Writ petition challenging illegal quarrying on government forest land dismissed as false. Court relied on Joint Inspection Committee report verifying no encroachment, rejecting petitioner's claims.
None granted; prayer for writ of mandamus to stop quarrying was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.26959 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.11.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.P.No.26959 of 2025
&
W.M.P.No.36448 of 2025
Ariyalur Mavatta Kanima Valangal mattrum Suttruchsuzhal Padhukappu Sangam Represented by its Secretary C.Palanisamy, S/o. Chinnadurai No.2/242, S.M.Complex Bye Pass Road, Eruthukaranpatti Ariyalur District. .. Petitioner
Vs.
___________ Page 1 of 6_
W.P.No.26959 of 2025
6. Rajesh
.. Respondents
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus by directing the respondents 2 and 3 to take appropriate action against the 6th respondent and others including the officials of the Government who are allowing for illegal quarrying operation of the earth at the Government Forest Land which is existing adjacent to the SF.No.16, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 35 at Sathampadi Village, Udayarpalayam Taluk and Ariyalur District by considering the representation of the petitioner herein dated 27.01.2025, 26.02.2025 and 28.06.2025 within a reasonable time as fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nalliyappan For Respondents : Mr.Stalin Abimanyu Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R3
Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath Government Advocate for R2, R4 & R5 Mr.C.Prabakaran for R6
___________ Page 2 of 6_
W.P.No.26959 of 2025
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Petitioner’s allegation that mining is going on in the forest land is a blatant falsehood in view of the counter affidavit filed by second respondent, wherein, in paragraphs 11 to 13, the following has been stated:
“11. I respectfully submit that, the quarry lease granted area is an undulating terrain in which the 6th respondent has quarried to an average depth of 2.00 metres from the local surface level.
12. I respectfully submit that, there is no water body and forest land are located within the safety distance of the lease granted area as stipulated in the Rule 36(1), 36(1-A)(e) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Further, it is submitted that, the 6th respondent had not encroached any of the water courses for forming approach road to the lease area, as well as the water body maintained by the Water Resource Department, Marudhaiyar Basin Division, Ariyalur. Further, it is submitted that, no water body maintained by Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department are disturbed or encroached by the 6th
Page 3 of 6
W.P.No.26959 of 2025
respondent in this case.
13. I respectfully submit that the allegations levelled by the petitioner are carefully verified by the Joint Inspection Committee, incorporating, Forest Department, Water Resource Department, Department of Geology & Mining, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department and Revenue Department and established that the complaints made in petitioner’s affidavit and his representation dated 27.01.2025, 26.02.2025 and 28.06.2025 of the petitioner are unfounded and baseless. Therefore, the unsubstantiated, allegations of the petitioner are not sustainable before law.”
___________ Page 4 of 6_
W.P.No.26959 of 2025
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 05.11.2025
Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kpl
To
Page 5 of 6
W.P.No.26959 of 2025
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
(kpl)
W.P.No.26959 of 2025
05.11.2025
___________ Page 6 of 6_
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the allegations of illegal mining on forest land are well-founded or unfounded.
Whether the Joint Inspection Committee report effectively addresses the petitioner's complaints.
Whether material placed in the petition warrants further enquiry.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ariyalur Mavatta Kanima Valangal mattrum Suttruchsuzhal Padhukappu Sangam
The Director of Geology and Mines
The District Collector
The Assistant Director (Geology and Mining)
The Revenue Divisional Officer
The Thasildhar
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
G. Arul Murugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
