Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 4085 (MAD)

M. Duraiswamy v. Collector, Thiruvallur District

2018-11-02

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ Petition has been filed, to direct the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to take gravel sand for the remaining lorry load, as per the order of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.35/2007/kanimam-1 dated 31/05/2007. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was granted to take gravel sand in Survey No.41/9, Panjalai Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.35/2007/Kanimam-1 dated 31.05.2007 and thereby, he was allowed to take 3000 lorry loads between the period from 31.05.2007 to 30.06.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner, after completing all the terms and conditions prescribed in the proceedings of the 1st respondent, had started the quarry allotted to him on 31.05.2007. 3. The petitioner would contend that during the said quarry period, there was an allegation made against him that he had taken nearly about 30 loads in the adjacent land in the same Survey No.41/9. Since the petitioner had invested huge amount for the said quarry, he had accepted to pay the required amount for the loads alleged to have been taken by mistake, despite the same, the 2nd respondent, without even sending any notice to the petitioner, had stopped the quarry work allotted to him and due to which, the petitioner could not take the remaining lorry loads of 2383 Nos, from the said land. 4. The petitioner would further contend that on 20.06.2007, he had submitted a petition to the 1st respondent herein, requesting to allow him to continue the quarry and he is ready to pay the amount for the loads which was taken from the adjacent land, but, no action was taken by the 1st respondent, hence, the petitioner had sent a reminder on 03.01.2008, to allow him to continue quarry and which was also not replied by the 1st respondent. Since rainy seasons were started then, the petitioner was not able to carry out quarry in the riverbed and under these circumstances, with no other alternative, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to direct the 1st respondent for permitting him to take gravel sand for the remaining lorry loads, as per the order in Na.Ka.No.35/2007/kanimam-1 dated 31.05.2007. 5. Since rainy seasons were started then, the petitioner was not able to carry out quarry in the riverbed and under these circumstances, with no other alternative, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to direct the 1st respondent for permitting him to take gravel sand for the remaining lorry loads, as per the order in Na.Ka.No.35/2007/kanimam-1 dated 31.05.2007. 5. A counter has been filed by the respondents, wherein, it could be seen that the petitioner herein, namely, M.Duraiswamy, S/o.C.Munusamy, was residing at Keemanur Village of Gummidipoondi taluk and he was granted permission to take 3000 lorry loads of gravel from S.No.41/9 Minor irrigation tank of Panchalai Village, Gummidipoondi taluk, as marked in the sketch by the Block Development Officer, Gummidipoondi, under Rule 12 of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, on payment of necessary seigniorage fee for a period of one month from 31.05.2007 to 30.06.2007 in Thiruvallur District Collector's Proc.Rc.No.35/2007/G&M-1, dated 31.05.2007. While that being so, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, based on the report of the Tahsildar, Gummidipoondi, had reported by her letter in Rc.No.926/2007C2 dated 19.06.2007, that the petitioner herein had committed violations in the area permitted as well as illicitly quarried mineral in the area not permitted to him. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer was requested to initiate action against the petitioner, by letter in Rc.No.35/2007/G&M-1, dated 05.07.2007, and the Revenue Divisional Officer, after finalising the issue, by proceedings in Rc.No.926/2007/C2 dated 20.05.2008, had levied a penalty of Rs.8,06,000/- on the petitioner as per Rule 36(A) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, for the violations committed and as well as for the illicit quarrying indulged by him. 6. It could be further seen from the respondent counter that the petitioner, instead of preferring an appeal before the District Collector, against the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer in Rc.No.926/2007/C2 dated 20.05.2008, had filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.17971/2008, in which, this Court had issued orders on 28.07.2008, directing the District Collector, Thiruvallur, to consider the appeal, if any filed by the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. It was also contended that even though, the petitioner had received the order of this Court on 01.08.2008, no appeal had been preferred by him. 7. It was also contended that even though, the petitioner had received the order of this Court on 01.08.2008, no appeal had been preferred by him. 7. Furthermore, it could be seen from the respondent counter that the petitioner, after complying with the proceedings of the District Collector, 1500 despatch slips for the period from 01.06.2007 to 15.06.2007 were issued by the 2nd respondent herein, namely, the Assistant Director (Mines), Thiruvallur. Though the petitioner had stated that the petitioner started to quarry the mineral in the area allotted to him, based on the report of the Tahsildar, Gummidipoondi and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, after sudden inspection, the quarry site, had found that the petitioner had illicitly quarried 1097 lorry loads of gravel, violating the lease conditions and Mines Act, by exceeding the permitted depth, apart from taking 295 loads as per 617 slips, during the lease period itself. Subsequently, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, as per Rule 36(A) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, has issued proceedings in Na.Ka.926/2007/C2 dated 20.05.2008, by levying penalty of Rs.8,06,000/- against the petitioner for illicit quarrying of gravel. Therefore, the petitioner's contention that further despatch slips for 2383 lorry loads has to be issued to him, cannot be accepted. 8. Moreover, it could be further seen from the respondent counter that the petitioner's letter dated 20.06.2007 has not been received by the respondents, but, on perusal of the copy of the said letter, filed along with the Writ Petition, would show that the petitioner himself has admitted the illicit quarrying to an extent of 30 lorry loads of minerals in the adjoining land by his men and he is ready to pay seigniorage fee for that quantity of mineral. However, the respondent would contend that no such representation dated 20.06.2007 was received by them and no action in this regard is possible. 9. In addition to the above, it could be further seen from the respondent counter that the lease period had been granted to the petitioner only for the period from 31.05.2007 to 30.06.2007, thereby, the lease period had already expired on 30.06.2007, hence, the petitioner's contention that due to rain, he could not quarry gravel from the riverbed cannot be extended. Further, there is no provision for extension of the lease period as per Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, therefore, it is to be rejected. 10. Further, there is no provision for extension of the lease period as per Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, therefore, it is to be rejected. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the materials available on record. 11. It could be seen from the order passed by the 1st respondent that the petitioner was granted permission to take 3000 lorry loads of gravel in Survey No.41/9 within the limit of 173.4m in length, 139m in width and 1m in depth. But, the petitioner had taken lorry loads from the adjacent land more than the prescribed limit which was allotted to him, hence, the 2nd respondent had stopped the quarry work from 14.06.2007. 12. The petitioner, in his letter dated 03.01.2008 to the 1st respondent, had admitted that when he was away for his sister's wedding, the workers had wrongly quarried in the place other than the place alloted to him, hence, he further sought for permission from the 1st respondent to continue his quarry work for the remaining lorry loads. 13. It could be seen from the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer in Rc.No.926/2007/C2 dated 20.05.2008, that the petitioner had taken 775 lorry loads of gravel from the place which was not allotted to him, later, when enquired about the same, he had not given sufficient reason, hence, as per Rule 36(A) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, he was levied a penalty of Rs.8,06,000/- (Licence fee - 1,31,750/-, Fine - 1,31,750/- and Value of Gravel Sand - 5,42,500/-) to be paid within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Further, it could be seen that if the petitioner is aggrieved for the said order, he can file an appeal within 30 days before the Collector of Thiruvallur. 14. The petitioner's contention that when the Collector order for permitting the petitioner to quarry the gravel sand for 3000 lorries, was in force for the lease period 31.05.2007 to 30.06.2007, the 2nd respondent, by his order dated 14.06.2007, had arbitrarily stopped the quarry work, which is in violation of Principles of Natural Justice, is denied and from the records, it is found that it is the petitioner, who has illegally quarried the gravel sand. 15. 15. The petitioner's contention that out of 3000 loads, only 617 loads of gravel sand were taken from the said land, hence, he has to be permitted to continue the quarry for taking the remaining loads of gravel sand, cannot be accepted and the claim dated 03.01.2008 has to be rejected in view of the above illicit quarrying. 16. The petitioner's representation to quarry further, also cannot be granted, as the lease period has been already expired on 30.06.2007 and there is no provision to extend the lease, as per the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. 17. The reasons stated by the petitioner for quarrying on another adjacent area is not convincing and such kind of person's act of exploiting mother nature cannot be accepted and is condemned. 18. The petitioner has also given an undertaking before the Revenue Inspector during the enquiry that he will not indulge in an activity which is illegal and would not quarry in other places other than the permitted area. He would also abide by the existing Minerals Laws and he will abide by any action against him, if he contravenes any of the condition imposed. 19. As per the condition in agreement the Block Development officials shall have the right to refuse permission to remove the savudu without assigning any reason. Therefore, in the interests of safe guarding the land. The Gravel shall be removed for a depth of 1.00m uniformly to avoid dead storage. But, the petitioner has removed more than the prescribed limit, hence, in order to safe guard the land, the respondents had called for explanation and the petitioner has given his explanation and had admitted the said illegal Act. 20. Hence, under the above facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to issue an order permitting the petitioner to quarry further. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.