Dismissed¶89

C.Chellaiah v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC16 Dec 2025WP/21718/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL quarrying Namakkal; illegal mining and stone crushing allegations; Survey No.1 Kondamanayakkanpatti; government poramboke land 34.54.0 hectares; tender cum auction leases since 1998; SEIAA environmental clearance 30.05.2025; TNPCB consent under Air and Water Act; blasting by licensed persons under MMR Act 1961 and lease clause (xv); general allegations not entertainable without challenge to lease, EC or consent; Article 226 mandamus refused; writ petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The conditions in the lease deed and the environmental clearance authorise and stipulate that the licence holder is entitled to carry out quarrying by blasting operations, adhering to the conditions. ¶78

C.Chellaiah Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Mining and Natural Resources | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶89

Issue for consideration

Whether the quarrying, mining and stone crushing activities in Survey No.1, Kondamanayakkanpatti, Namakkal District are illegal, warranting a writ of mandamus to forbidear the respondents from permitting them and to stop ongoing operations. +1 more

¶39

Court's answer

The conditions in the lease deed and the environmental clearance authorise and stipulate that the licence holder is entitled to carry out quarrying by blasting operations, adhering to the conditions.

¶78

Ratio / Principle

Since public hearing was conducted, tender-cum-auction notices issued as per rules, successful bidders paid the auction amount, lease deeds executed, and environmental clearance and TNPCB consent issued, the quarrying carried out cannot be said to be illegal; it is in due compliance with the lease granted in favour of the private respondents.

¶79

Key takeaways

In the absence of any challenge to the tender, lease grant, environmental clearance (before the Tribunal) or TNPCB consent (before the appellate authority), and given 25 years of quarry operations under valid mining leases, the petitioner's general nature of allegations cannot be entertained.ratio¶84
When no specific complaint or illegality is raised, general allegations cannot be a basis to interfere in mining operations carried out by leaseholders, particularly where regular inspections affirm compliance with lease conditions and statutory provisions.ratio¶85

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (order by G. Arul Murugan, J.; bench of the Chief Justice) dismissed a public interest litigation under Article 226 seeking mandamus to stop alleged illegal quarrying, mining and stone crushing in Survey No.1, Kondamanayakkanpatti Village, Namakkal District. The Court recorded that 34.54.0 hectares of government poramboke land had been split into blocks and leased through tender-cum-auction for 25 years since 1998; respondents 6 to 9 held valid lease deeds supported by SEIAA environmental clearance dated 30.05.2025 after public hearing and Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board consent under the Air and Water Act. Lease clause (xv) and EC standard condition 6.6 expressly contemplate blasting by licensed persons in accordance with the MMR Act, 1961. Holding that quarrying pursuant to valid leases could not be termed illegal, and that general allegations unsupported by any specific complaint, and made without challenging the tender, lease deeds, environmental clearance before the Tribunal or the TNPCB consent before the appellate authority, could neither be entertained nor justify interference with mining operations, the Court dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs and closed the interim application.

¶1

W.P.No.21718 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16.12.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶7

W.P.No.21718 of 2025 and

¶8

W.M.P.No.24497 of 2025

¶9

C.Chellaiah, President of Association for Preserving Water Bodies and Mountains, Kondamanayakkanpatti, Namakkal District, Tamil Nadu.

¶10

.. Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶13

Represented by The Principal Secretary, Department of Environment, Climate Change and Forests, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶14

2.The District Collector, Namakkal District, The District Collectorate, Tiruchengode Road, Namakkal District - 637 003.

¶15

3.The Assistant Director,

¶16

Department of Mines and Minerals, Tiruchengode Road, Namakkal District - 637 003.

¶17

___________ Page 1 of 13_

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.21718 of 2025

¶20

4.The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Collectorate Campus, Near Tamil Nadu Civil Supply Corporation, Namakkal - 637 003.

¶21

5.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruchengode Road, Namakkal District - 637 003.

¶22

6.S.Subash, S/o.N.Subramanian,

¶23

No.2/53, Vettampadi Post, Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal District.

¶24

7.S.Menaka,

¶25

W/o.Sribalan, 444, Main Road, Senthamangalam Taluk, Namakkal District.

¶26

8.N.Karthick Namakkal Kittu,

¶27

Proprietor of M/s.Karthik Blue Metals, No.2/2, Kondamanaickenpatti Village, Senthamangalam Taluk, Namakkal District.

¶28

9.S.Kowsik Prabhu,

¶29

S/o.Subburaayan, Main Road, 3/429, Senthamangalam, Senthamangalam Taluk, Namakkal District. .. Respondents (R6 to R9 impleaded vide Order dated 11.08.2025 made in W.M.P.No.33946 of 2025 in W.P.No.21718 of 2025)

¶30

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from permitting any further quarrying, mining, stone crushing, or related activities in Survey No.1, Kondamanayakkanpatti, Namakkal

¶31

___________ Page 2 of 13_

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.21718 of 2025

¶34

District and to take immediate and effective steps to stop all ongoing illegal operations therein, and to protect the land in the said survey number and its surrounding environment from further degradation due to illegal mining activities.

¶35

For Petitioner : Mr.A.G.Vedhavikas for M/s.V.Srimathi

¶36

For Respondents : Mr.E.Vijay Anand Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.V.Gunasekar Standing Counsel for R4 Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor for R5 Mr.V.Sanjeevi for R6 to R9

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(Order of the Court was made by G.Arul Murugan, J.)

¶39

The petitioner, through this Public Interest Litigation, seeks to prevent the illegal quarrying, mining and stone crushing activities in Survey No.1, Kondamanayakkanpatti, Namakkal District.

¶40

2 . It is the case of the petitioner that illegal quarrying activities

¶41

are undertaken in Survey No.1 of Kondamanayakkanpatti, Namakkal District. At the same length, it is also stated that the proper public hearing was not conducted and quarries have been auctioned to specific individuals. Due to the quarry operations, significant ___________ Page 3 of 13_

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.No.21718 of 2025

¶44

environmental damage had been caused. Large machinery and explosives are used in the quarrying activities beyond the permitted norms and extensively carried throughout day and night.

¶45

3 . Further, it is asserted that the license was granted by the authorities without proper inspection and excessive mining is carried out beyond permissible limits. The quarries are situated in close proximity to the residential areas and explosives are used day and night, creating huge noise and air pollution. The agricultural activities are affected. Due to the quarry operations, walls of the houses get

¶46

cracks and also damaged. Health issues are caused due to the pollution and the drinking water also gets affected. Hence, the petitioner had come up with the present writ petition.

¶47

4 . Pending writ petition, the private respondents/leaseholders have been impleaded as respondents 6 to 9.

¶48

5 . The official respondents and the impleaded private

¶49

respondents had filed separate counter affidavits refuting the allegations made by the petitioner.

¶50

___________ Page 4 of 13_

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.No.21718 of 2025

¶53

6 . Mr.A.G.Vedhavikas, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a large scale irregularity in quarry operations resulting in huge environmental impact on the nearby residents and their properties. Indiscriminate blasting is done day and night, which hugely impacts the men and cattle, including the children. Quarrying is done in violation of the terms of license and by using huge machinery, excavation is done beyond permissible limits. The authorities are mute spectators and no steps have been taken against the erring mining operators. Due to the mining activities, one child has also lost her life for which a case had been registered.

¶54

7 . The learned Additional Government Pleader for the official respondents submitted that there is a vast extent of land in Survey No.1 and quarry operations had been carried out even from the year 1998 onwards. The tender cum auction has been called for by splitting the land into number of blocks and as per the auction, licenses are ultimately granted. Lease deeds have been executed by the District Collector and quarries are operated after obtaining the environmental clearance and consent from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. He further submitted that at every stage, notices were issued and public

¶55

___________ Page 5 of 13_

¶56

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

¶57

W.P.No.21718 of 2025

¶58

hearing was conducted and the quarrying activities are undertaken in due compliance with the lease terms and provisions of the act and rules. The allegations of the petitioner are general in nature and there is no specific complaint.

¶59

8 . The learned counsel for the impleaded private respondents submitted that the writ petition is not filed in public interest but only with vested interest. The petitioner had never challenged any lease granted for the past 25 years and since the demands of the petitioner were not met, he had come up with the present writ petition.

¶60

9 . The petitioner had participated in the public hearing conducted by the District Collector, which has not been disclosed in the affidavit. The respondents 6 to 9 have valid lease deeds and are operating the quarry after obtaining the environmental clearance and consent from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. Blasting operations are permitted as per the terms of the lease. Mining is carried out strictly in adherence to the lease deed and the provisions of the act. The quarry operations are only from 6.00am to 5.30pm and also the blasting activities are carried out by the licensed persons

¶61

___________ Page 6 of 13_

¶62

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

¶63

W.P.No.21718 of 2025

¶64

between 4.30pm and 5.00pm, after observing all safety and precautionary measures. The entire allegations are baseless and against the factual aspects.

¶65

10 . Heard the rival submissions and considered the materials available on record.

¶66

11 . It is not in dispute that an extent of 34.54.0 hectares of government poramboke land is available in Survey No.1 of Kondamanayakkanpatti Village, Namakkal District. The said land has been split into a number of blocks and lease have been granted to various persons through tender cum auction for the past 25 years, from the year 1998.

¶67

12 . As regards the private respondents are concerned, the sixth respondent became the successful bidder in tender cum auction conducted in respect of 2.00.0 hectares in S.F.No.1 (P) (Bit No.4) and on payment of the entire lease amount by the sixth respondent, the mining plan was approved on 03.07.2023 and the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), after conducting

¶68

___________ Page 7 of 13_

¶69

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

¶70

W.P.No.21718 of 2025

¶71

public hearing has granted environmental clearance on 30.05.2025. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board also granted consent under the Air and Water Act on 01.08.2025. The lease deed has been executed

¶72

for a period of 5 years and the same is valid till 31.08.2026.

¶73

13 . Likewise, lease had been granted in favour of the eighth respondent in respect of the quarry operations in S.F.No.1 (P) (Bit 1A) to an extent of 2.36.0 hectares in the tender cum auction. The environmental clearance was issued by SEIAA on 30.05.2025 and consent was also granted by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on 11.07.2025. The lease deed has also been executed, which is in force.

¶74

14 . As per the lease deed executed, clause (xv) stipulates that the lessee shall abide by all the conditions laid down in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936; Mines Act, 1952; Indian Explosives Act, 1884; Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961; Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and rules made thereunder. Further, as per the environmental clearance issued by SEIAA, clause 6.6 of the standard conditions stipulates that the EC holder shall ensure that the blasting operations are carried out by the blaster/mine

¶75

___________ Page 8 of 13_

¶76

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

¶77

W.P.No.21718 of 2025

¶78

mate/mine foreman duly employed by him/her in accordance with the provisions of MMR Act, 1961. Therefore, the conditions in the lease and also environmental clearance authorise and stipulate that the license holder is entitled to carry out quarrying by blasting operations, adhering to the conditions.

¶79

15 . The official respondents had infact conducted public hearing and issued tender cum auction notice as per the rules, notifying the areas in the District Gazette. The private respondents had been successful bidders and on payment of the entire auction amount, they were granted the mining license. The lease deeds have executed and as referred earlier, environmental clearance and consent by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board have also been issued. In such circumstances, the quarrying carried out cannot be said to be illegal and on the contrary, it is in due compliance with the lease granted in their favour.

¶80

16 . The petitioner has only made general nature of allegations in the writ petition and has not come out with any specific complaint or any illegality in the mining. Neither the tender called for nor the lease

¶81

___________ Page 9 of 13_

¶82

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

¶83

W.P.No.21718 of 2025

¶84

granted has been put to challenge. Further, the petitioner has neither challenged the environmental clearance granted before the Tribunal nor challenged the consent granted by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board before the appellate authority. In the absence of challenge to any of the above and considering the fact that the quarry operations have been carried out for the past 25 years and the private respondents are holding valid mining lease and necessary certificates from the competent authorities to carry on mining, the general nature of allegations made by the petitioner cannot be entertained.

¶85

17 . It is affirmed by the authorities that regular inspections are carried out and the quarrying activities are carried on in due compliance with the lease conditions and in accordance with the provisions of the act and rules. It is also submitted by the private respondents that the blasting is only done in the stipulated time by the licensed persons complying with the lease terms and further, the quarrying is operated only as per the permitted timings and extent. When no specific complaint or any illegality is raised, the general nature of allegations made cannot be a basis to interfere in the mining operations which are carried out by the leaseholders.

¶86

___________ Page 10 of 13_

¶87

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

¶88

W.P.No.21718 of 2025

¶89

18 . In view of the above, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order

¶90

as to costs. Consequently, the interim application is closed.

¶91

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 16.12.2025

¶92

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶93

sri

¶94

Page 11 of 13

¶95

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

¶96

W.P.No.21718 of 2025

¶97

¶98

1.The Principal Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Environment, Climate Change and Forests, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶99

2.The District Collector, Namakkal District, The District Collectorate, Tiruchengode Road, Namakkal District - 637 003.

¶100

3.The Assistant Director, Department of Mines and Minerals, Tiruchengode Road, Namakkal District - 637 003.

¶101

4.The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Collectorate Campus, Near Tamil Nadu Civil Supply Corporation, Namakkal - 637 003.

¶102