ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed, challenging the demand of the cost of mineral for the alleged excess removal of 12677 units being Rs.25,35,400/-and seigniorage fee of Rs.9,50,775/-and Rs.25,000/-, as penalty by the Respondents. 2. The case of the Petitioner is as follows:- a. The Petitioner was granted permission to remove soil in Chinnasamy Naicker Tank (Kanmai) to an extent of 10.00.00 hectares in Kulaiyankarisal Village, Tuticorin, by proceedings, dated 8.6.2009 of the 2nd Respondent for a period of 11 months from 8.6.2009 to 7.5.2010 under Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Subsequently, by proceedings dated 18.1.2011, the 2nd Respondent granted permission to remove saral/soil from the above said tank for a period of 11 months from 18.1.2011 to 17.12.2011. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 25.1.2012, the Petitioner was granted permission to remove 5000 units of saral/soil from the land to an extent of 10.00.0 hectares in the above said tank for a period of 11 months from 25.1.2012 to 24.12.2012. While so, based on a petition of a third party to the 2nd Respondent, alleging excess removal of silt and soil from the tank by the Petitioner, an inspection was conducted on 24.8.2012 by the 1st Respondent Department, who sent a report dated 30.8.2012, to the 3rd Respondent, stating that on inspection, it was found that 12677 units over and above the permitted units of soil was removed by the Petitioner, without permission. But, the Petitioner removed only 4197 units of soil out of 5000 units of soil permitted and the balance of 803 units of soil is yet to be removed. b. Thereafter, the 3rd Respondent issued a show cause notice dated 10.09.2012 as to why the cost of mineral for the alleged excess removal of 12677 units being Rs.25,35,400/-and seigniorage fee of Rs.9,50,775/-and Rs.25,000/-as penalty shall not be levied against the Petitioner, to which the Petitioner sent a reply dated 24.9.2012. The report dated 29.8.2012 and 30.08.2012 of the Public Works Department were not taken into consideration at all. By order dated 15.10.2012, the 3rd Respondent levied penalty as proposed in the notice dated 10.9.2012. No enquiry was conducted and nobody was examined by the 3rd Respondent, before levying penalty. The Petitioner submitted a petition dated 3.11.2012 to the 3rd Respondent to reconsider the issue, which was forwarded to the 1st Respondent Department. By order dated 15.10.2012, the 3rd Respondent levied penalty as proposed in the notice dated 10.9.2012. No enquiry was conducted and nobody was examined by the 3rd Respondent, before levying penalty. The Petitioner submitted a petition dated 3.11.2012 to the 3rd Respondent to reconsider the issue, which was forwarded to the 1st Respondent Department. The Petitioner appeared for enquiry on 4.1.2013 and submitted his explanation, however, the 2nd Respondent by order dated 12.03.2013 confirmed the order of the 3rd Respondent, levying penalty. As against the same, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st Respondent, who by the impugned proceedings dated 25.6.2015, confirmed the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 12.3.2013. Hence, this Writ Petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has assailed the impugned orders, contending that the removal of soil by the Petitioner is only within the depth of 3 feet that too in the permitted area and that the relied upon materials were not furnished to him and hence, the order passed based on those documents is unsustainable and without conducting any enquiry, the penalty has been imposed and hence, the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that it was found in the enquiry that other persons removed soil from the said lands and the assumption that the Petitioner supported the illicit removal by others, by not informing the illicit mining by them is not sustainable and there is no material to show that the Petitioner removed the alleged quantum of units of soil without permit and hence, the demand of cost of the mineral, seigniorage fee and penalty is illegal and prayed for quashing of the impugned orders. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondent submitted that only after proper inspection and on various reports and following the due process of law, the cost of the mineral, seigniorage fee and penalty have been imposed on the Petitioner for the alleged excess of quarry without permit based on evidence, which warrants no interference and hence, prayed for dismissal of this Writ Petition. 5. This court heard and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed on record. 6. 5. This court heard and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed on record. 6. The Petitioner was initially granted quarry lease as per procedures for a period of 11 months from 8.6.2009 the 7.5.2010 and subsequently, for another period of 11 months from 18.11.2011 to 17.12.2011 and further for a period of 11 months from 25.1.2012 to 24.12.2012. After inspection and obtaining various reports, the 3rd Respondent demanded the cost of mineral, seigniorage fee and penalty for the alleged quarry over and above the permitted quantity without permit. In the revision petition and the appeal, the said demand was confirmed. 7. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that without valid documents, the impugned order has been passed and the materials relied upon by the Respondents were not furnished to him and even according to the Respondents, the alleged excess quarry was done by other persons and there was no proper enquiry and his representations were not considered properly and there was no violation of the conditions and the provisions of the Act and Rules. 8. On the other hand, it is the case of the Respondents that it was found on inspection that the Petitioner quarried in excess over and above the permitted quantity without permit and accordingly, the cost of mineral quarried in excess, seigniorage fee and penalty has been imposed after following the due process of law. 9. It is seen from the records that in the report dated 29.8.2012 of the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, it is stated as follows:- 10. In the report dated 30.8.2012 of the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, it is observed as follows:- 11. In the impugned order dated 12.03.2011 also, it is observed as follows:- “iv. ... The Appellant gave a statement that he removed gravel from the three pits (Sl.Nos.6 to 8) located in the non permitted area and the previous permit holders removed gravel from the pits in Sl.Nos.1 to 5. viii. ..... The Appellant himself gave a statement accepting the illicit quarrying in the pits 6 to 8 lying in the non permitted area. 12. From the above observations and findings, it is very clear that the Respondents are not certain about the person who quarried from the pits 1 to 5. viii. ..... The Appellant himself gave a statement accepting the illicit quarrying in the pits 6 to 8 lying in the non permitted area. 12. From the above observations and findings, it is very clear that the Respondents are not certain about the person who quarried from the pits 1 to 5. Except the statement of the complainant, there are no materials for imposing the penalty. However, there are allegations of illicit quarrying by the Petitioner in three pits 6 to 8. 13. For the preposition that when there are no materials produced to show that the Petitioner was involved in the illicit quarrying, there is violation of the principles of natural justice and the orders imposing penal liability on the Petitioner are not justified, various decisions of various Courts have been relied upon by the Petitioners, reported in (1) 2008 16 SCC 276 (Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited Vs Government of AP and others), (2) 2009 2 MLJ 577 (VSO Balakrishnan Vs. District Collector, Tiruvallur), (3) 2010 6 CTC 73 (S.Selvaarajan Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur) and (4) 2012 1 CWC 451 (K.Kottaiveeran Vs. The District Collector, Madurai and (5) Order dated 17.10.2003 in WP.2066 to 2071 of 1998. 14. This Court, by order dated 17.10.2003 in WP.2066 to 2071 of 1998, has observed that there must be some acceptable material to conclude that the Petitioners have committed theft of mineral and in the absence of such material, the orders impugned cannot be sustained. 15. In those cases relied on by the Petitioners, it was clearly proved that there was no proper enquiry or inspection and that the impugned orders have been passed, without valid documents and without serving the materials relied upon by the Respondents to the Petitioner and accordingly, the same were set aside and the matters were remanded back to the Respondents therein for fresh consideration. In the case on hand also, there are no valid material evidence to prove the illicit quarrying by the Petitioner and hence, the findings of the Respondents that the Petitioner quarried over and above the permitted units of soil, without permission are baseless and hence, the impugned order warrants interference by this court. 16. In the case on hand also, there are no valid material evidence to prove the illicit quarrying by the Petitioner and hence, the findings of the Respondents that the Petitioner quarried over and above the permitted units of soil, without permission are baseless and hence, the impugned order warrants interference by this court. 16. As already discussed above, from the categorical observations and the admissions of the Petitioner and the Respondents, as referred to above, it is clearly evident that the impugned order suffers from material irregularities and accordingly, not sustainable. But, however, as there are findings to the effect that there was illicit quarrying, a fresh assessment can be directed to be done. 17. For the above reasons and discussions and in the light of the decisions of various Courts cited supra, the impugned order is set aside for want of materials. The matter is remanded back to the Respondents for fresh consideration. The Respondents are directed to redo the assessment, after giving opportunity to the Petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 18. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.