Allowed

K.N. Solairajan v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC29 Jul 2019WP(MD)/10082/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order based on a show cause notice. The court held that since the notice had become null and void due to a subsequent evaluation report and new show cause notice, the impugned order stood set aside.

What did the court decide?

The order impugned in the Writ Petition was set aside and the Writ Petition was allowed.

K.N. Solairajan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.07.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶3

W.P(MD)No.10082 of 2012 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2012

¶4

K.N.Solairajan Rep. By its Power Agent, C.Venkatasubbu ... Petitioner Vs.

¶5

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶6

Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government Industries (MMB-1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶7

2.The Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 32.

¶8

3.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai – 20.

¶9

4.The Tahsildar,

¶10

Melur, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in G.O.(D)No.127 Industries (MMB-1) Department, dated 06.07.2012 and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondents : Mr.K.Chellapandian, Additional Advocate General Assisted byMrs.J.Padmavathy Devi, Special Government Pleader.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Costs were imposed on the earlier occasion for substantial delay in filing of counter. Today ie., 29.07.2019, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents files a memo on behalf of the fourth respondent / the Tahsildar, Melur and the second respondent / the Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, who https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ are the officers-in-charge, praying for waiver of the costs on personal grounds.

¶15

¶16

2.Acceding to the prayer, the costs imposed are waived.

¶17

3.On merits, I am of the view that nothing survives in this Writ Petition and the same is liable to be allowed, particularly in the light of paragraph No.22 of the counter affidavit dated Nil, July 2019 stating as follows:

¶18

' It is submitted that based on the Evaluation Report,

¶19

a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner herein under sub-Section (5) of Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 for the recovery of the cost of minerals vide by the third respondent in Roc.No.943/2012-Mines dated 18.03.2013 calling upon the lessee to offer his explanation on 01.04.2013. Hence, the earlier show cause notice issued by the third respondent dated 24.07.2009 has become null and void.'

¶20

4.In the light of the admission to the effect that show cause notice dated 24.07.2009 has become null and void, the order impugned in this Writ Petition based on the aforesaid notice is set aside and this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar (AD-II)

¶23

// True Copy //

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶25

¶26

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Industries (MMB-1) Department, Rep. by the State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶27

2.The Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 32.

¶28

3.The District Collector,

¶29

Madurai District, Madurai – 20.

¶30

4.The Tahsildar,

¶31

Melur, Madurai District.

¶32

+1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-78723[F] dated 30/07/2019 )

¶33

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

¶34

W.P(MD)No.10082 of 2012 29.07.2019

¶35

¶36

MK (17.09.2019) 2P 6C

K.N. Solairajan v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.N. Solairajan v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

K.Seenivasan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Sutha Vs The Assistant Director

V.Lakshmana Pandian Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

M/s.Sree Ayyanar Spinning and Weaving Mills Vs The Asst.Commissioner of Customs(refund)

A.Balu Vs The Secretary

Samuthiram Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer