Petitioner challenged a show cause notice via Writ Petition alleging lack of jurisdiction and forged agreement. Court held authority had jurisdiction under mining rules, refusing certiorari. Court directed authority to decide within two weeks despite pending petition.
Writ Petition dismissed; authority directed to decide pending complaint within two weeks.
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.(MD)No.8369 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD) No.8369 of 2025 and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.6250 and 6251 of 2025
R.Murugan
... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Assistant Director, Department of Geological and Mines, Theni.
2.D.Vetrikondan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.49/Mine/2025 dated 13.03.2025 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.
For Petitioner :Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For R1 :Mr.S.Shaji Bino Special Government Pleader
1/6
W.P.(MD)No.8369 of 2025
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.49/Mine/2025 dated 13.03.2025.
2.The petitioner states that the property, measuring about 1
hectare and 19 ares in S.Nos.1352, 1368/1A, measuring about 0.35.0 ares and 1363/1C comprised of 0.30.0 ares in Pottanuthu Village, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District, belonged to one Saratha. Saratha executed a lease deed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner on the strength of this lease deed applied for permission for running a sand quarry mining lease. The lease was also granted. However, during the course of operations, the petitioner was issued with the impugned show cause notice, dated 13.03.2025.
3.The allegation is that one Vetrikondan, the second respondent, lodged a complaint with the first respondent pleading that after entering into an agreement with the petitioner on 15.12.2024, the petitioner had breached its terms. Hence, the first respondent had decided to enquire as
2/6
W.P.(MD)No.8369 of 2025
to whether there is any breach of lease conditions. Challenging the same, the present writ petition.
4.It is the plea of Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian that the first respondent does not have jurisdiction to address the issue. He further alleges that the agreement presented by the second respondent is an act of forgery.
5.Mr.S.Shaji Bino points out that in terms of Rule 36(5)(h) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, the Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mining is entitled to enquire whether there has been any breach of conditions. It is only in the exercise of that power that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner.
6.I heard Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Shaji Bino, learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent.
7.For the purpose of entertaining a writ petition against a show cause notice, it must be demonstrated that the authority, who had issued
3/6
W.P.(MD)No.8369 of 2025
the notice, does not possess the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The plea on merits, such as that the agreement is a forged one would have to be placed before that authority, in case, he possess the jurisdiction.
8.A perusal of Rule 36(5)(h) of the aforesaid Rule shows that the Assistant Director is possessed the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice. As he has the jurisdiction, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
9.At this stage, Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian states that after filing of this writ petition, the petitioner has submitted her reply to the complaint lodged by the second respondent yesterday (25.03.2025).
10.The first respondent shall enquire both the second respondent and the writ petitioner and decide the issue in one way or the other within a period of two weeks from today. All issues are left open for the petitioner and the second respondent to raise before the first respondent including the plea that the agreement is forged.
4/6
W.P.(MD)No.8369 of 2025
11.With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Post the matter on 16.04.2025 as first item under the caption ‘for reporting compliance’.
Index :Yes / No 26.03.2025 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No
mm
To
The Assistant Director, Department of Geological and Mines, Theni.
5/6
W.P.(MD)No.8369 of 2025
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
mm
W.P.(MD)No.8369 of 2025
26.03.2025
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Assistant Director had jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice under Rule 36(5)(h) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.
Whether the Writ Petition challenging a show cause notice should be entertained when the regulating authority possesses jurisdiction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R.Murugan
The Assistant Director, Department of Geological and Mines, Theni
D.Vetrikondan
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
