Nanner Iyakkam v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.01.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH and THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE and WMP(MD)Nos.6831 and 6833 of 2024 Nanner Iyakkam Represented by its Organiser K.Revathy ... Petitioner vs.

1. The District Collector,

2. The Tahsildar, Usilampatti Taluk,

3. The Deputy Director, Dept of Mines and Geology, Madurai.

4. C.Oorkalan ... Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent to quarry gravel in Page No.1 of 6

S.Nos.31/1A and 35/2 of Pappapatti Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District, vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.58/Minerals/2021, dated 26.12.2023 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take necessary action against the 4th respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jerin Mathew for Mr.S.M.Ramasiva For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Thilakkumar Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.T.Palanisamy

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.) Alleging illegal quarrying of gravel by the 4th respondent, the petitioner's Association has filed this writ petition, seeking to quash the quarry licence dated 26.12.2023 issued to the 4th respondent, by the 3rd respondent, with a consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 3, to take appropriate action against the 4th respondent, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act.

2.

It is the case of the petitioner that beyond the permitted level, the 4th respondent is quarrying gravel in the Government poramboke Page No.2 of 6

land situated adjacent to the licenced quarry site and the authorities are not monitoring the mining activities of the 4th respondent. Hence, this writ petition.

3.

Heard both sides.

4.

From the records, it is seen that though the petitioner's Association alleges illegal quarrying by the 4th respondent, they have not made any representation in this regard to the authorities concerned, to take appropriate action. Thus, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met, by granting liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the concerned respondent and by directing the concerned respondent to consider the said representation, in accordance with law within a time frame.

5.

Accordingly, the petitioner's Association is granted liberty to give a fresh representation to the concerned respondent, ventilating its grievances, as expeditiously as possible. On receipt of such a representation, the concerned respondent is directed to consider the Page No.3 of 6

same, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the private respondent, as well as to any other person, who may be interested in the subject matter, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is open to the concerned respondent to consider the same, on its own merits.

6.

With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

(M.S.R, J.) (A.D.M.C, J.) 24.01.2025 Index : Yes / No bala To

1. The District Collector, Page No.4 of 6

2. The Tahsildar, Usilampatti Taluk,

3. The Deputy Director, Dept of Mines and Geology, Madurai.

Page No.5 of 6

M.S.RAMESH, J.

and A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

bala ORDER MADE IN DATED : 24.01.2025 Page No.6 of 6