Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2174 (MAD)

B. Karthik v. District Collector, Thiruvallur

2020-11-18

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

body2020
ORDER : Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J. 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to direct the first respondent to forthwith grant extension to the petitioner to quarry savudu/earth in Survey No. 173/1, Periyapuliur Village, Thiruvallur District for 4725 loads pursuant to petitioner's application dated 14.7.2011. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he had applied for permission to remove savudu/gravel earth from P.W.D. Tank on 14.7.2011 under Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. According to the petitioner, if savudu is removed from P.W.D. Tank, as per Executive Engineer's decision, the tank will be desilted and deepened so as to improve its storage capacity. It is his further contention' that the Government is not going to be prejudiced, since the work involves desilting and deepening of tank without any cost, but the Government will also be benefited by way of seigniorage fee for quarrying savudu earth from P.W.D. Tank. 3. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the authorities concerned inspected the area and have come to a conclusion that nobody has objected to the petitioner, quarrying and removing of Savudu from P.W.D. Tank. As everything is in conformity with Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, the authorities have recommended to the District Collector to grant permission to the petitioner for removal of savudu from P.W.D. Tank after payment of necessary charges. 4. According to the petitioner, approval of mining plan and necessary environmental and pollution clearance for quarrying, were also obtained. Petitioner was also directed to pay advance seigniorage fee, security deposit, and Area Assessment Fee, which were also paid by him, in addition to complying with the formalities, as contemplated under Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 for removal of gravel earth for their business purposes. 5. Based on the above, the petitioner was permitted to quarry 4750 loads of savudu on 16.09.2011 by the order of the 1st respondent at S. No. 173/1, Periyapuliur Village. As per the said order, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 70,875/-. It is his further contention that due to heavy rain and also since he met with a major accident, he could not do quarry operations. Hence this writ petition. 6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7. As per the said order, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 70,875/-. It is his further contention that due to heavy rain and also since he met with a major accident, he could not do quarry operations. Hence this writ petition. 6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7. Admittedly, the lease was granted only for a period of 50 days from 16.9.2011 to 4.11.2011 as per the proceedings of the first respondent in Na. Ka. No. 539/2011/Mineral-1 dated 16.09.2011 by the District Collector. Thereafter, the petitioner has slept over the matter and filed the writ petition only in the year 2019, seeking an extension to quarry savudu/earth pursuant, to his application dated 14.07.2011. 8. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had filed a counter -affidavit and stated that there was an amendment to Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and a Government Order was issued in GO. Ms. No. 233, Industries (MMC-2) Dept., dated 23.9.2015, which was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No. 201 on 23.09.2015, wherein a specific direction was issued, as follows: "(g) Permission granted under this sub-rule shall not be renewed or extended for any reason including that the person permitted could not mine or remove the mineral for whatever reason. He will not be entitled for refund of any cost or money incurred in the process. If the permitted quantity is not removed within the stipulated period, the applicant will not be entitled for removal of unutilised quantity of mineral." 9. Quoting the above provision, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that, as per the above amended rule, no extension would be granted for mining or removing the mineral, for whatsoever be the reason. Therefore, the petitioner cannot ask for extension. 10. Be that as it may, the petitioner has come to this court seeking extension after eight years and has not given any reason for the delay and laches on his part. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit, he has stated that due to heavy rain and having met with an accident, the petitioner could not quarry. The petitioner has not even furnished a piece of paper in support of the above fact that he met with a major accident and that he was immobilised for eight years. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit, he has stated that due to heavy rain and having met with an accident, the petitioner could not quarry. The petitioner has not even furnished a piece of paper in support of the above fact that he met with a major accident and that he was immobilised for eight years. In the absence of any convincing reason, the extension cannot be granted. The learned Special Government Pleader also could not state whether the GO referred above, is applicable retrospectively for those leases, which were granted prior to the amendment of the rule. 11. Even though the petitioner has come to this court seeking a mandamus for extension, he has not approached the first respondent before filing the writ petition, seeking an extension. Without making a request before the first respondent, the petitioner has straight away moved this court, which cannot be entertained. 12. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.