Quashed

Kumaresan P. v. the District Collector

Madras HC23 Sept 2021WP(MD)/17303/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged an order imposing a penalty for illegal quarrying without a prior show-cause notice. The High Court held that such an order violates principles of natural justice and quashed it, remitting the matter for a fresh order after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of 28.04.2016 imposing penalty of Rs. 17,16,325/- was quashed and remitted for reconsideration after issuing a show-cause notice.

Kumaresan P. Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD) No.17303 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.09.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.17303 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)No.14193 & 14194 of 2021

¶7

P.Kumaresan ... Petitioner

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

1.The District Collector, Tiruvelveli District.

¶10

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvelveli District.

¶11

3.The Tahsildar, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tiruvelveli District. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 2^nd respondent in Moo.Mu.A5/1593/2016 dated 28.04.2016 and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam For Respondents : Mr.D.Ghandiraj Government Advocate

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 2^nd respondent in Moo.Mu.A5/1593/2016 dated 28.04.2016 and quash the same.

¶16

2. It is the case of the petitioner that, pursuant to a complaint given against the petitioner as if that the petitioner had been indulging in illegal quarrying of earth at Survey No.375/1, which is a patta land at Seevalapeari Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District, the second respondent ie., the Revenue Divisional Officer had straightaway issued an order dated 28.04.2016, whereby he has imposed penalty of Rs. 17,16,325/- on the petitioner.

¶17

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

¶18

1/5

¶19

W.P(MD) No.17303 of 2021

¶20

3. In this context, it is the case of the petitioner that, on the day itself, due to the complaint given to the police, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Therefore, at no point of time, according to the petitioner, order dated 28.04.2016 imposing penalty had been served on the petitioner.

¶21

4. Subsequently, since the petitioner happened to be the Village President of the Panchayat concerned, a proceedings was initiated by the Inspector of Panchayat, ie., the District Collector concerned under Section 205(1)(a) of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 and that proceedings was pending and was being conducted for sometime.

¶22

5. However, at any point of time, neither the show cause notice was issued before the order dated 28.04.2016 nor the copy of the said order had been served on the petitioner.

¶23

6. However, subsequently, the petitioner had been issued a show cause notice on 27.05.2016 stating that as per the order dated 28.04.2016 of the second respondent, penalty has been imposed against the petitioner, which the petitioner has not paid. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, which is also related to Section 205(1)(a) of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 as to why the petitioner shall not be disqualified under the said Section, in view of the pendency or commissioning of the alleged violation of the Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 1959. Pursuant to which, a criminal case has already been filed against him.

¶24

7. Be that as it may, now the case of the petitioner is that, insofar as the order of imposing penalty against the petitioner dated 28.04.2016 is concerned, that order has been passed by the second respondent without putting the petitioner on any notice, though it is mandated and the copy of the said order has also not been served. Therefore, the petitioner, after getting the copy of the said order, has now come forward to challenge the same on two grounds that the copy of the order has not been served on him and primarily no show cause notice before passing the impugned order has been given against him.

¶25

8. Reiterating the aforesaid, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would seek indulgence of this Court against the impugned order.

¶26

9. However, Mr.D.Ghandiraj, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would contend that on 27.05.2016, a detailed show cause notice had been given to the petitioner, which had been responded by the petitioner on 23.06.2016 and thereafter, since a writ petition had been filed by the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.19084 of 2016, where interim order was granted on 15.11.2016, the issue could not be further persuaded. Therefore, it cannot be stated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

2/5

¶28

W.P(MD) No.17303 of 2021

¶29

that no show cause notice was given against the petitioner.

¶30

10. I have considered the said rival submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶31

11. It is a definite case of the petitioner that, the order impugned dated 28.04.2016 was issued without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner. However, it is pointed out by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents that on 27.05.2016, a show cause was issued.

¶32

12. I have perused the impugned order dated 28.04.2016 as well as the show cause notice dated 27.05.2016. Admittedly, the impugned order is dated 28.04.2016 and only thereafter, the show cause notice was issued on 27.05.2016, that too related to the proceedings initiated under Section 205(1)(a) of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 against the petitioner. Therefore, the show cause notice is noway related to the impugned order.

¶33

13 .Insofar as the validity of the impugned order is concerned, this Court has gone through the entirety of the impugned order, in fact, it is a short order, for easy reference, it is extracted herein:

¶34

“ghisaq;nfhl;il tl;lk;> rPtyg;nghp fpuhkk; g[y vz; 375/1 fpuhkf; fzf;fpd; go gl;lh vz; 1509 epyj;jpy; mDkjpapd;wp jpU.g{iyah njth; vd;gthpd; kfd; jpU.Fknurd; vd;gth; kz; vLf;fg;gl;ljhf ghh;it 1 kw;Wk; 2 y; fz;lgo mwpf;if tug;bgw;Ws;sJ.

¶35

nkw;fz;l ,lj;jpy; 35.0 kP * 15.0 kP * 5.0 kP xU Fhpa[k; 75.0 kP * 33.0 kP * 5.0 kP FHpapy; kz; vLj;jjw;fhf fPH;f;fz;lthW mguhjk; tpjpj;J cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.

¶36

1959 Mk; tUlj;jpa jpUj;jpa jkpH;ehL rpW fdpk rYif tpjpfs; vz; (v) (1) go kw;Wk; 1957 Mk; tUlj;jpa fdpkk; kw;Wk; Ruq;fk; KiwgLj;JtJk; nkk;gLj;JjYk; rl;l gphpt[ 21 go mDkjpapd;wp muRf;F brhe;jkhd rpW fdpkk; Kiwapd;wp vLj;J bry;tJ jz;lidf;Fhpa Fw;wkhFk;. Fknurd; vd;gtUf;F nkw;fz;l rl;l tpjpfspd; go U:gha; 17>16>325/- mguhj bjhif tpjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.

¶37

nkw;fz;l mguhjk; U:gha; 17>16>325/- bjhifapid Fknurd; vd;gth; ghuj tq;fpapy; brYj;jp mry; brYj;jpr; rPl;oid ,t;tYtyfj;jpy; M$h; bra;a[khW ,jd; K:yk; cj;jutpglg;gLfpwJ.

¶38

nfhl;lhl;rpj; jiyth; jpUbey;ntyp”

¶39

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

¶40

3/5

¶41

W.P(MD) No.17303 of 2021

¶42

14. On perusal of the same, one can easily find that before passing the impugned order, no show cause notice has been given by the second respondent against the petitioner. Therefore, on the ground of non-issuance of show notice and the violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

¶43

15. Moreover, insofar as the challenge of the impugned order is concerned, the petitioner has made averments in para 5 of the affidavit that on 28.04.2016, the date on which impugned order was passed, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Therefore, there had been no occasion for the petitioner to receive the said order, as the same has not been served on him. At no point of time, it had been served and belatedly, the petitioner came to know that such order was passed against the petitioner. Accordingly, he was able to get a copy of the impugned order belatedly, that is why, he belatedly challenged the impugned order. The said submission borne out of records by the petitioner has to be accepted.

¶44

16. In that view of the matter, this Court feels that since the impugned order has been passed without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner, it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Therefore, it is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed. As a sequel, the matter is remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration. While reconsidering the same, it is open to the second respondent or any other authority under the relevant provisions of the Rules or any other law for the time being in force to initiate fresh action against the petitioner after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner for the alleged excavation of earth from the patta land as referred to above and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, they can proceed to pass final order on merits and in accordance with law.

¶45

17. With these directions, this Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶48

// True Copy //

¶49

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶50

PNM/SM

¶51

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

¶52

4/5

¶53

W.P(MD) No.17303 of 2021

¶54

NOTE:

¶55

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.

¶56

¶57

1.The District Collector, Tiruvelveli District.

¶58

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvelveli District.

¶59

3.The Tahsildar, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tiruvelveli District.

¶60

+1 CC to M/s.SPL. GP ( SR-30126[F] dated 24/09/2021 )

¶61

+1 CC to M/s.H.ARUMUGAM, Advocate ( SR-30231[F] dated 24/09/2021 )

¶62

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.17303 of 2021 Dated: 23.09.2021

¶63

TR(27.09.2021) 5P 6C

¶64

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

¶65

5/5

Kumaresan P. v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumaresan P. 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

S.Mohammed Yousuf (Died), Joharal Beevi, Vs The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wild Life Warden

Jeyaraj P Vs the Chief Conservator of Forests

Golden Sports and Recretion Club Vs the Commissioner

A.Isabella Rani Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Palanimurugan Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

M/s. Ganga Grandeur Vs the Designated Committee