Dismissed¶43

Senthil Kumar v. the District Collector

Madras HC2 Mar 2026WP/16454/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quarry licence restraint; prematurity of writ petition; mandamus; Article 226; 300-meter residential proximity objection; Survey No.375/2, Akalampatti Village, Thiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal; Section 36(1-A) Mines and Minerals Act; cause of action arises on overruling or ignoring objection or unlawful grant; dwelling-unit/agricultural-land survey left to licensing authorities; dismissed without costs; High Court of Judicature at Madras; decision dated 02-03-2026.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is premature; the petitioner's cause of action arises only if the objection is considered and overruled, or not considered at all, or a licence is granted in violation of Section 36(1-A) of the Mines and Minerals Act. ¶40

Senthil Kumar Vs the District Collector — Mining and Natural Resources | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 16454 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED

¶8

WP No. 16454 of 2024

¶9

Senthil Kumar S/o.Veerappan, No.3/106/2 Kottampatty, Akalampatti Village And Post, Thiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal 637212.

¶10

..Petitioner(s)

¶11

¶12

The District Collector District Collectorate, Namakkal.

¶13

The Assistant Director Department Of Geology And Mining, Namakkal.

¶14

The Block Development Officer O/o.The Block Development Officer, Elachipalayam, Namakkal.

¶15

P.S.K.Arun S/o.Kandasamy, No.32/1 Kamaraj Nagar, Pallipalayam Village And Town, Kumarapalayam Taluk, Namakkal 638006.

¶16

..Respondent(s)

¶17

Page1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

WP No. 16454 of 2024

¶20

This Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from granting the quarry licence to the 4th respondent in S.No. 375/2 situated in Akalampatti Village, Thiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District and consider petitioners representation dated 19.07.2023, 02.02.2024 and 26.04.2024 sent to the 1st and 2nd respondents herein as objection letters.

¶21

For Petitioner(s): Ms. Varshini .V. for Mr. I Abrar Md Abdullah For Respondent(s): Mr. M.Vijayaragavan, for R4

¶22

Ms.V.Rani , Spl.G.P., for R1 to R3

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.)

¶25

The writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to restrain the respondents 1 and 2 from granting quarry licence to the 4^th respondent in Survey No.375/2 situated at Akalampatti Village, Thiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District.

¶26

__________ Page2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

WP No. 16454 of 2024

¶29

According to the writ petitioner, apprehending that the respondents 1

¶30

and 2 likely to grant quarry licence to the private respondent, had given a representation on 19.07.2023, 02.02.2024 and 26.04.2024 objecting for considering the application for grant of quarry licence on the ground that the residence of the writ petitioner is situated within 300 meters from the proposed quarry site.

¶31

After notice, the private respondent, namely 4^th respondent, has entered

¶32

appearance.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that

¶34

the writ petition is premature. The application made by the fourth respondent yet to be processed. Further more, she also contended that the petitioner is not residing in the land, which is alleged to be 300 meters from the proposed quarry site.

¶35

As far as the first contention regarding premature writ petition, we are

¶36

fully in agreement with the counsel appearing for the private respondent. The

¶37

__________ Page3 of 6

¶38

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

¶39

WP No. 16454 of 2024

¶40

cause of action for the petitioner will arise only if her objection is considered and overruled, or if not at all considered, and any licence granted in violation of Section 36(1-A) of the Mines and Minerals Act.

¶41

Second ground of defence is purely based on facts. It is open to the

¶42

authorities, while considering the application for grant of quarry licence, survey the land proposed for quarrying and the land of the writ petitioner, whether it is purely agricultural land or any dwelling units are available there.

¶43