Disposed

Kamalakanni v. The District Collector

Madras HC7 Sept 2021WP/18723/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging a penalty order for lease violation, the Court held that the petition is not maintainable as an effective alternative remedy of appeal exists. However, the Court directed the respondent to furnish the inspection report to the petitioner and ordered immediate filing of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Directed the fourth respondent to furnish the inspection report within one week; petitioner directed to file appeal before appellate authority within two weeks thereafter.

Kamalakanni Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 07.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P.NO.18723 OF 2021

¶6

AND WMP.NO.19990 OF 2021

¶7

Kamalakanni .. Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The District Collector

¶10

Villupuram District, Villupuram

¶11

The District Collector Kallakurichi District Kallakurichi 606 202

¶12

The Assistant Director Department of Geology and Mining Kallakurichi District - 605 602

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer Thirukovilur, Kallakurichi - 605 757 .. Respondents

¶14

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertains to original impugned order in order No. Na.Ka.A2/86/2021-I dated 24.07.2021 passed by the 4th respondent and to quash the same as highly illegal and against the principles of natural justice

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. J.Kumaran

¶16

For Respondents : Mr. G.Krishnaraja

¶17

Government Counsel

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The present writ petition has been filed seeking to call for the records pertaining to the order No. Na.Ka.A2/86/2021-I dated 24.07.2021 passed by the 4th respondent and to quash the same.

¶20

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

¶21

According to the petitioner, he was a lease holder for quarrying rough stone. When the period of quarry was to expire, he submitted an application for renewal. On the basis of such application, the third respondent inspected the land and submitted a report indicating that there is no violation of the conditions of lease. Inspite of such report, the fourth respondent passed the order imposing penalty payable by the petitioner on the ground that he had quarried the land than what was leased out to him. However, the fourth respondent has not issued any inspection report to show the nature of violation committed by the petitioner warranting imposition of penalty. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, hence, this Writ Petition.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report filed by the inspecting authorities is the basis for the fourth respondent to levy penalty. However, such a report has not been served to the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned order and to direct the fourth respondent to furnish a copy of the inspection report.

¶23

The learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as there is an alternative and effective remedy of appeal available to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the fourth respondent. However, the petitioner, without exhausting such remedy, has filed the present writ petition. Therefore, the learned Government Counsel prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶24

Heard both sides and perused the documents enclosed in the typed set of papers. On perusal of the order impugned in this writ petition, it is evident that the fourth respondent has come to a conclusion that the petitioner has violated the conditions of lease, based on a report filed by the inspection authority. However, the copy of the inspection report has not been served on the petitioner. Further, in the order dated 24.07.2021, it was clearly indicated that if the petitioner is aggrieved by such order, an appeal can be preferred before the District Collector, Kallakurichi. When such an alternative remedy of appeal is provided, it is just and proper for the petitioner to file an appeal instead of filing this writ petition.

¶25

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. The fourth respondent is directed to furnish a copy of the inspection report to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On

¶26

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

¶27

receipt of the same, the petitioner is directed to file an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of two weeks thereafter. If any such appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall entertain the same without reference to the delay in filing the appeal by excluding the period spent in prosecuting this writ petition before this Court.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶30

//True Copy//

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

dhk/rsh

¶33

¶34

The District Collector Villupuram District 2. The District Collector Kallakurichi District Kallakurichi 3. The Assistant Director Department of Geology and Mining Kallakurichi District - 605 602 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer Thirukovilur, Kallakurichi - 605 757 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.45828

¶35

WP No. 18723 of 2021

¶36

JP II(CO) PM/07/10/2021

¶37

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

Kamalakanni v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamalakanni 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

V.Periyasamy Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

N.Chellappan, Vs The District Collector

Chandra Royal Inn Private Ltd. Vs Small Industries Development

V.Jayanthi Vs The District Collector

Thiru.C.Ramamoorthy, Vs The Superintendent of Police

P.Natesan, S/o.Perumal Vs The Chief Engineer