Allowed

A.Prem v. The District Collector

Madras HC20 Feb 2019WP/3361/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted relief to the petitioner via a writ petition under Article 226, directing the District Collector and Assistant Director of Geology & Mining to place a pending mining application before the special committee formed under amended Rule 12 of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to place the application before the Special Committee constituted under Rule 12 of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and process it within four weeks.

A.Prem Vs The District Collector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE : 20.02.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶5

W.P. NO. 3361 OF 2019 AND

¶6

W.M.P. NO. 3650 OF 2019

¶7

A.Prem .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs -
1. The District Collector
Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.
2. The Assistant Director
of Geology & Mining
O/o District Collector
Tiruvallur. .. Respondents

¶9

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to place the petitioner's application dated 11.6.2014 along with official reports before the Special Committee constituted under Rule 12 of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, for recommendation to grant quarrying permission to quarry 6750 lorry loads savudu in Periyar Eri comprised in S.F. No.192, Thandalam Village, Tiruvallur Taluk, Tiruvallur District within time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. M.Muthappan

¶11

For Respondents: Mr. J.Ramesh, AGP for RR-1 & 2

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner appears to have applied for permission to move 6750 lorry loads of savudu the PWD Tank comprised in S.F. No.192, Thandalam Village, Thiruvallur Taluk & District vide his application dated 11.6.14. In response to the said application, the District Collector called for report from the Executive Engineer, PWD and in turn, the Executive Engineer, has also given his report on 20.8.14. The Sub Collector, Tiruvallur has also given his report vide proceedings dated 14.3.15 and the Tahsildar's report was given on 20.1.15. Thereafter, the 1^st

¶14

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

¶15

respondent considered the application submitted by the petitioner and has taken a decision to grant permission to quarry 6750 lorry loads of savudu for a period of 55 days in S.F. No.192, PWD Tank over an extent of 300 m X 150 m x 90 m in 77.Thandalam Village, Tiruvallur Taluk & District on collection of necessary seigniorage fee and other charges under Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.

¶16

The 2^nd respondent appears to have issued proceedings on 6.4.15 approving the mining plan submitted by the petitioner and also directed the petitioner to obtain necessary Environment clearance from the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, Tamil Nadu. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner approached the Environmental Impact Assessment Authority and also obtained the necessary environment clearance. While the grant of permission was pending, vide G.O. Ms. No.233, Industries Department dated 23.9.15, Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 was amended and as per the amended rule, a Special Committee was put in place under the Chairmanship of the District Collector and the committee was entrusted with the task of recommending grant of permission to various persons seeking quarrying lease. Inspite of the formation of the Committee, the application of the petitioner, though was filed as early as on 11.6.2014, has not been placed before the Special Committee, which is in-charge of scrutinizing such application in terms of the amended Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules and, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

¶17

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the relief sought for is only limited in its scope, which is for a direction to the respondents to place the application of the petitioner, dated 11.6.14, before the competent Special Committee for necessary scrutiny and processing for grant of permission to quarry savudu from the subject survey number as indicated in the application submitted by the petitioner.

¶18

Since the prayer as sought for in the writ petition is limited in its scope, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents could not have any legitimate objection for the grant of the said relief.

¶19

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to place the application of the petitioner, dated 11.6.14, before the Special Committee constituted under Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, and on placement of the said application, the Special Committee shall process the

¶20

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

¶21

application in accordance with the rules governing consideration of the application. The entire exercise of placing the application before the Special Committee and scrutinization and processing thereof of the same by the Special Committee and passing of orders thereon on the said application shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
GLN
To
1. The District Collector
Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.
2. The Assistant Director
of Geology & Mining
O/o District Collector
Tiruvallur.
+1cc to the Government Pleader sr.16035
+1cc to Mr.M.Muthappan, Advocate Sr.16206
W.P. NO. 3361 OF 2019
ssd[co]
srg 15/03/2019

¶23

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

A.Prem v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Prem 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

Rose Garden Matric Higher Secondary School, Vs The Director

K.Kaliamoorrthy Vs the Chief General Manager

M.Masilamani Naicker Vs the Collector

S.K.Sampath, Vs the State Transport Authority

P.Thiruvengadam Vs The District Collector

R.Kariamal Vs The Management of Raj Tv