Disposed

M.Ramachandran v. The Director of Mines and

Madras HC19 Apr 2017WP/9454/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court discharged notice to the quarry owner as the order would not directly affect his interest. It directed the District Collector to consider pending representations from the petitioners regarding prohibited distance quarrying, decide on merits after hearing both parties, and pass orders within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent (District Collector) to consider pending representations, hear both parties, and pass orders on merits within four weeks.

M.Ramachandran Vs The Director of Mines and — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.04.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.9454 of 2017
and W.M.P.No.10404 of 2017
1. M.Ramachandran
2. M.Shanmugam
3. Ravichandran
4. D.Sivasankar ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Director of Mines and Minerals,
Guindy,
Chennai- 600 032.
2. TheDistrict collector,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri.
3. The Assistant Director of Mines,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri.
4. The Tahsildhar,
Pochampalli Taluk,
Kishnagiri District.
5. P.Arputham ... Respondents

¶6

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take appropriate action against the 5th respondent based on the representation of the petitioners dated 17.02.2017and 06.03.2017 by cancelling the lease granted to the 5th respondent and to close the quarry situate at Veeramalai Village, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District forthwith.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran For Respondents : Mr.C.Jagdish, Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4

¶8

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

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

Mr.C.Jagdish, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 to 4. Notice to the 5th respondent is dispensed with, since the order passed in this writ petition is not going to affect the interest of the 5th respondent directly by way of this order.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.

¶12

The petitioners are aggrieved against the quarrying operation being carried on by the 5th respondent. It is their contention that such quarrying operation is going on within the prohibited distance from the residence of the petitioners. Ventilating such grievance, the petitioners made representations dated 17.02.2017 and 06.03.2017 before the 2nd respondent. This Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the claim made by the petitioners, as it is for the 2nd respondent to consider and decide after hearing both parties.

¶13

Since it is stated that the representations sent by the petitioners are still pending, this Writ petition is disposed of, only by directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representations of the petitioners and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent. Such exercise shall be done by the 2nd respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶14

Sd/-

¶15

Asst.Registrar (CS II )

¶16

/true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar

¶17

vsi

¶18

¶19

The Director of Mines and Minerals, Guindy,

¶20

Chennai- 600 032.

¶21

TheDistrict collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶22

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

¶23

The Assistant Director of Mines, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶24

The Tahsildhar, Pochampalli Taluk, Kishnagiri District.

¶25

+1cc to M/S. E. Kannadasan, Advocate Sr. 23974

¶26

W.P.No.9454 of 2017

¶27

RSI(CO)
VR(27/4/2017)

¶28

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

M.Ramachandran v. The Director of Mines and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ramachandran v. The Director of Mines and

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

Tvl.Aaraa Textiles Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

M/s.Sri Devi Vilas Kalvettu, Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax

E.Srinivasan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

D.Ramesh, Vs The Regional Transport Officer

A.Madhappan Vs The District Collector

R.Thirumaran Vs The Principal Secretary to