Allowed

Ajikumar.a v. the District Collector

Madras HC1 Jun 2021WP(MD)/9004/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madurai Bench permitted the petitioner to conduct stone quarrying operations for a non-operative period caused by a temporary suspension and directed the respondents to issue the corresponding transport permit.

What did the court decide?

The 1st respondent directed to permit quarrying for the non-operative period; the 2nd respondent directed to issue a transport permit for said period.

Ajikumar.a Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.9004 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.06.2021 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU W.P.(MD) No.9004 of 2021

¶4

A.Ajikumar ... Petitioner

¶5

vs.

¶6

1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.

¶7

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

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to permit the petitioner to conduct stone quarrying operation in petitioner's Patta land in S.F.No.483/1C(P) over an extent of 1.40.0 Ha in Mecode village Kalkulam Taluk, in Kanyakumari District for a period of 22 months 28 days (non-operative period) for which the petitioner was not permitted to quarry during the lease period accorded vide the proceedings of the respondent in R.C.No.350/G & M/2008, dated 25.09.2017 and consequently, direct the 2^nd respondent to issue transport permit to the petitioner for the said period.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.Samidurai.K For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, Government Advocate.

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The 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 Patta land, for nonoperative 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.

¶12

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, in his patta land, bearing S.F.No.483/1C(P) over an extent of 1.40.0 Ha in Mecode village Kalkulam Taluk, in Kanyakumari District for a period of 22 months 28 days (non-operative period), for which, the petitioner was not permitted to quarry during the lease period, as against the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

1/4

¶14

W.P.(MD) No.9004 of 2021

¶15

permission granted by the 1^st respondent in R.C.No.350/G & M/2008, dated 25.09.2017 and consequently, direct the 2^nd respondent to issue transport permit to the petitioner for the said period.

¶16

Adding further, 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 respondents lifted the temporary suspension of the petitioner's quarry operation and permitted to continue the quarry operation.

¶17

It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that temporary suspension was lifted after after a period of 19 months; 18 months 17 days and 3 years respectively. 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 Senior Counsels 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.

¶18

The learned Government Advocate 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 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 his specific contention that though the 2^nd respondent stopped the quarrying operation for sometime, the learned Government Advocate wants to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ verify whether in the interregnum period, the petitioner was

¶19

2/4

¶20

W.P.(MD) No.9004 of 2021

¶21

permitted to carry-out stone quarrying operation in his patta land by the State Government.

¶22

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

¶23

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 lands 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.

¶24

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.

¶25

ias

¶26

Note:(i) 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.

¶27

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

¶28

3/4

¶29

W.P.(MD) No.9004 of 2021

¶30

To:-

¶31

1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.

¶32

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

¶33

+1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-18660[F] dated 02/06/2021 )

¶34

+1 CC to M/s.K.SAMIDURAI, Advocate ( SR-18709[F] dated 03/06/2021 )

¶35

W.P.(MD) No.9004 of 2021

¶36

01.06.2021

¶37

CN(16.06.2021) 4P 5C

¶38

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

¶39

4/4

Ajikumar.a v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajikumar.a 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thiruppathy Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Anitha Raja Bai Vs the District Collector

Anikumar.a Vs the District Collector

Ravi.R Vs the Management of Tamil Nadu

Subash Chandran.R Vs the Management of Tamil Nadu

Thirunavukkarasu.S Vs The Secretary to Govt.