Dismissed

V.R.Othisamy v. the District Collector

Madras HC5 Sept 2014WP/15096/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Resident filed writ petition seeking closure of stone quarrying operations in residential areas. Court dismissed the plea noting the matter forms part of a pending appellate appeal against the Collector's order regarding lease renewal, preventing multiplicity of litigation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with observation against multiplicity of petitions on same issue; no costs awarded.

V.R.Othisamy Vs the District Collector — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.09.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

W.P.No.15096 of 2014

and

M.P.No.1 of 2014

V.R.Othisamy .. Petitioner
vs
1.The District Collector,
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
3.Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
4.The Tahsildar,
Tiruppur Taluk, Tiruppur.
5.The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai.
6.The Controller/Engineer,
District Pollution Control Board,
No.167, Bhavani Road,
Perunthurai, Erode District.
7.The Addl. Director
Geology & Mines
Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
8.The President,
Pongupalayam Village,
Tiruppur North Taluk, Tiruppur District.
9.K.Ponnusamy
10.K.Semalaiappan
11.K.Moorthi
12.S.Muthusamy
13.T.Jayakumar
14.Deepan @ Deepan Kumar

¶9

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

¶10

15.E.Avinasiappan 16.K.Kathiresan 17.A.S.Kalimuthu 18.E.Gowri 19.V.C.Senthilkumar 20.V.Sudhakar 21.S.Pradeep 22.K.Saravanasamy 23.P.Easwaran ..Respondents

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct respondent authorities 1 to 8 permanently close down the stone quarrying operation being carried out by the respondents 9 to 23 in the middle of residential areas situated in Survey Nos.200/1A, 200/1B, 200/1C, 200/1D and 200/1E and 200/2A2C, 203/1A, 203/1B, 203/3A, 203/3B, 208/1,2,3,4,5,6,7, 209, 207, 230/3 & 4, 231/2, Pongupalayam, Kalampalayam, Tiruppur Taluk & District.

¶12

For Petitioner .. Mr.A.V.Raja

¶13

For Respondents .. Mr.S.T.S.Moorthy

¶14

Govt. Pleader for RR1 to 4 and 7 .. Mrs.Rita Chandrasekaran for RR5 & 6 .. Mr.Silambanan, S.C. for M/s.Raja Associates for RR 9 to 23

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶17

The petitioner makes a grievance of mining operations in the specified survey numbers of Pongupalayam, Kalampalayam, Tiruppur Taluk & District.

¶18

2.The first respondent / Collector has filed a counteraffidavit wherein it is stated that another writ petition bearing no.23660 of 2011 by another resident was filed making a grievance qua the same quarrying operations. That writ petition was disposed of with the direction passed on 06.06.2012 for the representation of the petitioner therein to be dealt with after giving opportunity to the lessees. On giving opportunity to all affected parties, the Collector passed an order on 23.02.2013 where it was decided to renew the expired leases, after getting reports from all connected departments. The original petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 36-C(2) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, before the Commissioner, Geology and Mining, which is still pending consideration.

¶19

3.The aforesaid facts show that the subject matter of dispute being the mining leases, already forms part of an inspection and verification resulting in an order of Collector, which is under challenge in an appeal. We, thus, cannot permit different residents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

from the area to keep on filing petition one after the other on the same issue and the adjudication by the appellate authority will take care of the rights of the parties.

¶21

4.The writ petition stands dismissed with the aforesaid observation. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2014 also stands dismissed.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) Dated: 11.09.2014

¶23

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The District Collector,
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
3.Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
4.The Tahsildar,
Tiruppur Taluk, Tiruppur.
5.The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai.
6.The Controller/Engineer,
District Pollution Control Board,
No.167, Bhavani Road,
Perunthurai, Erode District.
7.The Addl. Director
Geology & Mines
Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
8.The President,
Pongupalayam Village,
Tiruppur North Taluk, Tiruppur District.

¶24

+1 cc to M/s.Raja Associates, Advocate,SR.41860

¶25

+1 cc to M/s.Rita Chandrasekar, Advocate,SR.41914. +1 cc to the Government Pleader,SR.42044.

¶26

ug(co) krd 11/9

¶27

W.P.No.15096 of 2014

¶28

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

V.R.Othisamy v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.R.Othisamy 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

R.Sekar Vs The Collector

K.Parvathy Vs The Corporation of Chennai

C.a.Pandiyan Vs The District Collector

P.Ettikkan Vs The Union of India

K.S.Rajan Vs the District Collector

Tidel Park Coimbatore Ltd. Vs the Consolidated Construction