Disposed

B.Vatsala v. The Member secretay

Madras HC22 Dec 2022WP/34244/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Madras directed the District Collector, Ranipet, to enquire into an application for a stone quarry lease by the petitioner's brother due to a family property dispute. The court ordered the collection of records and subsequent notice to all parties before any order was passed, with the disposal of the petition confined to the issuance of these directions.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Collector to enquire into the family property dispute regarding the quarry application, issue notices to all concerned, obtain a report, and pass necessary orders only after givi

B.Vatsala Vs The Member secretay — Madras HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

W.P.No.34244 of 2022

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.No.33694 of 2022

¶9

1.B.Vatsala

¶10

2.R.B.Jayakumar

3.R.K.Leela Krishnan

.. Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Member Secretary,

¶15

State Level Environment Import Assessment Authority, Third Floor, Panagal Maligai,

¶16

Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶17

2.The District Collector,

¶18

Ranipet District.

¶19

3.The Director of Mines Geology & Mining, Guindy Chennai – 600 032.

¶20

4.The Assistant Director of Mines, Department of Geology & Mines, Sathuvachery,

¶21

Vellore District Collectorate,

¶22

Vellore.

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

¶25

5.The Regional Director, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, NH – 40, Mukundarayapuram, Ranipet – 632 403.

¶26

6.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Wintepet, Arakonam Taluk, Ranipet District.

¶27

7.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Arakonam Taluk, Ranipet District.

¶28

8.The Chairman, Pollution Control Board, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶29

9.The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Auxillium College Road, Opp: Auxillium College, Gandhi Nagar, Vellore.

¶30

10.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶31

11.R.B.Raja

¶32

.. Respondents

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

¶35

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the official respondents 1 to 10 more particularly the 1^st respondent to reject the application of the 11^th respondent for grant of Stone Quarry Lease or License in his favour, with regard to land of an extent of 8.64 aces of land comprised in S.Nos.351/1, 2 & 8, Athur Village, Arakonam Taluk, Ranipet District, considering the representation dated 17.09.2022 duly submitted and received by the 1^st respondent after conducting an enquiry into the matter giving reasonable opportunity of being heard the petitioners.

¶36

For Petitioner .. Mr.S.Sadasharam For R1 .. Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy, Govt. Advocate For R2 to R10 .. Mr.T.Seenivasan, Special Government Pleader.

¶37

ORDER

¶38

This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Writ of Mandamus,

¶39

seeking a direction to the official respondents 1 to 10 more particularly the 1^st respondent to reject the application of the 11^th respondent for grant of

¶40

Stone Quarry Lease and to consider the representation dated 17.09.2022

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

¶43

2.The 11^th respondent is the son of the 1^st petitioner and brother of the 2^nd petitioner. There appears to be a family dispute among the petitioners on the one hand and the 11^th respondent on the other hand, relating to the division of the joint family property. It is stated that that there has been no division of property by metes and bounds. But, the 11^th respondent had independently made an application seeking to do quarry business in the property. In this connection, the petitioners had given a representation dated 17.09.2022.

¶44

3.The District Collector, Ranipet / 2^nd respondent, is directed to enquire the representation dated 17.09.2022, which had been issued to his office also and issue notice to the petitioners and also to the 11^th respondent and obtain a report, with respect to the lands, from the Tashildar, Arakonam Taluk and thereafter, if there is a civil dispute, pass necessary orders, otherwise, pass an order in accordance with law. At any rate, any order passed, should be done only after giving opportunity to the petitioners and also to the 11^th respondent and also after examining the official records relating to the quarrying application of the 11^th respondent. The entire exercise should be completed on or before 31.03.2023.

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

¶47

4.This order is passed without hearing the 11^th respondent and I am

¶48

confident that necessary opportunity will be given to the 11^th respondent by the 2^nd respondent during the course of enquiry.

¶49

5.With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶50

No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶51

22.12.2022

¶52

Index:Yes/No (1/2) Internet:Yes/No smv To

¶53

1.The Member Secretary, State Level Environment Import Assessment Authority, Third Floor, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶54

2.The District Collector, Ranipet District.

¶55

3.The Director of Mines Geology & Mining, Guindy Chennai – 600 032.

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

¶58

4.The Assistant Director of Mines, Department of Geology & Mines, Sathuvachery, Vellore District Collectorate, Vellore.

¶59

5.The Regional Director, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, NH – 40, Mukundarayapuram, Ranipet – 632 403.

¶60

6.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Wintepet, Arakonam Taluk, Ranipet District.

¶61

7.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Arakonam Taluk, Ranipet District.

¶62

8.The Chairman, Pollution Control Board, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶63

9.The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Auxillium College Road, Opp: Auxillium College, Gandhi Nagar, Vellore.

¶64

10.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

¶67

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

¶68

smv

¶69

W.P.No.34244 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.33694 of 2022

¶70

(1/2)

¶71

22.12.2022

¶72

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

B.Vatsala v. The Member secretay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Vatsala v. The Member secretay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri.L.Shanmugam, Vs The Joint Director General of

B.Chinnammal Vs The Chairman

M.Palanisamy Vs The Thasildar

Maria Selvam Vs Competent authority

Palanivelu Vs The Assistant Executive Engineer

B.Vatsala Vs The Member secretay