Dismissed

A.Nattar, v. the District Collector

Madras HC26 Jul 2024WP(MD)/23042/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging illegal sand mining near Kulasekarapattinam. Relying on a joint inspection report stating no such activities occurred, the Court dismissed the petition with a direction to the District Collector to take action if any illegal mining is later found.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed with direction to District Collector to take action if illegal mining occurs. Connected petitions closed.

A.Nattar, Vs the District Collector — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.23042 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 26.07.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.D.KRISHNAKUMAR,

¶6

THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶9

W.P.(MD)No.23042 of 2018 and

¶10

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2187, 2188 & 6070 of 2019

A.Nattar

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District.

¶15

2.The Assistant Director of Fishery, Threashpuram, Tuticorin District.

¶16

3.The Deputy Director of Fishery, Office of District Collector, Tuticorin District.

¶17

4.The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Department, Office of District Collector, Tuticorin District.

¶18

5.The Assistant Director, Fishery Harbour Management, Tuticorin District.

¶19

Page 1 of 5

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.(MD) No.23042 of 2018

¶22

6.Saravana Traders, No.4/33, Davispuram, Tharuvaikulam Main Road, Tuticorin-2.

7.Dhanraj

8.Bayas

9.P.Johnson

10.V.Rajasekar

11.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District.

¶28

... Respondents

¶29

(R9 & R10 are impleaded vide Court order dated 05.03.2019 in W.M.P.(MD)Nos. 3334 & 3450 of 2019)

¶30

(R11 is suo motu impleaded vide Court order dated 05.03.2019)

¶31

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to take appropriate action against the respondents 6 to 8 for involving mining activities in the sea around Kulasekarapattinam Village, Thiruchendur Taluk, Tuticorin District in an illegal manner and causing damage to the sea shore environment based on the representation dated 18.09.2018.

¶32

For Petitioner : Mr.V.P.Rajan For R1 to R5 : Mr.P.Thilakkumar, & R11 Government Pleader For R6 : Mr.S.Pandiaraj For R7 : Mr.PR.Boomee Rajan For R8 : Mr.S.Sureshmanikam For R9 : Mr.S.S.Madhavan For R10 : Mr.A.Kannan

¶33

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

¶34

Page 2 of 5

¶35

W.P.(MD) No.23042 of 2018

¶36

ORDER

¶37

[Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble The ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶38

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents would submit that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 11.01.2019, the respondents 4 and 5 and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchendur conducted joint inspection and filed a report, stating that there are no such illegal activities undertaken by the respondents 6 to 8 as alleged by the petitioner.

¶39

2.The said submission made by the learned Government Pleader is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶40

3.In view of the above, by recording the aforesaid submission, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1^st respondent / District Collector to take necessary action, if there is any illegal sand mining taken place in the place in question. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶41

[D.K.K., A.C.J.] & [R.V., J.] 26.07.2024

¶42

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Yuva

¶43

Page 3 of 5

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.(MD) No.23042 of 2018

¶46

¶47

1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District.

¶48

2.The Assistant Director of Fishery, Threashpuram, Tuticorin District.

¶49

3.The Deputy Director of Fishery, Office of District Collector, Tuticorin District.

¶50

4.The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Department, Office of District Collector, Tuticorin District.

¶51

5.The Assistant Director, Fishery Harbour Management, Tuticorin District.

¶52

6.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District.

¶53

Page 4 of 5

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.(MD) No.23042 of 2018

¶56

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, A.C.J.

¶57

AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.

¶58

Yuva

¶59

W.P.(MD)No.23042 of 2018

¶60

26.07.2024

¶61

Page 5 of 5

¶62

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

A.Nattar, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Nattar, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Selvakumar C Vs The State Government

Rukmani Vs The District Collector

M.Saravanakumar Vs The Commmissionerate of Prohibition and Excise Department

A.M.Sundaravel Party in Person Vs the Chief Secretary

A.M.Sundaravel, Vs the Chief Secretary to

Muthuramalingam S Vs The District Collector / Monitoring Committee