Disposed

M.R.Uma Maheswari v. the District Collector

Madras HC18 Jan 2013WP/1305/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ to restrain respondents from granting quarry lease to third parties, violating Minor Minerals Concession Rules 1959. Court directed respondents to dispose of prior notice on merits with due notice to affected parties.

What did the court decide?

Respondent District Collector directed to consider and dispose of petitioner's representation/legal notice on merits expeditiously, ensuring third parties receive proper notice.

M.R.Uma Maheswari Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.1.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR

¶5

Writ Petition No.1305 of 2013

¶6

and

¶7

M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶8

M.R.Uma Maheswari. ... Petitioner vs. 1.The District Collector, Cuddalore.

¶9

2.The Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Cuddalore. ... Respondents

¶10

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from granting lease in favour of some third parties to quarry earth in violation of Rule 36 of Tamil Nadu M.M.C. Rule 1959 either in S.No.124/1, 4, 2, 3 etc., or other adjacent land in S.No.112/1C1/D1.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Krishnan,

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.N.Srinivasan,

¶13

Additional Government Pleader.

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from granting lease in favour of some third parties to quarry earth in violation of Rule 36 of Tamil Nadu M.M.C. Rule 1959 either in S.No.124/1, 4, 2, 3 etc., or other adjacent land in S.No.112/1C1/D1.

¶16

Mr.N.Srinivasan, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents. By consent the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶17

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

¶18

Petitioner has given a representation/legal notice to the respondents on 4.1.2013 ventilating his grievance that the respondents are proposing to grant permission to some third party to quarry earth adjacent to the petitioners quarry.

¶19

At this point of time, the relief sought for in the writ petition is hypothetical. However, considering the fact that the representation/ legal notice has been given, the first respondent District Collector is directed to consider and dispose the same on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, if not already disposed of. It is made clear that if any action need be taken against the third party and if the right of any third party will be affected by such action, it should be by giving proper notice so as to avoid the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice.

¶20

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Asst. Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Asst. Registrar
ts
To
1.The District Collector,
Cuddalore.
2.The Deputy Director of
Geology and Mining,
Cuddalore.
+ 1 cc to Mr. K.R.Krishnan, Advocate SR No.3194
+ 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.3394
W.P.No.1305 of 2013
kk(co)
nr 28/1/13

¶21

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

M.R.Uma Maheswari v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.R.Uma Maheswari 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Anmol Rajendra Parcel Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax

N.v.Rukmani Bai, Vs the Commissioner of

Jameel Trading Company Vs the Appellate Assistant

Thiru.G.Govindasamy, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

M/S.Sakar Brick Works Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Tvl. Supreme Industries Ltd., Vs the Authority for