Disposed

M. Selvaraj v. the District Collector

Madras HC20 Mar 2020WP(MD)/5598/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the refusal to issue a transport permit for rough stones from a leasehold area. The court held that the petitioner must resolve existing internal disputes personally and directed the respondent to issue a permit upon satisfactory fulfillment of conditions.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to continue giving the transport permit after proper acknowledgement and undertaking satisfying imposed conditions.

M. Selvaraj Vs the District Collector — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.5598 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 20.03.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN W.P(MD)No.5598 of 2020 and W.M.P(MD)No.4902 of 2020

¶6

M.Selvaraj ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The District Collector, Karur District, Collectorate, Thanthonimalai, Karur.

¶9

2.The Assistant Director, Geology & Mining, Collectorate, Thanthonimalai, Karur – 639 007. ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to issue Transport permit on payment of seigniorage fee for transporting rough stones from the leasehold area in S.F.291/Part Bit-II of Paganatham Village, Karur Taluk, Karur District on the basis of petitioner's representation dated 19.02.2020.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Suresh

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.J.Padmavathi Devi, Special Government Pleader

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶15

2.The petitioner seeks a Mandamus to issue Transport permit on payment of seigniorage fee for transporting rough stones from the leasehold area in S.F.291/Part Bit-II of Paganatham Village, Karur Taluk, Karur District. The petitioner had given a representation on 19.02.2020 in this regard. In the affidavit, the petitioner has stated that he had been granted a quarrying lease for a period of five years in the said property by the proceedings of the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

1/3

¶17

W.P(MD)No.5598 of 2020

¶18

respondent / The District Collector, Karur District in Na.Ka.No.303/Mines/2017, dated 07.02.2018. It has been stated that he has been continuously quarrying in the said area. However, owing to some disputes, he has not granted transport permit, which according to the learned Special Government Pleader were internal disputes.

¶19

3.According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner has initiated several steps for Transport permit, the second respondent has refused to issue Transport Permit without assigning any reason. This has led to a representation given by the petitioner on 19.02.2020.

¶20

4.Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the entire materials available on record.

¶21

5.It is a fact that the lease has been granted to the petitioner for a period of three years. If there are disputes, the petitioner has to handle them at his own end. Therefore, the petitioner may approach the office of the second respondent at any working day, in the course of next week and thereafter, on proper acknowledgement, identification and an undertaking to be given, the second respondent may continue to give the transport permit to the petitioner in accordance with rules and if the petitioner satisfies the conditions as imposed by the second respondent.

¶22

6.With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶23

// True Copy //

¶24

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶25

¶26

¶27

1.The District Collector, Karur District, Collectorate, Thanthonimalai, Karur.

¶28

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

¶29

2/3

¶30

W.P(MD)No.5598 of 2020

¶31

2.The Assistant Director, Geology & Mining, Collectorate, Thanthonimalai, Karur – 639 007.

¶32

+1 CC to M/s.K.SURESH, Advocate ( SR-12627[F] dated 20/03/2020 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-12841[F] dated 23/03/2020 )

¶33

W.P(MD)No.5598 of 2020

¶34

20.03.2020

¶35

CN(14.05.2020) 3P 5C

¶36

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

¶37

3/3

M. Selvaraj v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Selvaraj 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Chandrasekaran Vs the Licensing Authority

Kathiravan Vs the Dist. Revenue Officer/

Habeeb Educational and Social Services Ltd., Vs the Sub Collector

Santhiyagu Vs the Licensing Authority/

M/S. Maxwell Matriculation Hr.Sec. School Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I

V. Kumaresan Vs the Dist. Collector