Allowed

Esther Jaya Rani, v. the District Collector

Madras HC7 Mar 2011WP(MD)/2158/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging an impugned order imposing a penalty under the Mines Act. The court set aside the order as it was passed without giving due notice to the petitioner, violating natural justice principles, and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 14/1/2011 set aside; writ petition allowed; matter remitted to second respondent to pass orders on merits after hearing petitioner.

Esther Jaya Rani, Vs the District Collector — Mining and Natural Resources | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 7/3/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD) No.2158 of 2011

¶2

Esther Jeya Rani ... Petitioner Vs

¶3

The District Collector Thoothukudi District,Thoothukudi.

¶4

The Sub-Collector Thoothukudi District,Thoothukudi.

¶5

The Assistant Director Geology and Mining Department Thoothukudi District,Thoothukudi. ... Respondents

¶6

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari in calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.Aa2/362/2011 dated 14/1/2011 which has been served upon the petitioner on 15/2/2011 and quash the same.

¶7

For petitioner ... Mr.R.Anand For respondents ... Mr.D.Sasikumar, G.A.

¶8

ORDER Mr.D.Sasikumar, Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶9

By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶10

The present writ petition is laid challenging the order of the second respondent dated 14/1/2011 in and by which the second respondent imposed a penalty of Rs.3,51,340/- alleging that the petitioner instead of carrying out the quarrying work in the leased area has carried out the sand quarry, which is a Cart Poramboke.

¶11

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that the second respondent has passed the order without due notice to the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner.

¶12

The learned Government Advocate is unable to point out from the impugned order that the said order came to be passed by the second respondent after giving due notice to the petitioner. Even a perusal of the said order does not disclose that the said order came to be passed by the second respondent after giving due notice to the petitioner.

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

In view of the above stated position, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order of the second respondent dated 14/1/2011 on the sole

¶15

ground that the said order came to be passed by the second respondent without due notice to the petitioner.

¶16

Even though, an appeal remedy is available to the petitioner, I am not inclined to direct the petitioner to file an appeal, since the order that came to be passed is in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶17

In fine, the impugned order of the second respondent dated 14/1/2011 is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. The matter is remitted to the second respondent to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner. Setting aside this order, shall not be construed that the petitioner can quarry in the cart poramboke, if he is quarrying there. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶20

/TRUE COPY/

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

The District Collector, Thoothukudi District.

¶24

The Sub-Collector, Thoothukudi District.

¶25

The Assistant Director

¶26

Geology and Mining Department Thoothukudi District.

¶27

+1cc to The Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.11745

¶28

W.P.(MD) No.2158 of 2011

¶29

mvs

¶30

PA/29.03.2011/2P/5C

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Esther Jaya Rani, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Esther Jaya Rani, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Lalithambal Vs Mr Ramanujam

Tg Krishnamoorthy Vs Pappiah Naidu

Hilda Mercy Vs M.Kutralingam.

M/S. Sivakumar Spinning Mills Vs the Employees Provident Fund

Mrs.S.Revathy, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

M.Dharmaraj, Vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board