Disposed¶33

K.Subramaniyam, v. The Assistant Director

Madras HC19 Jan 2026WP/354/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Extension of rough stone/gravel quarrying permission period on patta land; Article 226 writ of mandamus; permission Na.Ka.No. 596/Mines/2025 for ten days; rain-delayed quarrying (only 30% done); representation dated 15.11.2025 for further 20 days; counsel's revised request for two months; direction to Assistant Director, Geology and Mining, Namakkal, to consider and issue speaking order within one month; petition disposed without costs; Justice P.T. Asha; WP No. 354 of 2026; 19-01-2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's request for a further two-month extension of the quarrying period and pass speaking orders within one month; writ petition disposed of with the above direction, no costs. ¶33

K.Subramaniyam, Vs The Assistant Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 354 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19-01-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

WP No. 354 of 2026

¶7

K.Subramaniyam, S/o.Karuppannan D.No. 37A, Lion Street Namakkal Town and Taluk Namakkal District.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

The Assistant Director, Geology and Mining Tiruchengode Road Namakkal District.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to extend the period for quarrying rough stone in the petitioners patta land comprised in S.Nos.20/1A2, 20/3A and 20/3B1, situate at Paapinaickenpatty Village, Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal District, for a further period of two months, in respect of the quarrying permission already granted by the respondent vide Na.Ka.No. 596/Mines/2025, by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 15.11.2025,with a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Senthil For Respondent(s): Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu Additional Government Pleader

¶14

__________ Page1 of 5

¶15

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

¶16

WP No. 354 of 2026

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:

¶19

“ To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to extend the period for quarrying rough stone in the petitioners patta land comprised in S.Nos.20/1A2, 20/3A and 20/3B1, situate at Paapinaickenpatty Village, Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal District, for a further period of two months, in respect of the quarrying permission already granted by the respondent vide Na.Ka.No. 596/Mines/2025, by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 15.11.2025,with a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.”

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the subject property, which is an agricultural land. According to him, in his agricultural lands there exists gravel stones to an extent of 0.5 acre with a height of 5 feet, which obstructs the petitioner from doing the agricultural activities. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to the Tahsildar, Namakkal District, to remove the rough stone and gravel from his lands. In response, the petitioner was accorded permission to quarry the rough stone and gravel, within a period of ten days. The petitioner would submit that due to heavy rain in his locality, he was able to quarry only 30% within the stipulated time of 10 days. Therefore, the petitioner had submitted yet another representation on

¶21

Page2 of 5

¶22

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

¶23

WP No. 354 of 2026

¶24

15.11.2025, seeking a further time of 20 days to quarry his lands. But no action was taken to date. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit though the petitioner in his representation had sought for 20 days time to

¶26

remove the balance stones, the employees engaged in the work were of the opinion that it may take two months to complete the work. Hence, his further request of two months to quarry his lands may now be considered.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Stalin

¶28

Abhimanyu, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶29

Taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner had submitted his representation only for a period of 20 days to quarry the subject lands, but due to nature’s interference, the petitioner could not complete the quarrying work as scheduled and now requires a further period of two months to complete the same, this Court directs the respondent to consider the request of the petitioner and pass speaking orders within a period of one month from today.

¶30

Page3 of 5

¶31

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

¶32

WP No. 354 of 2026

¶33