Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

S.Kumarasamy, Vs The Commissioner — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2020)

Home
Madras HC
2020
S.Kumarasamy, Vs The CommissionerS.Kumarasamy, v. The Commissioner

Disposed

S.Kumarasamy, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC24 Jan 2020WP/1821/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought Mandamus directing the mining department to approve his delayed Scheme of Mining application. The court dismissed the petition

What the court decided

AI extract

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :24.01.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

W.P. No.1821 of 2018

S.Kumarasamy ...Petitioner

Vs

The Commissioner, Department of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai-600 032 ... Respondent

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's Scheme of Mining submitted to the respondent, through the Deputy Director, Geology and Mining, Thirunelveli, on 23.06.2017, the receipt of which has been acknowledged by the respondent on 3107-2017, in respect of the subject granite bearing patta lands of the petitioner, measuring 0.75.0 hectares comprised in S.F.Nos.317/6 & 317/8, situated at Balapathiraramapuram Village, V.K.Puthur Taluk, Thirunelvi District.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy For Respondent : Mr.M.Inbanathan Addl. Govt. Pleader

The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Mandamus seeking direction to the respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's Scheme of Mining submitted to the respondent, through the Deputy Director, Geology and Mining, Thirunelveli, on 23.06.2017, the receipt of which has been acknowledged by the respondent on 31-07-2017, in respect of the subject granite bearing patta lands of the petitioner, measuring 0.75.0 hectares comprised in S.F.Nos.317/6 & 317/8, situated at Balapathiraramapuram Village, V.K.Puthur Taluk, Thirunelvi District.

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the petitioner, who violated mining terms and failed to submit the renewal application within stipulated time, is entitled to a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the delaye
2.
What conditions must the petitioner fulfill before the respondent can proceed to consider the petitioner's mining scheme application.

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
S. Kumarasamy
respondent
The Commissioner, Department of Geology and Mining

Coram

AI extract

C.V. Karthikeyan

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 24 Jan 2020 · January
Registered: 29 Jan 2018
Case no.: WP/1821/2018

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from C.v. Karthikeyan

B.Hariprasad, Vs The Inspector of Police
23 Jan 2020
E.Muruvayee Vs The District Collector
23 Jan 2020
Shokkath Ali Vs The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board
23 Jan 2020
S.Anandan Vs The Commissioner
24 Jan 2020

Cite this judgement

S.Kumarasamy, v. The Commissioner, WP/1821/2018 (MAD), decided on 24 January 2020.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Bench / Coram

C.V. Karthikeyan

Parties & counsel

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who violated mining terms and failed to submit the renewal application within stipulated time, is entitled to a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the delaye +1 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking direction to consider and approve his Scheme of Mining submitted belatedly. The respondent stated the applicant violated mining rules by extracting material without Environment Clearance during a specific period and failed to submit the renewal scheme within the stipulated time. The court held that while the petitioner cannot claim rights without performing duties, the petition is disposed of by directing the respondent to determine the amounts payable for the violating period and to consider the scheme simultaneously upon payment of such amounts. No separate writ was issued.

A compact analysis

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.

2.In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it was stated that originally the Petitioner had been granted benefit of the lease agreement dated 23.12.2002, which was duly

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

registered and the same was in force for a period of 10 years till 22.12.2012.

The Government of Tamilnadu, vide GO.Ms.No.79, Industries (MMC-1) Dept, dated 06.4.2015, introduced Rules 41 and 42 to the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and as per Rule 41, the approved mining plan is a prerequisite for granting granite quarring lease and as per Rule 42, Environment Clearance is also a pre-requisite for carrying on quarrying operations. Based on the same, the existing leases though were granted licence, under Rule 42 Mines and Minerals Concession Rule 1959 were directed to submit the Environment Clearance Certificate within 180 days, and thereafter, the said period was extended from time to time.

4.It is stated that thereafter, by Rule 18(2) of the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999, it was stated scheme of mining should be submitted once in five years during the lease period. It is stated that the petitioner had submitted the said application seeking approval of scheme of mining to the respondent on 23.6.2017 along with required copies of scheme of mining.

5.It is the grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the application along with scheme of mining was recieved by the respondents on 31.7.2017, till date, no action has been taken to grant approval for the same and the same is kept pending till date.

6.Status report had been filed by the respondents herein, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner had submitted the said Scheme of Mining very belatedly, petitioner failed to submit the renewal application and scheme of mining within the time period as stipulated under Rule 19(a) of Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. It is also stated that the Director of Geology and Mining, Chennai has instructed to take necessary action to collect the cost of granite material, if any granite quarries were operated under the violating period, i.e., the quarries operated without Environment Clearance or excess quantity exploited over and above the permitted quantity of the mining plan/scheme of mining/Environment Clearance. It is stated that the petitioner has quarried granite mineral and transported the same in violation of the above said rules, for the period from 15.01.2016 to 10.01.2017.

7.In view of the above stated facts, the petitioner seeks writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the Scheme of Mining, but at the same time, he is under obligation to pay any demand raised by the respondent. He cannot claim right without performing duties. Though his prayer, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not go

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

to the root of the issue, still, through this method, the petitioner cannot take further advantage of the fact when he had actually violated the terms and conditions and is also liable to pay due amounts to the respondent for the same.

8.The respondent, may determine the amounts payable by the petitioner for the violating period and the petitioner is directed to pay such amount. Simultaneously, on payment of such amount, the respondent shall consider the application along with scheme of Mining given by the petitioner.

9.With the above observation, the Writ Petition stands
disposed of. No cost.

Sd/Assistant Registrar(J) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To The Commissioner, Department of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. +1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.5743 +1cc to Mr.K.RamaKrishna Reddy, Advocate Sr.5099 W.P. No.1821 of 2018

srg 21/02/2020

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

CNR

HCMA011130442018

Topic

Labour and Industrial Disputes

Bench

C.v. Karthikeyan

Disposal

DISPOSED OF

V.Anandan Vs The Member Secretary

24 Jan 2020

Sakuntala Manohar, Vs The Regional Passport Officer

24 Jan 2020