Madras High CourtWP/48846/2025disposed of

Kathavarayan v. The District Collector

2025-12-18Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND WMP NO. 54546 OF 2025

1. Kathavarayan 2.Peeranisha Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The District Collector Villupuram District 2.The Sub Collector Tindivanam 3.The Assistant Director Department Of Mines And Geology, Villupuram District 4.The Tahsildar Tindivanam, 5.The Director Of Geology And Mining Guindy, Chennai 6.Sivakumar 7.Ganeshkumar Respondent(s) PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 3rd respondent not to grant permission for

quarrying operation in favour of the respondents 6 and 7 property in Survey No.102/1B2 measuring an extent of 3 Acres 22 cents and in Survey No.103/7 measuring extent of 2 Acres 14 cents in Naduvananthal Village, Tindivanam, Villupuram District, considering petitioner's objection dated 15.09.2025. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.P.Pandiyaraj For Respondent:

Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R4

ORDER

The petitioner seeks a direction to the 3rd respondent not to grant permission for quarrying operation in favour of the respondents 6 and 7 property in Survey No.102/1B2 measuring an extent of 3 Acres 22 cents and in Survey No.103/7 measuring extent of 2 Acres 14 cents in Naduvananthal Village, Tindivanam, Villupuram District, considering petitioner's objection dated 15.09.2025.

2.It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are farmers of Naduvananthal Village, Tindivanam Taluk, and they are in possession of agricultural lands. While so, the respondents 6 and 7 applied for quarrying licence before the official respondents. The petitioners, being the farmers of the Village, made an objection in this regard. It is the contention of the petitioners that a resolution has also been passed in the Grama Sabha Meeting on

15.08.2025 stating that quarrying operation cannot be granted in the said place for the welfare of the village people and the same was sent to the respondents 1 to 3. But, there is no reply so far. It is the grievance of the petitioners that, now, the 3rd respondent, without considering the objections of the petitioners, is taking hasty steps to grant permission for quarrying operation to the respondents 6 and 7. Therefore, the petitioners have come forward with the present writ petition.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, as per Rule 19(b) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, the 3rd respondent has to consider the objections of the petitioners before granting any quarrying licence. Hence, he seeks a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the objections of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. 4.Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents 1 to 5. Considering the nature of the relief sought for, notice to the respondents 6 and 7, is dispensed with. 5.It is relevant to note that Rule 19(b) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, clearly indicates that the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining shall dispose of the application for grant of quarrying lease for any mineral in ryotwari lands by following the procedure set out in rules 19 and 20

of the said Rules, including ascertaining of objections if any. Such being the position, let the 3rd respondent/Assistant Director of Geology and Mining take note of the objections of the petitioner before granting any quarrying licence to the respondents 6 and 7 and pass orders on its own merits and in accordance with law.

6.With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 18-12-2025 mkn Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To

N.SATHISH KUMAR J.

mkn 18-12-2025