Allowed

M/s.Sriram Blue Metals v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government (Fac)

Madras HC15 Sept 2025WP(MD)/25207/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A stockyard licensee challenged a District Collector's penalty order for transporting excess minerals. The court found the Special Inspection Team report relied upon had not been furnished to the petitioner, breaching natural justice, quashed the order, remitted the matter for fresh enquiry after serving the report, and directed continued issuance of transit passes.

What did the court decide?

Impugned penalty order quashed; matter remitted to District Collector for fresh enquiry after serving the inspection report; fourth respondent directed to continue issuing transit passes subject to ve

M/s.Sriram Blue Metals Vs Additional Chief… — Mining and Natural Resources | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.25207 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 15.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.25207 of 2025

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.19759 and 19837 of 2025

¶9

M/s.Sriram Blue Metals Represented by its Proprietor, Alagiyakoothan.

¶10

... Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.Additional Chief Secretary to Government (FAC), Natural Resources (MMC.1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

¶13

2.The Commissioner Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

¶14

3.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District.

¶15

4.The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings Na.Ka.Kanimam.1/801 (21)/2025 dated

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

W.P(MD)No.25207 of 2025

¶20

21.07.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to issue transit pass.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan, Senior Counsel, For Mrs.D.Saravanan.

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai, Spl. Government Pleader.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶25

2.The writ petitioner challenges the impugned proceedings issued by the District Collector, Tirunelveli levying penalty for transportation of excess minerals. The petitioner is a stockyard licensee. The mineral stored in the stockyard has to correspond to the quantity mentioned in the transport permits. Likewise, the mineral removed from the stockyard under transit passes should in turn correspond to what is there is in the stockyard. In other words, there must be correspondence between the transit passes and transport permits. According to the respondent, there is a discrepancy in the instant case and the quantity transported from the

¶26

2/6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P(MD)No.25207 of 2025

¶29

stockyard under the transit pass is excess of what was received by the stockyard under the transport permits.

¶30

3.It is obvious that the impugned proceedings rest almost entirely on the report dated 02.06.2025 submitted by the Special Inspection Team. This is the document second reference cited in the impugned proceedings. The show cause is also based on the very same report. I posed a question to the learned Special Government Pleader as to whether copy of the Special Inspection Team's report was furnished to the petitioner. Shri.Anandaraj, Assistant Geologist attached to the fourth respondent office is present in person. Instruction was obtained from him by the learned Special Government Pleader and it is conceded that the aforesaid report was not served on the petitioner.

¶31

4.It is an elementary principle of natural justice that any relied upon document must be served to the noticee so that the noticee can effectively putforth his case. In view of non-service of the report of the Special Inspection Team, I hold that there has been an clear breach of the principles of natural justice. On this sole ground, the order impugned in

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P(MD)No.25207 of 2025

¶35

the writ petition is set aside. The matter is remitted to the file of the third respondent. The third respondent shall serve a copy of the said report on the writ petitioner. The petitioner will be given four weeks time to respond thereafter. After holding enquiry, it is open to the third respondent to pass an order afresh in accordance with law. I have not gone into the merits of the matter.

¶36

5.The learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that even if there is any breach of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Illegal Mines, Transportation and Storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealer Rules, 2011, only penalty can be levied on the petitioner. The petitioner complains that citing the impugned proceedings, even the issuance of transit passes has been suspended. This is said to have crippled the entire business.

¶37

6.Since the impugned proceedings have been quashed and the matter has been remanded, the fourth respondent shall continue to issue transit passes subject to verification of all the relevant records. The fourth respondent cannot indirectly do what he cannot do directly.

¶38

4/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P(MD)No.25207 of 2025

¶41

7.With the aforesaid direction to the fourth respondent, this writ

¶42

petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶43

15.09.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias