quantity of 82,400 units. Due to this, the third respondent had assessed the penalty as Rs.3,29,60,000/- towards cost of stones taking unit rate of stone as Rs.400/-. The seigniorage fees is Rs.1,11,24,000/- and is calculated taking rate of unit as Rs.135/-per unit. Besides after taking the penalty as 10 times the seigniorage fee amount, the amount comes to Rs.11,12,40,000/-. In total, a sum of Rs.15,53,24,000/-has been imposed as penalty on the writ petitioner. This order has been passed after comprehensive enquiry conducted by the respondents. The seigniorage fees is Rs.1,11,24,000/- and is calculated taking rate of unit as Rs.135/-per unit. Besides after taking the penalty as 10 times the seigniorage fee amount, the amount comes to Rs.11,12,40,000/-. In total, a sum of Rs.15,53,24,000/-has been imposed as penalty on the writ petitioner. This order has been passed after comprehensive enquiry conducted by the respondents. The second respondent had well considered the fourth respondent's proceedings and the petitioner's appeal and also considered the proceedings of the District Collector, Nagercoil and then directed to conduct spot enquiry. Accordingly, the third respondent had duly conducted enquiry and assessed the said penalty. The Firka Surveyor attached to the Revenue Department had identified the survey land, wherein the petitioner had quarried on an unleased land. After physical verification, the measurement had been taken and the penalty was calculated. Therefore, the third respondent had passed the impugned order and imposed a penalty of a sum of Rs.15,53,24,000/- for quarrying of stones in unleased land as per 36-A(1) and (3) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The fourth respondent is the competent authority to recover the said penalty amount from the writ petitioner under Revenue Recovery Act. The second, third and fourth respondents have strictly followed the procedure and passed the impugned order which is appropriate and fit for execution against the writ petitioner. The second respondent had leased out the quarry for S.F.Nos.471/2 and 473 in Vilavankadu Village, but the petitioner had carried out illegal quarrying of S.F.No.472, to an extent of 82,400 units of stones and this was found out by a team headed by the fourth respondent after conducting spot inspection. As per Rule 36(c)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, the writ petitioner has to file a statutory appeal before the second respondent, if he is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the third respondent, within a period of 30 days. Accordingly, the writ petitioner has filed a Department appeal before the second respondent as he is the authorized, topmost officer to decide the said statutory appeal. Therefore, the said appeal cannot be transferred to any other file from the second respondent's quasi judicial forum. The petitioner's allegations against the second respondent is baseless. In order to prove the illegal quarrying of stones done by the petitioner, the fourth respondent and his associates had also taken measurement of units of stones quarried. 24. Therefore, the said appeal cannot be transferred to any other file from the second respondent's quasi judicial forum. The petitioner's allegations against the second respondent is baseless. In order to prove the illegal quarrying of stones done by the petitioner, the fourth respondent and his associates had also taken measurement of units of stones quarried. 24. The highly competent Additional Advocate General further submits that the petitioner has prayed to transfer the statutory appeal from the file of the second respondent to the first respondent or to transfer it to any other competent officer, but there is no provision to transfer the same. The first respondent is the second appellate authority. Therefore, the second respondent's appeal provision power cannot be seized. The third and fourth respondents have passed the said impugned order after strictly adhering to all legal formalities. Therefore, the impugned order is fit to be operated upon against the petitioner. The very competent Additional Advocate General, Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian further submits that the respondents have not committed any irregularities or illegalities for recovering the said penalty amount, which had been imposed on the petitioner. The third respondent had carefully scrutinized the assessment of penalty and had directed the petitioner to pay the same. 25. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the third respondent, this Court is of the view that the fourth respondent had not conducted spot enquiry in the presence of the petitioner and independent witnesses and had not collected any statements from them. Further, there is no material evidence to show that the petitioner herein has carried out illegal quarrying operation at S.F.No.472/2. As such, a fair spot enquiry is absolutely necessary before imposing penalty on the writ petitioner. However, the petitioner has sought for a direction to transfer the statutory appeal from the file of second respondent to the file of the first respondent or any other competent officer. In the instant case, there is no specific provision for granting the same. Hence, considering the factual position of the case, this Court is inclined to grant an alternative remedy to the petitioner. In the instant case, there is no specific provision for granting the same. Hence, considering the factual position of the case, this Court is inclined to grant an alternative remedy to the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 30.09.2013 is set-aside and liberty is given to the respondents to conduct fresh spot inspection in the presence of the petitioner regarding illegal mining alleged to have been carried out by the petitioner, after giving prior notice to the writ petitioner. This Court is of the further view that the first stage of enquiry i.e., the spot enquiry is absolutely necessary to determine the alleged illegal quarry operation and subsequent loss of revenue to the State. Further, the third respondent's assessment of a sum of Rs.15,53,24,000/-had been calculated by himself, without giving an opportunity to the writ petitioner to explain his stance. For passing final order i.e., order of penalty imposed on the writ petitioner, a preliminary enquiry is necessary for calculating the said penalty. However, in the instant case, this has not been done. Hence, the above writ petition is ordered with the said observations. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.