Allowed

Sankar.R v. the Dist. Collector

Madras HC26 Apr 2021WP(MD)/8275/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition seeking direction to the District Collector to permit a petitioner to conduct stone quarrying operations for a non-operative period suspended due to lack of wildlife clearance. The court held that rejecting the request without fault on the petitioner was unjustifiable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; 1st respondent directed to permit quarrying for non-operative period; 2nd respondent directed to issue transport permit.

Sankar.R Vs the Dist. Collector — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.8275 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 26.04.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.8275 of 2021

¶7

R.Sankar ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.

¶10

2.The Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Collectorate,

¶11

Kanyakumari District. ...Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to permit the petitioner to conduct stone quarrying operation in Petitioner's patta land in S.F.No.804/4(P), 804/5(P) and 804/6(P) over an extent of 1.99.0 Ha in Mecode Village in Kanyakumari District for a period of 18 months and 10 days (nonoperative period) for which the petitioner was not permitted to quarry during the lease period accorded vide the proceedings of the respondent in bearing R.C.No.87/G & M/2009 dated 16.10.2015 and consequently direct the second respondent to issue transport permit to the petitioner for the said period.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Samidurai For Respondents : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi Special Government Pleader

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to direct the 1^st respondent to permit the petitioner to conduct stone quarrying operation in his respective Patta land, for non-operative period, for which, the petitioner was not permitted to quarry during the lease period, as per the permission granted and consequently, direct the 2^nd respondent to issue transport permit to the petitioner for the said period.

¶16

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

¶17

1/4

¶18

W.P.(MD).No.8275 of 2021

¶19

Mr.K.Samidurai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was granted permission to conduct stone quarrying operation, by the 1^st respondent, for his patta land in S.F.No.804/4(P), 804/5(P) and 804/6(P), over an extent of 1.99.0 Ha in Mecode Village in Kanyakumari District, for a period of 18 months and 10 days (non-operative period), for which, the petitioner was not permitted to quarry during the lease period, as against the permission granted by the 1^st respondent in R.C.No.87/G & M/2009, dated 16.10.2015 and consequently, direct the 2^nd respondent to issue transport permit to the petitioner for the said period.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the permission granted, the petitioner started quarrying operation in his patta land. Before end of the lease period, the 1^st respondent had temporarily stopped all the quarry operations on the ground that the quarry is situated within 10 kilometers to Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary, and therefore, 'No Objection Certificate' from the National Wildlife Board is mandated. Thereafter, the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, vide Notification SC.3236, dated 22.09.2020, revised the stipulated zone of ECO-Sensitive area as 'Zero to Three Kilometers”. Pursuant to that, the first respondent lifted the temporary suspension of the petitioner's quarry operation and permitted to continue the quarry operation.

¶21

It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that temporary suspension was lifted after a period of 18 months and 10 days. The suspension order was passed by the 1^st respondent, suspending the mining operation of the petitioner only on the ground that clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board of Wild Life was not obtained by the petitioner. Subsequently, the 1^st respondent revoked the earlier order of suspension on the ground that as per the Government of India in Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Notification SC.3236, dated 22.09.2020, the stipulated zone of ECO-Sensitive area had been revised as Zero to 3 kms. The petitioner was allowed to continue his quarry operation. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the 1^st respondent may be directed to permit the petitioner to conduct stone quarrying operation in his Patta land, for non-operative period, for which, the petitioner was not permitted to quarry during the lease period, as per the permission granted and consequently, direct the 2^nd respondent to issue transport permit to the petitioner for the said period.

¶22

Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that it is true, the 2^nd respondent, the Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Kanyakumari District by Notice, stopped the quarry operations, on the ground that the quarry is situated within 10 kilometers to Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary and latter, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

2/4

¶24

W.P.(MD).No.8275 of 2021

¶25

Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, vide Notification SC.3236, dated 22.09.2020, revised the stipulated zone of ECO-Sensitive area as 'Zero to Three Kilometers”. Thereafter, the petitioner was permitted to continue the quarry operation. It is her specific contention that though the 2^nd respondent stopped the quarrying operation for sometime, the learned Special Government Pleader wants to verify whether in the interregnum period, the petitioner was permitted to carry-out stone quarrying operation in his respective patta land by the State Government.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶27

After giving due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, when the respondents have got power to grant permission to the petitioner to conduct stone quarrying operation over his land, for the non-operative period, on account of suspension of the mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner for no fault on him, rejecting the request made by the petitioner to conduct stone quarrying operation in his land for the non-operative period, is not justifiable and therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents ought to have considered the reasonable request of the petitioner, permitting him to conduct stone quarrying operation, on account of suspension of the mining lease granted in favour of him.

¶28

In fine, the Writ Petition is allowed and the 1^st respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to conduct stone quarrying operation in his Patta land, for non-operative period, for which, the petitioner was not permitted to quarry during the lease period, as per the permission granted. Further, the 2^nd respondent is directed to issue transport permit to the petitioner for the said period. No costs.

¶29

Assistant Registrar (CS II)

¶30

// True Copy //

¶31

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶32

¶33

1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.

¶34

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

¶35

3/4

¶36

W.P.(MD).No.8275 of 2021

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.8275 of 2021 26.04.2021

¶38

2.The Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Collectorate, Kanyakumari District.

¶39

+1 CC to M/s.K.SAMIDURAI, Advocate ( SR-17427[F] dated 26/04/2021 )

¶40

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-17907[F] dated 28/04/2021 )

¶41

AS(09.06.2021)3P 5C

¶42

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

¶43

4/4

Sankar.R v. the Dist. Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sankar.R v. the Dist. 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

S.Parasuraman, Vs the Textile Commissioner

B.Sevugan, Vs the District Collector

Senthil Murugan Vs the Addl Superintendent of Police

Marimuthu Vs the Tahsildar

George Antony.R Vs the District Collector

M/S.Sathyabala Auto Power Bikes (P) Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner (St)