Partly allowed

K.Sundarraj v. The District collector

Madras HC9 Mar 2020WP/35166/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a show-cause notice regarding unlicensed brick manufacturing. The Court dismissed the writ petitions without deciding merits, directing the District Collector to pass orders on filed explanations within three weeks after a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were disposed of without expressing views on merits; the first respondent directed to pass orders on explanations within three weeks after a personal hearing.

K.Sundarraj Vs The District collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.03.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.Nos.35166 & 35167 of 2019 and W.M.P.Nos.35953, 35954, 35955 & 35956 of 2019

¶6

K.Sundarraj S/o.Karupanna Gowder

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

(in W.P.No.35166 of 2019)

¶9

Yuvaraj S/o.Arumugam

¶10

... Petitioner

¶11

(in W.P.No.35167 of 2019)

¶12

vs.

¶13

1.The District Collector Coimbatore.

¶14

2.The Assistant Director i/c/ Joint Director Geology and Mining Coimbatore.

¶15

...Respondents in both W.P.s

¶16

Writ Petition No.35166 of 2019 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent bearing Na.Ka.No.10/Minerals/2019 dated 29.10.2019 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents herein to permit the petitioner to continue the brick manufacturing activities in the brick kiln in Survey No.529/1 of Veerapandi Village and quarry the required sand for the said purpose from petitioners patta land in Survey No.540/2B of Veerapandi Village.

¶17

Writ Petition No.35167 of 2019 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent bearing Na.Ka.No.10/Minerals/2019 dated 29.10.2019 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents herein to permit the petitioner to continue the brick manufacturing activities in the petitioner's village and quarry the required sand for the said purpose from petitioner's village.

¶18

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

¶19

For Petitioner in both W.P.s : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan Senior Counsel for Mr.V.S.Senthilkumar

¶20

For Respondents in both W.P.s : Mr.R.Govindasamy Special Government Pleader in WP No.35166/19 and Mr.V.Raghavachari for Mr.V.S.Senthil Kumar in WP No.35167/19

¶21

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶22

In both these writ petitions, challenge made is against a notice dated 29.10.2019 issued by the District Collector, Coimbatore, calling upon the petitioner to give explanation as to why action should not be taken against them for manufacturing bricks without obtaining necessary permission/licence.

¶23

The grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that they have been granted permission earlier and their application for renewal is pending before the authorities. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned notice is totally unwarranted.

¶24

This Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioners, since the challenge made in these writ petitions is only against the notice to show cause and therefore, these petitioners can give their suitable explanation to the allegations made in the impugned notice and satisfy the authorities with supportive materials/documents. It is stated that already explanations were given.

¶25

If that be the case, it is for the first respondent to consider the explanations already filed by the petitioners and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of personal hearing as well. It is open to the petitioners to place supportive documents over their claim before the first respondent at the time of personal hearing. Thus, these writ petitions are disposed of, without expressing any view on the merits of the contentions raised by both parties, only with a direction to the first respondent to pass orders on the explanations already filed by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶28

//True copy//

¶29

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

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

mk To 1.The District Collector, Coimbatore. 2.The Assistant Director i/c/ Joint Director Geology and Mining Coimbatore. +1cc to Mr.V.S.Senthilkumar , Advocate SR.No.20848 +1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.21643 W.P.Nos.35166 & 35167 of 2019 GJ(CO) GMY(09/07/2020)

¶32

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

K.Sundarraj v. The District collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sundarraj 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

V.Rathinakumar Vs Union of India

K.Ramachandran, Vs The Union of India

Y.Krishnan Vs Balaji

Kareem Ahamed Vs The Manager

Vasantha Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Sri Annai Women Self-Help Group, Vs The District Collector