Quashed

K.S.Baburaj v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC8 Mar 2024WP/2547/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition by relying on the principles laid down in a connected First Bench order dated 15.02.2024. The court quashed the impugned memorandum and issued directions for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned memorandum of the 3rd respondent was quashed and set aside; authority directed to treat it as show-cause notice and pass fresh orders.

K.S.Baburaj Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.2547 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08.03.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

W.P.No.2547 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.2789 of 2024

K.S.Baburaj

.. Petitioners

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Industries Dept., Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

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

¶12

3.The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.

¶13

4.The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Department of Geology and Mining, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai. .. Respondents

¶14

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 memorandum of the 3^rd respondent bearing Na.Ka.No.437-3/Kanimam/2023 dated 22.09.2023 with reference to the stone quarry (patta land) bearing S.F.Nos. 635/10 and

¶15

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

¶16

1/4

¶17

W.P.No.2547 of 2024

¶18

636/10 admeasuring 2.15.0 Hectares in Kasthambadi Village, Polur

¶19

Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District, quash the same.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Muthukumarasamy

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

15.02.2024 are extracted below:-

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

(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

¶29

(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.”

¶30

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

¶31

2/4

¶32

W.P.No.2547 of 2024

¶33

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

¶34

passed in the present writ petition as well.

¶35

Writ petition stands disposed in terms of this order. No

¶36

costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶37

08.03.2024

¶38

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes ssm

¶39

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

3.The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.

¶43

4.The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Department of Geology and Mining, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.

¶44

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

¶45

3/4

¶46

W.P.No.2547 of 2024

DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.

ssm

W.P.No.2547 of 2024

08.03.2024

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

¶52

4/4

K.S.Baburaj v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.Baburaj 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Yellappa Vs Tmt.K.M.Sarayu

R.Rani Vs The District Collector to Tiruvallur

M/s.Murali Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Food Safety

R.Thilagavathy Vs the District Collector

Dr.R.Nivetha Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

J.Balaji Vs State Government of Tamilnadu