Quashed

Sumal Mathew v. the Secretary to Govt.

Madras HC27 Apr 2021WP(MD)/8536/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court disposed of the writ petition seeking a mandamus for transport permits for M-Sand. Relying on previous orders, the court directed that transport should be permitted if the petitioner holds specified valid documents, else authorities may prevent transport.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction that respondents must permit transport if valid documents are possessed.

Sumal Mathew Vs the Secretary to Govt. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.8536 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :27.04.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.8536 of 2021 and WMP(MD)No.6417 of 2021

¶7

Sumal Mathew .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Mines and Minerals, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 2.The District Collector, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi. 4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

¶8

5.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Puliyarai Police Station, Tenkasi District. 6.The Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District. .. Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to issue necessary permit to the petitioner for transporting M-Sand, Quarry Dust, P.Sand, GSB extra from Tamil Nadu to Kerala State, through Puliyarai Check Post, Tenkasi District, in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.25381 of 2019, dated 28.11.2019 and in the light of the representation of the petitioner dated 16.04.2021 by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ considering the same in accordance with law.

¶10

1/4

¶11

W.P.(MD)No.8536 of 2021

¶12

For Petitioner For Respondents

¶13

: Mr.A.Saravanan : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, Special Government Pleader

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶16

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final

¶17

disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶18

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶19

The Hon'ble Division Bench has passed an interim order with regard to transportation of M-sand. Therefore, the authorities obviously are bound by the direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench. Further, in an identical issue, this Court in W.P (MD)No.2760 of 2018, dated 20.02.2018, has observed as under:

¶20

“3.The learned Government Pleader directed to get instructions from the respondents, today, the District Collector filed a report stating that the transport of crusher material from Tamilnadu to Kerala is permitted if the petitioner possess the following certificates.

¶21

“1.Valid Transport permit issued by the Mines Department

¶22

2.Valid Pollution Control Board consent issued by the District Environmental Engineer, Pollution Control Board.

¶23

3.Valid permanent Registration certification issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre.

¶24

4.Valid quarry licence proceeding issued by

¶25

the concern District Collector in connection with the raw material requirement for the production of M-sand to the M-sand unit holders.

¶26

5.Valid sale tax registration certificate (TIN Number and GST Number)”

¶27

Instructions also given to all the Revenue officials, Police officials and Mines Officials and all Check post authorities to allow the vehicles carrying the crusher material with the above documents.

¶28

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he is in possession of all the above certificates issued by the concerned authorities. In the above circumstances as per the report submitted by the District Collector, if the petitioner possessed all the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ above mentioned documents for transporting the quarrying

¶29

2/4

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.8536 of 2021

¶31

material, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to transport the same, and it is made clear that if the petitioner does not possessed any one of the document mentioned above, the respondents are at liberty to prevent the petitioner from transporting the material from Kanniyakumari District to Kerala.

¶32

5.With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

¶33

Following the same, in similar issue, this Court vide order dated 28.11.2019, disposed of the writ petition in W.P(MD) No.25381 of 2019. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:

¶34

“4.The learned counsel appearing for the

¶35

petitioner stated that there is no bar for transporting crusher dust. But, then the petitioner will have to carry a valid permit to indicate that crusher dust was obtained from a permitted quarry. If the petitioner is having valid permit, the respondents would definitely not prevent the petitioner from transporting crusher dust. But this Court will not pass any omnibus orders. The respondents are always at liberty to check the vehicle and demand production of the documents. If the petitioner is having a valid documents, the respondents will not prevent the petitioner from transporting crusher dust.

¶36

5.The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, WMP(MD) No.21956 of 2019 is closed.”

¶37

In view of the above, the respondents are always at liberty to check the vehicle and demand production of the documents. If the petitioner is having a valid documents, the respondents shall not prevent the petitioner from transporting crusher materials from Tamil Nadu to Kerala State .

¶38

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶39

Assistant Registrar (RECORDS)

¶40

// True Copy //

¶41

/ /2021

¶42

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶43

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

¶44

3/4

¶45

W.P.(MD)No.8536 of 2021

¶46

¶47

Note : 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.

¶48

To 1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Mines and Minerals, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 2.The District Collector, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi. 4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District. 5.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Puliyarai Police Station, Tenkasi District. 6.The Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District. +1 CC to MR.A.SARAVANAN, Advocate ( SR-17880[F] dated 28/04/2021 ) +1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-17908[F] dated 28/04/2021 )

¶49

W.P.(MD)No.8536 of 2021 27.04.2021

¶50

KM(28.05.2021) 4P 9C

¶51

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

¶52

4/4

Sumal Mathew v. the Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumal Mathew v. the Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Marimuthu Vs the Tahsildar

George Antony.R Vs the District Collector

Sankar.R Vs the Dist. Collector

K. Vijayababu Vs the District Collector

M.Ganesan Vs M.a.Murugesan

Chandran Vs the Addl. Superintendent of Police