Petitioner challenged notification invoking Revenue Recovery Act due to lack of penalty order service. High Court quashed proceedings, directed furnishing copy, and allowed future challenge.
Second respondent directed to furnish penalty order copy within two weeks; petitioner allowed to challenge thereafter. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.10.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
Writ Petition(MD)No.13057 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2013
V.Balu
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.District Collector, Thoothukudi District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the impugned publication dated 19.06.2013 published in Daily Thanthi News Paper on the file of the 1st Respondent in so far as this Petitioner (Serial No.10) is concern and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For Respondents : Mr.V.Muruganantham
Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
The writ petitioner challenges the notification issued by the first respondent informing the petitioner to pay the penalty amount imposed under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, in absence proceedings will be initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
3.The second respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Thoothukudi filed a counter stating that the petitioner involved in illegal mining and a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner in Roc.No.B2/962/99, dated 29.08.2000 and 25.10.2000. After giving due opportunity to the petitioner, final order was passed levying a sum of Rs.26,05,698/- being the cost of the sand, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ seigniorage fee and penalty of five times of sand cost. Subsequently, since the amount was not paid, the 1st respondent
2
directed the Tahsildar, Srivaikuntam to collect the said amount by invoking Revenue Recovery Act, 1890.
4.The grievance of the petitioner is that the order imposing penalty has not been served upon him.
5.I have perused the records regarding the said proceedings. There is no acknowledgement available to show that notice has been served on the petitioner.
6.In the above circumstances, the second respondent is directed to furnish copy of the order imposing penalty to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law within two weeks therefrom.
7.This Writ Petition is dismissed with the above direction and observation. No Costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2013 is also dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CO)
/True copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.District Collector, Thoothukudi District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thoothukudi District.
+1 CC to Mr.G.PRABHU RAJADURAI, Advocate, SR No.58420
+1 CC to THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR No.58268
W.P(MD)No.13057 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2013 03.10.2016
sj
SH/EM-MPA:19.10.2016:2P/5C
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impleader order imposing penalty under Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 can be challenged when it has not been served on the petitioner?
Whether restoration of jurisdiction is warranted due to lack of service of the penalty order?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
V. Balu
District Collector, Thoothukudi District
Revenue Divisional Officer, Thoothukudi District
V. Bharathidasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
