Disposed

N.Omanakumari v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC11 Mar 2024WP/1639/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court applied the ratio of an earlier order to quash an impugned penalty order, construing it as a show-cause notice, and directed the petitioner to file a reply within four weeks for fresh consideration by the authority. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; notice construed as show-cause; reply to be filed within four weeks; authority to pass fresh orders.

N.Omanakumari Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu — Mining and Natural Resources | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

2024:MHC:1246

¶2

W.P.No.1639 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 11.03.2024

¶5

CORAM :

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶7

W.P.No.1639 of 2024

¶8

and W.M.P.Nos.1674 & 1675 of 2024

N.Omanakumari

.. Petitioner

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Industries Department,

¶13

Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶14

2.The Director of Geology and Mining, Department of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶15

3.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶16

4.The Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Department of Geology and Mining, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri. .. Respondents

¶17

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned demand notice of 3^rd respondent bearing Rc.No.1042/2018/C-31 Mines dated 19.02.2020 with reference to the granite quarry bearing Rc.No.1042/2018/B-12 Mines dated 19.02.2020 with reference to the granite quarry bearing S.F.Nos.

¶18

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

¶19

1/4

¶20

W.P.No.1639 of 2024

¶21

942/1, 977/3B, 978/3 and 978/4A in Iruthukottai Village, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District quash the same.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sanjeevi

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.E.Vijay Anand Additional Government Pleader

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Both learned counsel would accede to the position that the ratio of the order of the First Bench passed in W.A.No.671 of 2020 etc batch dated 15.02.2024 will apply on all fours to the present case as well. Thus, the directions at paragraph 28 of order dated 15.02.2024 are extracted below:-

¶26

“28. In the result, we pass the following orders:

¶27

(i) The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge at the Principal Seat is quashed and set aside;

¶28

(ii) The impugned orders/memos imposing 100% penalty/cost upon the appellants/petitioners shall be construed as show-cause notices;

¶29

(iii) The appellants/petitioners shall file reply to the said show-cause notices, along with all the relevant documents on which they rely, within a period of four weeks from today; and

¶30

(iv) The authority shall consider the reply filed by the appellants/petitioners individually and pass fresh orders with regard to imposing of penalty/cost or otherwise.”

¶31

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

¶32

2/4

¶33

W.P.No.1639 of 2024

¶34

In light of the above, the same order is taken to be

¶35

passed in the present writ petition as well.

¶36

Writ petition stands disposed in terms of this order. No

¶37

costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶38

11.03.2024

¶39

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes ssm

¶40

¶41

1.The Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶42

2.The Director of Geology and Mining, Department of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶43

3.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶44

4.The Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Department of Geology and Mining, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶45

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

¶46

3/4

¶47

W.P.No.1639 of 2024

DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.

ssm

W.P.No.1639 of 2024

11.03.2024

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

¶53

4/4

N.Omanakumari v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Omanakumari v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S.Baburaj Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

Dr.R.Nivetha Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

J.Balaji Vs State Government of Tamilnadu

S.Rukmani Vs the Tahsildar

C.Sivakumar Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

C.Sivakumar Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu