Madras High CourtWP/32616/2019disposed of

S.Ramkumar v. The District Collector,

2020-09-14Honourable Mr Justice M.M.Sundresh,Honourable Mrs Justice R. Hemalatha3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 14.09.2020

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH and THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA W.P.No. 32616 of 2019 and W.M.P.No. 33005 of 2019 S.Ramkumar

...Petitioner

.Vs.

1. The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

2. The District Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

4. The Asst.Director, Mines & Minerals/Geology Dept, Cuddalore.

5. The Asst.Engineer, Water Resources Dept, Panruti - 607 106 Cuddalore District.

6. The Tahsildar, Panruti Taluk, Panruti - 607 106, Cuddalore District.

7. B.Thirunavukarasu ... Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 6 to take necessary action against the 7th respondent on the basis of the representation dated 28.10.2019 of the petitioner herein.

For Petitioner ..

Mr.C.S.Dhanasekaran For Respondents ..

Mr.R.Vijayakumar, Addl. Government Pleader for R1 to R6

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.) The petitioner herein has come forward to file this writ petition based upon the allegation that indiscriminate quarrying operation is taking place illegally by the seventh respondent with the connivance of the other respondents. 2.In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it has been stated in paragraph 3 that permission has been given to remove 3000 cbm of savudu from patta land. In paragraph 9, it has been further stated that on perusal of the records of Assistant Director, Geology and Mining, that six trip sheets for a total quantity of 3000 cbm savudu has been issued to the lessee.

3.If that is the case, the seventh respondent has removed all the permitted quantity. It has been reported that as of now, there is no quarrying operation that takes place. Thus, the seventh respondent has already removed the permitted extent. 4.In such view of the matter, the seventh respondent shall not indulge in any more quarrying operation as the permitted extent has already been removed by him.

5.With the above said observation, the writ petition stands disposed of making it clear that there shall not be any more quarrying operation. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

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