Madras High CourtWP/7783/2017dismissed as infructuous

M.Rasappan v. The Secretary To

2017-04-07Honourable Mr Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:07.04.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.No.7783 of 2017 and W.M.P.Nos.8525 and 8526 of 2017 M.Rasappan ... Petitioner vs.

1. The Secretary to government of Tamil Nadu, Industries (MMC.1) Department Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The District Collector, Dharmapuri District

3. The District Revenue officer, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.

4. The Tahsildar, Nallampalli taluk, Dharmapuri District.

5. The Joint Director, Geology and Mines, Dharmapuri , Dharmapuri district.

6. The Zonal Engineer, Environment & Pollution Control (Board) Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.

... Respondents.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent's impugned tender notification published in Dharmapuri District Gazette dated 06.03.2017 and quash the same, consequently direct the 1st respondent to implement the direction given by the Honourable Supreme court dated 27.02.2012 which is reported in 2012(4) SCC 629 by incorporating the minimum size of mine lease area viz., not less than 5 Hec. in the Tamilnadu Minor Minerals

Concession Rules 1959.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Elango For Respondents : Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali, Government Advocate for R1 to R5

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed challenging the tender-cumauction notification dated 06.03.2017.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5, based on instruction, submitted that there were no bidders on the date of auction namely, 23.03.2017, and consequently, the present impugned tender notification got lapsed. Therefore, he submitted that only a fresh notification has to be issued inviting tenders which is yet to be issued by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, he submitted that the present writ petition has become infructuous.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent has not followed the directions issued by the Honourable Supreme Court while issuing the impugned tender notification.

4. Considering the fact that the impugned notification got lapsed and does not survive any more and that the 2nd respondent is going to issue a fresh notification, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, however, by granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the fresh tender notification, if any issued, if the petitioner has legally sustainable grounds to challenge such notification. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vsi