Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1502 (MAD)

R. Vijayakumar v. K. Raj Kumar

2024-07-04

C.KUMARAPPAN, S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2024
JUDGMENT : S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. Prayer:Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the common order dated 09.11.2020 passed in W.P.No.9668 of 2019. Prayer:Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the common order dated 09.11.2020 passed in W.P.No.73 of 2020. Prayer:Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the common order dated 09.11.2020 passed in W.P.No.23248 of 2019. Prayer:Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the common order dated 09.11.2020 passed in W.P.No.23254 of 2019. Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the common order dated 09.11.2020 passed in W.P.No.23258 of 2019. The common order passed in batch of writ petitions on 09.11.2020 is under challenge in the present writ appeals. 2. The complex factual situation arose with reference to the claim of the parties before us. One set of parties are quarrying operators and other set are the residents in that locality. The quarrying operators would submit that they have valid license to quarry. Equally, residents would submit that they have got building plan permission from the appropriate Authority and residing there. It is not in dispute between the parties that the quarrying operations are allowed within the prohibited area. Equally, the quarrying operators would submit that the residential building permission were granted within the prohibited area after granting license to quarry. Such nature of disputed facts are to be decided by the competent Authority based on documents and evidences available on record and by applying the rules and regulations applicable. High Court in exercise of powers of Judicial Review cannot adjudicate such disputed facts merely based on the averments made between the parties. 3. The learned Single Judge set aside the layout approvals and allowed the quarrying operations to go on. This created an issue amongst the parties, more specifically, the residents of that locality. We could able to find lack of co-ordination amongst the Authorities in dealing with such matters. While granting license for quarrying, the Authorities competent under the Act must ensure that the mining operations are permitted in accordance with the limits prescribed. Equally, the Authorities while sanctioning layout approval/building plan permission has to ensure that laws applicable are not violated. 4. We could able to find lack of co-ordination amongst the Authorities in dealing with such matters. While granting license for quarrying, the Authorities competent under the Act must ensure that the mining operations are permitted in accordance with the limits prescribed. Equally, the Authorities while sanctioning layout approval/building plan permission has to ensure that laws applicable are not violated. 4. Who committed violations at the first instance or such permissions are granted in an irregular or illegal manner are to be adjudicated in an effective manner by affording opportunity to the parties and by identifying Officials, who have committed such violations. The Officials, who have committed such illegality or violations are also be prosecuted in the manner known to law. 5. In view of the complex facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the relief granted to quarrying operators may not be approved by this Court. When the parties are claiming right based on the permissions/licenses/layouts granted, all such issues are to be adjudicated elaborately to form a final opinion. High Court ought not to have entertained such disputed issues between the parties. Therefore, we are inclined to interfere with the order impugned. 6. Accordingly, the common order dated 09.11.2020 in W.P.Nos.9668, 23248, 23254 & 23258 of 2019 and W.P.No.73 of 2020 is set aside. However, we are inclined to direct the District Collector, Coimbatore to adjudicate all the issues comprehensively by affording opportunity to all the parties and uninfluenced by the stand taken by the Authorities in the writ petitions or in the writ appeals and on merits and in accordance with the law. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time the District Collector pass final orders, the respective parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of their activities as on today. The District Collector may consider further renewal of quarrying operations or otherwise taking note of the factual situation0 prevailing in that locality. 7. Accordingly, all the Writ Appeals stand disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.