Allowed

S.Maharajan v. The District Collector

Madras HC23 Jul 2020WP(MD)/7086/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a penalty order. The Court quashed the order primarily due to a violation of principles of natural justice, noting it was passed without displaying essential documents to the petitioner and without a proper hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order levying penalty by the Revenue Divisional Officer is quashed, and the authority is directed to proceed afresh according to law.

S.Maharajan Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)NO. 7086 OF 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.07.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.7086 of 2020

¶3

and W.M.P(MD).Nos. 7144, 6523 and 6524 of 2020

¶4

S.Maharajan ... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1.The District Collector Office of the District Collectorate Madurai District

¶7

Madurai

¶8

2.The Assistant Director Department of Mines and Geology Madurai District Madurai

¶9

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Usilampatti

¶10

Madurai District

¶11

4.The Tahsildar

¶12

Peraiyur Taluk Madurai District ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the record relating to the impugned order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.5092/2020/A1 dated 28.05.2020 and quash the same and consequently, forbearing the respondents from in anyway interfering with the leasehold right of the petitioner from doing rough stone quarrying as per the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.1097/2016-Mines dated 10.08.2017.

¶14

For petitioner : Mr.Veera Kathiravan

¶15

Senior Counsel For M/s.Veera Associates

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.S.Angappan

¶17

Government Advocate.

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

1/3

¶21

W.P.(MD)NO. 7086 OF 2020

¶22

respondents.

¶23

2.What is under challenge in this writ petition is levy of penalty passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide order dated 28.05.2020. The show cause notice itself was issued only on 26.05.2020. The petitioner had received the same on 27.05.2020. The petitioner's grievance is that the documents relied on in the show cause was not even made available with him. Even without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, straight away the impugned order levying penalty came to be passed on the very next day. That is why, when the writ petition was taken up for admission, this Court granted interim orders of stay and injunction. Instead of filing counter in the main matter, the Tahsildar had applied for clarification of the interim order. I am not able to appreciate the approach of the Tahsildar. There is nothing to clarify in the interim order. The order is quite clear.

¶24

3.Be that as it may, the main writ petition itself can be disposed of on the short ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order has been passed with undue alacrity. The relied on document has not been made available to the petitioner. There is thus a violation of principle of natural justice. The order impugned in the writ petition is quashed. It is of course open to the concerned authority to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with law.

¶25

4.With this liberty to the respondents, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶26

// True Copy //

¶27

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶28

msa

¶29

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶30

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

¶31

2/3

¶32

W.P.(MD)NO. 7086 OF 2020

¶33

To : 1.The District Collector Office of the District Collectorate Madurai District Madurai 2.The Assistant Director Department of Mines and Geology Madurai District Madurai 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Usilampatti Madurai District 4.The Tahsildar Peraiyur Taluk Madurai District +1 CC to M/s.VEERA ASSOCIATES, Advocate ( SR-13258[F] dated 27/07/2020 ) W.P.(MD)No.7086 of 2020 and W.M.P(MD).Nos. 7144, 6523 and 6524 of 2020 23.07.2020

¶34

KB(30.07.2020) 3P 6C

¶35

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

¶36

3/3

S.Maharajan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Maharajan 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

P.Rajasekar Vs the Director

E.Ponnusamy Vs The Chief Engineer PWD

The Managing Director, Vs the Motor Vehicles Inspector

Patchamal Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

N.Panchavarnam Vs the Joint Director

Amaran Vs the Assistant Director