Dismissed

Rajamani v. District Collector

Madras HC4 Oct 2017WA/525/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a Writ Appeal filed by a quarrying petitioner who sought an extension of time to remove sand after his original permission expired. The court held that the petition for extension was filed nearly nine months after the permission lapsed and that the asserted force majeure of rain did not justify overriding the clear limitation in the impugned order. Accordingly, t

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal and the connected miscellaneous petition are dismissed. No costs are awarded.

Rajamani Vs District Collector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 4/10/2017

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

Writ Appeal No.525 of 2017 AND CMP 7503 of 2017.

¶5

M. Rajamani ...Appellant
Vs

¶6

The District Collector
Thiruvallur.
Thiruvallur District.
2. The Assistant Director
Geology and Mining, Thiruvallur
Thiruvallur District. ...Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 15 of the Letters Patent Act
against the order dated 8/3/2017 made in W.P.No.42292 of 2016 on
the file of this court.

¶7

Prayer in W.P.42292/2016:

¶8

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus Directing the 1st Respondent to forthwith grant extension to the petitioner to quarry Savudu/earth in S.F.N.281 (PWD Tank) in Chembarampakkam Village Ponneri Taluk Thiruvallur District for the remaining 5128 loads pursuant to the petitioners application dated 28/05/2014.

¶9

J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J)

¶10

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

¶11

Material on record discloses that vide order, dated 18/9/2015, the District Collector, Tiruvallur, granted permission, to the writ petitioner, to quarry 6652 lorry loads of savudu, for 60 days, commencing from 19/9/2015 till 17/11/2015, subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

“1. The lessee should adhere the environment clearance issued by the SEIAA, Lr.No.SEIAA-TN/F.No.3325/1 (a)/1838/2015 dated 30/3/2015 and dated 5/9/2015.

¶13

The quantity about (1) 250 m length x 115 m width and 130 m length x 120 m width and a depth of 0.90 m = 39915 cubic meters or 6652 such lorry loads of earth (savudu) recommended by the PWD officials may be removed from the tank.

¶14

The pit so created should be connected to the nearest sluice by excavating a suitable channel as directed by the departmental officers.

¶15

The excavated earth (savudu) should not be left over within the water spread area.

¶16

The depth of cutting should not exceed

¶17

0.90 m in anyway.

¶18

There should not be any damages to the bund or to any cross masonry structure of the tank.

¶19

Earth (savudu) should be quarried and transported only during the day time between 7 a.m to 5 p.m without creating any hindrance to the village public.

¶20

Earth (savudu) should be conveyed without causing any damage to the hydraulic structures and cross masonry works of the tank. If any damage is caused should be made good by the individual to whom the permission is granted.

¶21

Earth (savudu) should not stacked on the slide slope, top and in front of masonry structures and the tank bund.

¶22

The transporting vehicles should be fixed with registration number plate and registration number of the vehicles. 11. The transporting vehicles should be covered with tarpaulin sheets.

¶23

Any ramp formed while crossing the bund should be removed and the bund is to be made properly to the standard.

¶24

Th earth (savudu) removed should not be conveyed along the top of the bund.

¶25

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

¶26

Hologram are being pasted in respect of each dispatch slips issued for quarrying purpose with effect from 1/12/2010.

¶27

Cubic meter of the mineral for the transportation should be noted in respect of dispatch slips as per the permission granted for quarrying. If excess quantity of mineral is transported than the above quantity, the vehicles concerned will be seized and action would be taken against them as per Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Registers should be maintained in the quarry sites, showing the details of dispatched slips issued for the transportation of minerals.

¶28

If the vehicles transporting the minerals are found with the dispatch slips, other than Hologram issued by the department are pasted, such vehicles will be seized and action would be taken against them as per rules.”

¶29

Before the expiry of the period of permission, along with a letter, dated 5/11/2015, the petitioner has stated that due to rain, he could not complete the quarry and returned entry slips for 5128 lorry loads. However, there was no request to grant extension of time. After nine months, the petitioner has made a representation, dated 20/8/2016, to the District Collector, Tiruvallur, stating that he had credited 7,98,300/on 6/7/2013, for quarrying 6652 lorry loads and due to rains, he could not remove 1524 lorry loads; that he has returned the despatch slips for 5128 lorry loads and sought permission to remove the balance.

¶30

Since there was no response, petitioner has filed W.P.No.42292 of 2016, for a mandamus directing the District Collector, Tiruvallur, to grant extension to the petitioner to quarry savudu/earth in S.F.No.281 (PWD tank) in Chembarampakkam Village, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District, for the remaining 5128 loads, pursuant to the petitioner's application, dated 28/5/2014.

¶31

After considering the facts and submissions, vide order, dated 8/3/2017, writ Court dismissed the writ petition, as hereunder:-

¶32

“4. It is seen that the petitioner was originally granted permission on 5/9/2015 and 18/9/2015 to quarry savudu/earth in the above said land for a period of 60 days, which period admittedly ended on 17/11/2015. The petitioner, by contending that he could not

¶33

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

¶34

quarry the entire loads of savudu/earth, due to continuous rain, has sought for extension of the permission to quarry the remaining 5128 loads. Such request was made by the petitioner through his application dated 20/8/2016. Admittedly, such application was filed by the petitioner seeking for extension not within the original period of 60 days and on the other hand, the same came to be filed nearly after a period of 9 months. If really the petitioner has any grievance he should have approached the authorities then and there, by making such application. Without doing so, the petitioner has chosen to file such an application, after such a long period. That too, after expiry of the period granting permission.

¶35

Moreover, it is contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent that there is no enabling provision for granting such permission under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Mining and Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.

¶36

Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to seek any extension, that too after expiry of the period and therefore, the prayer sought for, cannot be granted.”

¶37

The above said order is assailed in the instant writ appeal, on the grounds inter alia that Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, amended by the Government, has no retrospective effect. Due to the Act of God, petitioner was prevented from quarrying savudu. Due to the time taken, for the water to recede, application for restoration could not be filed, petitioner has deposited considerable amount with the respondent.

¶38

For the above said reasons, appellant has prayed for reversal of the order impugned and consequential directions to the respondent.

¶39

Attention of this Court was also invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench, in W.A.No.55 of 2015, dated 3/9/2015.

¶40

Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, has underwent an amendment, on 23/9/2015 and in view of the same, there cannot be

¶41

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

¶42

extension of time.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶44

In the letter, dated 5/11/2015, addressed to the District Collector, Tiruvallur District, petitioner has mentioned about rain. Petitioner has also stated that he could not remove 1524 lorry loads and returned the balance entry slips for 5128 lorry loads. However, it could be seen that the petitioner has not made any request, for extension of period, to remove the balance lorry loads. After nine months, the petitioner is stated to submit a representation, dated 20/8/2016, to the District Collector, Tiruvallur District, wherein he has sought for permission. Letter, reads thus:-

¶45

“I made the application on 31/5/2014 to quarry 7000 lorry loads of savudu earth in S.No.281, Chembarambakkam lake. I was granted permission on 18/9/2015 by your proceedings in Na.Ka.No.518/2014/GM2 based on the recommendations of the revenue authorities to remove 7000 lorry loads of savudu earth. I credited Rs.7,98,300/- on 6/7/2013 towards the mines tax for 6652 lorry loads in State Bank of India, Thiruvallur Branch. Due to continuous rain, I could not complete the quarry. I could remove only 1524 lorry loads in your office. Hence I humbly request you Sir to permit me to remove the balance 5128 lorry loads and do the needful.”

¶46

Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 has underwent an amendment, as early as on 23/9/2015 and reads thus:-

¶47

"Removal of sand etc., from lands and tanks in-charge of some Departments - (1) The preceding Rules, however, do not govern the removal of sand, etc., from works and lands in-charge of the Public Works Department and tanks in-charge of Revenue Department.

¶48

(2) For quarrying silt, savudu and gravel from the beds of tank under the control of Public Works Department or Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, the Tahsildars shall prepare the list of tanks and submit their proposal to the District Collector. The list of tanks shall be referred by the District Collector to the

¶49

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

¶50

Executive Engineer, Public Works Department or Executive Engineer, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department as the case may be in respect of tanks in charge of demarcation of eligible areas and for estimation of quantum of mineral to be removed in respect of each area along with the conditions to be stipulated for removal of mineral from the tanks.

¶51

The public may be allowed to quarry free of charge for bona-fide domestic or agricultural purposes, earth, silt, savudu, etc., from the beds of tanks under the control of the Public Works Department or Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department which are notified by the Collector in the District Gazette under this rule after obtaining permission from the District Collector for quarrying, provided that the dwelling place or agricultural lands of the person concerned and the quarrying place shall be in the same revenue village or in the adjoining revenue village."

¶52

We have perused the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant and we are not in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, for the reason that the decision in W.A.No.55 of 2015, has been rendered on, prior to the amendment to the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and that scrutiny of the order made in W.A.No.55 of 2015, discerns that it was a consent order.

¶53

Reasoning of the writ Court is not manifestly erroneous, warranting intervention. Though appellant has expressed financial hardship on account of rain, the same cannot be countenanced, to grant the prayer.

¶54

For the reasons stated supra, writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶55

s/dAssistant Registrar(CS-V)

¶56

True Copy

¶57

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶58

mvs.

¶59

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

¶60

¶61

The District Collector Thiruvallur

¶62

Thiruvallur District.

¶63

The Assistant Director Geology and Mining, Thiruvallur Thiruvallur District.

¶64

+1 Cc to Mr.C.R. Rukmani, Advocate sr 71308. +1 Cc to Govt. Pleader sr 71408.

¶65

W.A.No.525 of 2017
SP(03/11/2017)

¶66

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

Rajamani v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajamani v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.S.Pushparaj, S/o.Sundaram, Vs The Authorized Officer

M/s.Suryaa Dairy Farm Vs The Registrar

M/s.a.Aravindhan Vs The Registrar

K.S.Sriram, Vs Indbank Housing Ltd., rep. by

The Commissioner of Central Vs Chennai Micro Print P Ltd.