Dismissed

R.Sudhakar v. the Director

Madras HC26 Jul 2024WP(MD)/23422/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a notification regarding sand quarrying. Upon hearing that the license period for the 4th respondent was expired, the court disposed of the petition by directing authorities to take action against the 4th respondent for any future violations of rules.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with a direction to authorities to take action against the 4th respondent for any violation of rules and conditions.

R.Sudhakar Vs the Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.23422 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.23422 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.21264 & 21265 of 2018

R.Sudhakar

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Director,

Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals Department, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Industries Estate, Alanthur Road, Guindy, Chennai.

¶15

2.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶16

3.The Assistant Director,

¶17

Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals Department, Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶18

4.Kalidhas

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned

¶21

Page 1 of 4

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD) No.23422 of 2018

¶24

notification issued by the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.M.2/113/2017, dated 21.07.2018 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to forbear the illegal quarry.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar, For M/s.Ajmal Associates For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Thilakkumar, Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.Rajakarthikeyan

¶26

ORDER

¶27

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

¶28

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that license period granted to the 4^th respondent was already over. He would further submit that if there is any illegal sand quarrying, necessary action would be taken against the 4^th respondent.

¶29

2.In view of the above submission made by the learned Government Pleader, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities concerned to take action against the 4^th respondent, if there is any violation of the

¶30

Page 2 of 4

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.23422 of 2018

¶33

rules and conditions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

Yuva

¶37

¶38

1.The Director, Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals Department, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Industries Estate, Alanthur Road, Guindy, Chennai.

¶39

2.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶40

3.The Assistant Director, Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals Department, Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶41

Page 3 of 4

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.(MD) No.23422 of 2018

¶44

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, A.C.J.

¶45

AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.

¶46

Yuva

¶47

W.P.(MD)No.23422 of 2018

¶48

26.07.2024

¶49

Page 4 of 4

¶50

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

R.Sudhakar v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Sudhakar v. the Director

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

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