Madras High CourtWP(MD)/506/2018dismissed

Roja Mahalir Mandram v. The Secretary,

2018-01-10Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.01.2018 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN WP (MD) No.506 of 2018 in WMP (MD).Nos.503 to 505 of 2018 Roja Mahalir Mandram, (Registration No.81 of 2015) rep.by its President R.Nachammal, W/o.Rajendran, Ambalakaranpatti, Vanjinagaram Village, Karungalakudi Post, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Secretary, Industries (MMC-2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner/Director of Geology & Mines Dept., Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

3.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

4.The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Madurai.

5.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.

6.The Tahsildar, Melur Taluk Office, Madurai District.

... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned notification issued by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.1678/2017Mines dated 21.12.2017 in so far as the auctioning of stone quarry mentioned in Serial No.36 at Page No.24 of the said notification dated 21.12.2017 situated in Survey No.399/2A(P-1)situated in

Vanjinagaram Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District as illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalendhi Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar Additional Government Pleader.

ORDER

The petitioner, being a Women Self Help Group, claims some priority under Rule 8 (10)(A) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, filed this writ petition, challenging the auction notification issued by the District Collector, Madurai, the third respondent herein for leasing out various stone quarries in Madurai District.

2.Heard Mr.M.Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. By consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 3.When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner's application has already been rejected by the District Collector. Challenging the same, an appeal has been filed before the second respondent and the same has also been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, second appeal is pending before the first respondent. Moreover, in the auction notification, the right of the petitioner has been protected stating that any auction conducted is subject to the result of the appeal pending before the first respondent. Therefore, the notification issued passed by the third respondent does not require any interference.

4.In view of the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner's right has already been protected in the auction notification, auction cannot be stalled at this stage. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, WMP(MD)Nos.503 to 505 of 2018 are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-I) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar

To 1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Industries (MMC-2) Department, Secretariate, Chennai - 600 009.