Madras High CourtWP(MD)/11716/2017dismissed

I.Venkatachalapathy v. Special Officer

2017-06-23Honourable Mr Justice N. Authinathan,Honourable Mr Justice A. Selvam5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.06.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.AUTHINATHAN W.P(MD)No.11716 of 2017 I.Venkatachalapathy .. Petitioner Vs.

1. The Special Officer, Chief Minister's Special Cell,

2. The Government Chief Secretary,

3. The Commissioner, Prevention of Corruption Commission (Vigilance),

4. The Principal Secretary, Industrial Department,

5. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,

6. The Commissioner, Revenue Administrative Office, Ezhilagam Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

7. The Principal Secretary,

8. The Director General of Police, Head Quarters of Tamil Nadu Police Department, Dr.Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai.

9. The Executive Chief Engineer, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

10. The Chief Engineer, Trichy Region, Trichirappalli - 620 001.

11. The Chief Engineer, Madurai Region, Madurai.

12. The Commissioner, Geomining Department, (HQ), Industrial Area, Guindy, Chennai.

.. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to take necessary action to regulate the sand quarries run by Government on the basis of the Rules and Regulation based on the petitioner's representation dated 09.06.2017.

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Venkatachalapathy (Party-in-Person) For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan, Special Government Pleader.

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to take appropriate action so as to regulate sand quarries being run by the Government on the basis of Rules and Regulations and also on the basis of representation dated 09.06.2017, by way of issuing a Writ of Mandamus.

2.Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader, has taken notice for the respondents.

3.The petitioner is present and he advanced his argument on the basis of representation as well as on the basis of averments made in the petition.

4.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has contended to the effect that already for regulating sand quarries Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, are in existence and subsequently various amendments have been made. Now the Government itself is taking sand and sell the same directly.

5.Considering the present situations and also considering the fact that the petitioner wants to establish so many godowns in various parts of Tamil Nadu for retailing sand, this Court is of the view that the relief sought in the Writ Petition is totally contra to the relief sought in the representation. 6.Further as pointed out earlier, already necessary amendments have been made in the Act so as to regularise selling of sand. Therefore, viewing from any angle, the relief sought in the Writ Petition cannot be granted and altogether the present Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.

7.In fine, this Writ Petition is dismissed without costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To