Dismissed

K.a.M.Mines and Minerals v. the Director of Geology and Mining

Madras HC24 Feb 2021WP(MD)/441/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to approve a mining plan. The Court held that without obtaining a stay on the demand for mining dues and enclosing a valid clearance certificate as required by law, the writ of mandamus could not be issued.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus was not issued as the petitioner failed to produce a valid clearance certificate and did not obtain a stay on the demand for dues.

K.a.M.Mines and Minerals Vs the Director of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.441 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.02.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.441 of 2021 and WMP.(MD).No.375 of 2021

¶5

M/s.K.A.M.Mines and Minerals rep. by its Proprietor A.Muthukumar S/o.Anbanandan Chettiayakadu, Thagettur Post, Vedaraniyam Taluk, Nagapattinam District - 614 714. ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The Director of Geology and Mining Guindy,

¶8

Chennai - 600 032.

¶9

2.The District Collector, Collectorate, Thanjavur District.

¶10

3.The Assistant Director, Geology and Mining, Thanjavur. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to approve the mining plan and communicate the precise area as per rule 41(1)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Mines Mineral Concession Rules 1959 in respect of Silica Sand quarry in S.No.187/1, 188/6, 189/2, 197/2, 198/202, 199/2, 200/1A, 201/1 and 2 measuring to an extent of 13.36.5 Hectares in his own patta land situated in Thambikottai Vadakku, Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District by accepting immovable property security for the demand of Rs.1.43 crores pending adjudication before this Hon`ble Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Krishnan For Respondents : Mr.S.Angappan Government Advocate

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶15

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

¶16

1/3

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.441 of 2021

¶18

2.The petitioner requested the respondents to approve the petition mentioned mining plan. The respondents are declining to process the petitioner’s application on the ground that he has not enclosed a valid clearance certificate as contemplated by Rule 22(3) (1)(d) of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960.

¶19

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the issue is pending consideration before the Hon’ble first Bench in W.A. No.671 of 2020 etc., batch.

¶20

4.Though the petitioner’s counsel is right in his contention that the issue is yet to be decided, the fact remains that the petitioner has not obtained any stay of the demand raised by the respondents. As per rule 22 of the Mineral concession Rules 1960, if any injunction has been issued by Court of law or any other competent authorities staying the recovery of the mining dues, the non-payment thereof, shall not be treated as a disqualification, for the purpose of granting or renewing the mining lease.

¶21

5.In the case on hand no such interim order, has been obtained so far. The petitioner seeks relief in the nature of writ of mandamus. No court can issue mandamus, contrary to law. In view of the express requirements set out in Rule 22 for production of valid clearance certificate, I am unable to grant relief.

¶22

6.Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. I make it clear, that the moment the petitioner is able to obtain interim stay in the pending writ appeal, it is certainly open to the petitioner herein, to move this Court again for appropriate relief. No costs. connected Mp is closed.

¶23

Assistant Registrar (Records)

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

To:

¶27

1.The Director of Geology and Mining Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

¶28

2.The District Collector, Collectorate, Thanjavur District.

¶29

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

¶30

2/3

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.441 of 2021

¶32

3.The Assistant Director, Geology and Mining, Thanjavur.

¶33

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-7271[F] dated 25/02/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.K.R.KRISHNAN, Advocate ( SR-7378[F] dated 25/02/2021 ) W.P.(MD)No.441 of 2021 24.02.2021

¶34

ES(CO) KB(15.03.2021) 3P 6C

¶35

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

¶36

3/3

K.a.M.Mines and Minerals v. the Director of Geology and Mining

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.a.M.Mines and Minerals v. the Director of Geology and Mining

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

Ravichandran.C Vs the Managing Director

Adaikalam Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Karuppaiyan Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Sridhar.v Vs the Regional Transport Authority

M/s.D.Y.Beathelenterprises Vs the State Tax Officer (Data Cell)

Tvl. Popular Trader Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes