Criticizing rejection of refund claim based on premature timing due to third-party disputes, the Court quashed the impugned order regarding security deposit, directing respondents to refund the amount.
Refund of Security Deposit of Rs.48,300/- directed within 8 weeks; Impugned order quashed to extent of security deposit.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.29939 of 2016
K. Kangaraj
...Petitioner
Vs
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent-1 in his proceedings in Rc.No.115/2011/ G & M 2 dated 14.06.2016 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to refund the proportionate seigniorage fee (out of Rs.4,83,000/-) paid by the petitioner and security deposit of Rs.48,300/-
For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Krishnan
For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, Government Advocate
O R D E R
The relief sought for in the present Writ Petition is to quash the proceedings dated 14.06.2016 and direct the 1 st respondent to refund the proportionate Seigniorage fee paid by the petitioner and security deposit of Rs.48,300/-.
Agreement but the premature termination occurred on account of third party disputes between the petitioners and other persons, for which, the Authorities cannot be held responsible.
Therefore, the provisions of Rule 36 (E) of Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concessions Rule, 1959 cannot be applied and therefore, the case of the writ petitioner was rejected.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sts/shr
To:
+1cc to Mr.K.R.Krishnan , Advocate, S.R.No.67414
W.P.No.29939 of 2016
EV[co] NSK 06/01/2022
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the security deposit of Rs.48,300/-.
Whether Section 36(E) of Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concessions Rules, 1959 applies when mining operations stop due to third-party disputes.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the claim for refund of the security deposit should be quashed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K. Kangaraj
The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur
The Assistant Director of Mines, Thiruvallur
S.M.Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
