A writ petition challenging a quarrying licence was dismissed as infructuous because the respondent who held the licence was dead and no quarrying operations were being carried out, rendering the petition's prayer unnecessary.
The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. No costs.
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: 28.01.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.No.11362 of 2012 and M.P.Nos. 2 & 3 of 2012
B.Vadivel Murugan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Chief Secretary to Government, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Deputy Director, Geology and Mining, Kanchipuram District.
5.P.Mariadoss ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records of the second respondent relating to the grant of lease to the firth respondent in Rc.40/2003-Q1 dated 18.09.2003 and the consequential lease deed in favour of the fifth respondent dated 18.09.2003 and quash the same for the violation of the terms and conditions of the lease and also direct the first respondent to take action against the officials for not taking effective steps to curb the illicit quarrying by the fifth respondent.
For Petitioner : Ms.P.V.Rajeswari For Respondent : Ms.K.Bhuvaneswari Nos.1 to 4
For Respondent No.5 : Mr.N.Manokaran
1
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the quarrying licence granted to the 5th respondent by the second respondent. It is now submitted by the learned counsel for the 5th respondent that the 5th respondent is dead and further, he submitted that as on date, there is no quarrying operations carried out on behalf of the 5th respondent.
2.Recording the submissions of the learned counsel for the 5th respondent, the prayer sought for in this writ petition has now become infructuous. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sms
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by Chief Secretary to Government,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Kanchipuram District, Kanchipuram.
3.The Deputy Director,
Geology and Mining, Kanchipuram District.
W.P.No.11362 of 2012 and M.P.Nos. 2 & 3 of 2012
NR(CO) CB(25/02/2020)
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as the operations by the fifth respondent have ceased.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
B.Vadivel Murugan
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Chief Secretary to Government
District Collector, Kanchipuram District
Deputy Director, Geology and Mining, Kanchipuram District
Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengelpet
P.Mariadoss
Abdul Quddhose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
