Allowed

Murugesan.M v. The District Collector

Madras HC6 Oct 2022WP(MD)/23276/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court allowed a writ petition filed by M. Murugesan challenging the suspension of his quarry license by the District Collector. The court noted that the impugned order was passed without a hearing after a notice was issued. The order was set aside, and a hearing was directed for 18.10.2022.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 23.09.2022 set aside; hearing directed to be held on 18.10.2022; petitioner exempted from costs.

Murugesan.M Vs The District Collector — Mining and Natural Resources | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.23276 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 06.10.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P(MD)No.23276 of 2022 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.17371 and 17372 of 2022

¶8

M.Murugesan ... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Huppur, Pudukkottai District.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in issuance of the order in Rc.No. 566/2022 (G&M) dated 23.09.2022 and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajarajan For Respondents : Mr.D.Gandhiraj Special Government Pleader

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P(MD)No.23276 of 2022

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the first respondent passed in Rc.No.566/2022 (G&M) dated 23.09.2022.

¶20

2. By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶21

3. Notice dated 05.09.2022 was issued by the first respondent calling upon the petitioner to appear for hearing on 27.09.2022 to show cause as to why the report of the Joint Inspection, dated 22.07.2022 should not be accepted. As per the report, the petitioner had violated the conditions of the quarrying licence and had not given any 50 meters safety distance and also he had quarried in adjacent patta land. The impugned proceedings had been passed by the District Collector suspending the licence of the petitioner under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, on 23.09.2022.

¶22

4. It is very surprising that when the hearing had been fixed on 27.09.2022 at 11.30 a.m., the first respondent had passed an order on

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

W.P(MD)No.23276 of 2022

¶26

23.09.2022, which is clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 23.09.2022, direct the first respondent to conduct hearing on 18.10.2022 and accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.09.2022 is set aside and the first respondent is directed to conduct hearing on 18.10.2022 and the petitioner is also directed to be present on that date and submit his explanation and thereafter, the first respondent is at liberty to pass orders. As this Court has not ventured into the merits of this writ petition, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the points raised in this writ petition during the hearing.

¶27

5. This Writ Petition is allowed on the above said terms. No costs.

¶28

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶29

06.10.2022

¶30

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No

¶31

sm/ta

¶32

3/4

¶33

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

¶34

W.P(MD)No.23276 of 2022

¶35

K.KUMARESH BABU, J

¶36

sm/ta

¶37

To:

¶38

1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District.

¶39

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Huppur, Pudukkottai District.

¶40

3.The Tahsildar, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶41

W.P(MD)No.23276 of 2022

¶42

06.10.2022

¶43

4/4

¶44

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

Murugesan.M v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugesan.M 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

P.Alagiri Vs Director General of Police

V.Robin, Vs the Presiding Officer

C.Dediammal Vs the Principal/Joint Director

Ramamoorthi, Vs Inspector General of Registration

Pandi Lakshmi.J Vs The Chief Educational Officer

Ramesh Kumar Vs The Superintendent of Police