A. Prema, W/O. Ashokan, v. The Sub-Collector,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI and W.M.P(MD).Nos.20907 of 2018 and 537 of 2019 A.Prema ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Sub-Collector, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.
2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.
3.Somasundaram ...Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the first respondent dated 11.10.2018 made in Na.Ka.No.Aa4/9007/2018 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal Senior counsel for Mr.J.Anandh Kumar For R1 and R2 : Mr.G.V.Vairom Santhosh Additional Government Pleader 1/7
O R D E R
This Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner in the year 2018 as against the impugned order passed by the first respondent, namely, the Sub Collector, Devakottai, imposing a penalty of Rs.22,95,400/- (Rupees Twenty Two Ninety Five Thousand Four Hundred only) on the petitioner. 2.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, by referring to the impugned order, submits that an inspection was made on 09.10.2018 by the Sub Collector, Devakottai and the impugned order imposing a penalty has been passed on 11.10.2018 as per the Rule 36(A) (1) & (3) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959, that the petitioner was in possession of 528 units of sand without any authorisation, which was stored in her land in S.No.78/2 of Devapattu Village, Kallal Panchayat Union, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.
3.The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is running a Primary School, namely, 'Kallal Kalyani Nursery and Primary School', which was established in the year 1998 and recognized by the 2/7
Educational Department till 2010. The petitioner has made a request for renewal of recognition of the above School and the Officers of the Educational Department have visited the petitioner's School premises and suggested that the Building was in a dilapidated condition and a new building has to be constructed for the purpose of renewal of recognition of the School. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the purpose of construction of a new building for the School, the sand was purchased and stored, however, the first respondent has construed that the petitioner is in possession of sand without valid permit.
The learned Senior Counsel has also referred to the additional typed set of papers and submits that the petitioner is having valid receipts for the purchase of sand and the sand was purchased only for the purpose of construction of a new building for renewal of recognition of the School and the same cannot be construed that it is illegally stored by the petitioner. 4.The learned Senior Counsel has also pointed out that the impugned order has been passed without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry.
substantiate her case.
5. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also perused the materials placed on record including the impugned order.
6. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that inspection was made on 09.10.2018 and the impugned order has been passed on 11.10.2018 within two days, without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that she is having valid receipts for the purchase of sand and she purchased the sand for the purpose of construction of a new building for renewal of recognition of the School. Therefore, this Court directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to get instructions as to whether sufficient opportunity has been provided to the petitioner for production of relevant documents before passing the impugned order.
7. When the matter is taken for hearing today, the learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that no notice 4/7
was provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.
8. Since the impugned order has been passed by the first respondent without issuing any notice to the petitioner, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide Na.Ka.No.Aa4/9007/2018 dated 11.10.2018, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly, it is set aside. The respondents 1 and 2 are at liberty to conduct a fresh enquiry by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 17.11.2023 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No ssb 5/7
To 1.The Sub-Collector, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.
2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.
6/7
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ssb 17.11.2023 7/7