← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/9004/2021disposed of

Ajikumar.A v. The District Collector

2021-06-01Honourable Mrs Justice J. Nisha Banu4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.06.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU A.Ajikumar ... Petitioner vs.

1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.

2.The Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Collectorate, Kanyakumari District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to conduct stone quarrying operation in petitioner's Patta land in S.F.No.483/1C(P) over an extent of 1.40.0 Ha in Mecode village Kalkulam Taluk, in Kanyakumari District for a period of 22 months 28 days (non-operative period) for which the petitioner was not permitted to quarry during the lease period accorded vide the proceedings of the respondent in R.C.No.350/G & M/2008, dated 25.09.2017 and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to issue transport permit to the petitioner for the said period.

For Petitioner : Mr.Samidurai.K For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, Government Advocate.

O R D E R

The Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to direct the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to conduct stone quarrying operation in his Patta land, for nonoperative period, for which, the petitioner was not permitted to quarry during the lease period, as per the permission granted and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to issue transport permit to the petitioner for the said period.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was granted permission to conduct stone quarrying operation, by the 1st respondent, in his patta land, bearing S.F.No.483/1C(P) over an extent of 1.40.0 Ha in Mecode village Kalkulam Taluk, in Kanyakumari District for a period of 22 months 28 days (non-operative period), for which, the petitioner was not permitted to quarry during the lease period, as against the 1/4

permission granted by the 1st respondent in R.C.No.350/G & M/2008, dated 25.09.2017 and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to issue transport permit to the petitioner for the said period.

3. Adding further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the permission granted, the petitioner started quarrying operation in his patta land. Before end of the lease period, the 1st respondent had temporarily stopped all the quarry operations on the ground that the quarry is situated within 10 kilometers to Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary, and therefore, 'No Objection Certificate' from the National Wildlife Board is mandated. Thereafter, the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, vide Notification SC.3236, dated 22.09.2020, revised the stipulated zone of ECO-Sensitive area as 'Zero to Three Kilometers". Pursuant to that, the respondents lifted the temporary suspension of the petitioner's quarry operation and permitted to continue the quarry operation.

4. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that temporary suspension was lifted after after a period of 19 months; 18 months 17 days and 3 years respectively.

The suspension order was passed by the 1st respondent, suspending the mining operation of the petitioner only on the ground that clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board of Wild Life was not obtained by the petitioner. Subsequently, the 1st respondent revoked the earlier order of suspension on the ground that as per the Government of India in Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Notification SC.3236, dated 22.09.2020, the stipulated zone of ECO-Sensitive area had been revised as Zero to 3 kms. The petitioner was allowed to continue his quarry operation. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsels prays that the 1st respondent may be directed to permit the petitioner to conduct stone quarrying operation in his Patta land, for non-operative period, for which, the petitioner was not permitted to quarry during the lease period, as per the permission granted and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to issue transport permit to the petitioner for the said period.

5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that it is true, the 2nd respondent, the Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Kanyakumari District by Notice, stopped the quarry operations, on the ground that the quarry is situated within 10 kilometers to Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary and latter, the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, vide Notification SC.3236, dated 22.09.2020, revised the stipulated zone of ECO-Sensitive area as 'Zero to Three Kilometers". Thereafter, the petitioner was permitted to continue the quarry operation. It is his specific contention that though the 2nd respondent stopped the quarrying operation for sometime, the learned Government Advocate wants to verify whether in the interregnum period, the petitioner was 2/4

permitted to carry-out stone quarrying operation in his patta land by the State Government.

6. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. After giving due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, when the respondents have got power to grant permission to the petitioner to conduct stone quarrying operation over his land, for the non-operative period, on account of suspension of the mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner for no fault on him, rejecting the request made by the petitioner to conduct stone quarrying operation in his lands for the non-operative period, is not justifiable and therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents ought to have considered the reasonable request of the petitioner, permitting him to conduct stone quarrying operation, on account of suspension of the mining lease granted in favour of him.

8. In fine, the Writ Petition is allowed and the 1st respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to conduct stone quarrying operation in his Patta land, for non-operative period, for which, the petitioner was not permitted to quarry during the lease period, as per the permission granted. Further, the 2nd respondent is directed to issue transport permit to the petitioner for the said period. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) ias Note:(i) In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

3/4

To:- 1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.

2.The Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Collectorate, Kanyakumari District.

+1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-18660[F] dated 02/06/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.K.SAMIDURAI, Advocate ( SR-18709[F] dated 03/06/2021 ) 01.06.2021 CN(16.06.2021) 4P 5C 4/4