The Court dismissed a writ petition filed as Public Interest Litigation. It held that the claim sought to quash a grant of quarry permission, which requires a writ of certiorari, not mandamus. Additionally, the Court found the petition lacked the characteristics of Pilion.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 4.2.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.P.No.27861 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.32392 of 2018
M.Ramakrishnan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner
Department of Geology and Mining
Thiru.Vi.Ka Industrial Estate
Guindy, Chennai - 600 032
2. The Deputy Director
Department of Geology and Minining
Collectorate
Krishnagiri - 635 001
3. The District Collector
Krishnagiri District
Krishnagiri
4. The Superintendent of Police
Krishnagiri District
Krishnagiri
5. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Hosur
Krishnagiri District
6. The Chairman
Environment Impact Assessment Authority
Collectorate Buildings
Krishnagiri & District
7. M/s.Kongan Aggregates Private Limited
No.9/119A, Kollimalai Main Road
Kalpanayakkanpatti Post
Namakkal - 637 104 ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus, directing the official respondents to prohibit any stone quarry operation with blasting operations with explosives in the revenue land in S. No.130, Basthalapalli Village, Sulagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District, based on the representation submitted by the petitioner and the consequent enquiry initiated by the 5th respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.1962/2018(P2) dated 12.7.2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sankaran
For Respondent : Mr.E.Manokaran,
Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R5 Mrs.J.Parimalam for R7
ORDER (delivered by SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J)
Claiming himself to be a public interest litigant, the petitioner has filed this writ petition directing the official respondents, to prohibit any stone quarry operation with blasting operations with explosives, in the revenue land in S. No.130, Basthalapalli Village, Sulagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District. In this regard, the petitioner claims that he has made a representation to the concerned.
"3. I submit that I am filing this Writ Petition as Public Interest Litigation against granting of Stone Quarry in favour of 7th respondent vide proceedings of 2nd respondent dated 9.3.2018 by which the 7th respondent is permitted with Stone Quarry in S. No.130 pt to an extent of 4.66.0 hectares Basthalapalli Village, Sulagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District which land is located within the prohibited distance of habitation of Basthalapalli Village as well as the quarry site is closure to an historical temple Arulmigu Angusagiri Thimmavaraya Swamy Temple, Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple and Om Sakthi Temple located within 150 mtrs from
quarry site. That apart, the Muniswaran Temple is located in the adjoining hillock comprised in S.No.89.
considered and no action has been taken by the official respondents till date. On the other hand, the 7th respondent proceed to install machineries and blasting materials in order to carry on blasting operations with explosives. In the said circumstances, I am having no other alternative, efficacious, speedy remedy except to approach this Hon'ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the appropriate reliefs as prayed for.
"4. It is submitted that this respondent obtained the grant of quarry by the proceedings dated 26.6.2018 in S. No.123 part to an extent of 2.30.00 hectares and the said quarry is situate 300 meters away from the habitat site. This respondent also obtained consent from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board which is valid up to 1.3.2022. Apart from that there are no schools, heritage building, temples, habitation, State or National Highways near the quarry site. The said property also do not come under Adi Dravidar Welfare Scheme. It is respectfully submitted that one Arulmigu Thimmavaraya Swamy Temple and its wedding hall is situate 600 meters away from the quarry site. It is further submitted that on 26.6.2018, the said quarry site was inspected by the Tahsildar, Sulagiri Taluk, Police Officials and the people of the village. During inspection the quarry site was measured in their presence and it was found that the habitation is situate 300 meters away from the quarry site. The running of quarry will not cause any damage to the Temple nor the residents.
Basthalapalli village patta No.48/1A, to an extent of 2.16.5 hectares is owned by this respondent and in the said site there is a Banyan Tree. In order to create a record, the public put up a fence and started worshippping under the Banyan tree very recently i.e. only a month ago. In fact the said tree is there for many years but just to trouble this respondent the villages started worshiping under the Banyan tree very recently in order to show that it is a temple of worship. it is pertinent to point out here that the land in patta No.48/1A originally belonged to the petitioner and he subsequently sold it to one V.Muniraj in the year 2006 and from the said V.Muniraj this respondent purchased the property and the sale deed is registered as Doc. No.3598/2017. Even for running of crusher, consent from Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has been obtained and the same is valid till date. Therefore the grievance of the petitioner is not with regard to the welfare of the residents of the village but the same is vindictive in nature in order to prevent this respondent from operating his quarry and crusher.
have, therefore filed a writ of certiorari to quash the grant of quarry to respondent No.7. Writ of mandamus is distinct from a writ of certiorari. Writ of mandamus is therefore not maintainable for the relief as claimed by the petitioner.
the quarrying operation, and for the above reasons writ petition is dismissed. No Costs. and connectd Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
W.P.No.27861 of 2018
SAI(CO)
SSM(09/04/2019).
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ of mandamus is maintainable to direct officials to prohibit quarry operations when the challenge is against a grant of quarry permission.
Whether the present writ petition qualifies as Public Interest Litigation.
M. Ramakrishnan
The Commissioner Department of Geology and Mining
M/s. Kongan Aggregates Private Limited
S. MANIKUMAR
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
