This application challenged illegal mining by the Wat
Application dismissed on merits as the High Court had already directed state agencies to monitor operations and prevent private involvement.
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.
Item No.01:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Friday, the 05th day of July 2024.
(Through Video Conference)
Original Application No.160 of 2024(SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
C. Subramaniyan,
S/o. Chinnu, Kulathukudiyuruppu Village, Avudaiyar Kovil Post, Pudukkottai District.
...Applicant(s)
2. The Commissioner, The Department of Geology and Mining, Alanthur Road, Guindy Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600032, Tamilnadu.
3. The Regional Joint Director, The Department of Geology and Mining, Madurai Region, Madurai.
4. The Deputy Director, The Department of Geology and Mining, Ramanathapuram District Collectorate Office, Ramanathapuram .
5. The Assistant Director,
The Department of Geology and Mining, Ramanathapuram District Collectorate Office, Ramanathapuram.
6. The State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority-Tamilnadu,
3rd Floor, Panagal Maligai, No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai-15.
Page 1 of 4
7. The Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (C) Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Regional Office (SEZ), 1st and 2nd Floor, Handloom Export Promotion Council, 34, Cathedral Garden Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai.
8. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. Pin-623 503.
9. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Mining and Monitoring Division, Madurai-625 002.
10. The Chairman, The District Level Task Force, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. Pin-623 501.
11. The District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.
12. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram District. Ramanathapuram.
13. The Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram. Pin-623 407. ...Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): None. For Respondent(s): Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R1 to R5, R8 to R13.
CORAM :
HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
Page 2 of 4
ORDER
1. The matter was originally listed for admission on 02.07.2024 and adjourned to today (i.e. 05.07.2024), as there was no representation for the applicant either in person or through the counsel. Even today, when the matter is called, there is no representation for the applicant.
2. The matter pertains to alleged illegal mining by the 9th Respondent who is the Water Resources Department (WRD).
3. From the material papers available, it is seen that the Environmental Clearance (EC) was issued in favour of the 9th Respondent on 23.01.2021 for the proposed sand quarrying over an extent of 2.10.0 Hectares in Pambar River in S.F. No. 219(P), Oriyur Village, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanadhapuram District.
4. The EC was granted for a period of one year from the date of execution of the mining lease period. The EC itself indicates that the mining plan was given on 29.08.2020. The mining lease was issued by the District Collector on 07.09.2022. Therefore, the EC should be valid from 07.09.2022 for a period of one year.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu has produced a copy of the Writ Petition (MD) No.9917 of 2023 filed by one Mr. S. Samadhanam against the issuance of the mining lease. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench had dismissed the same stating that the quarry permit was granted only up to September 2023, the period itself is over and the
Page 3 of 4
entire quarry operations as well as the movement of vehicles have been monitored and the Court was not inclined to pass any orders in this regard.
6. However, the official respondents were directed not to allow any private operators in the sand quarry operations and to ensure that the sand quarry operations are performed only by the Government, as per Rule 38A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.
7. As already the Hon’ble High Court has given a direction to monitor and prevent any private operators in the mining area issued under
the above-referred mining lease, no further direction would be required in this application.
8. Hence, this Original Application No. 160 of 2024(SZ) is dismissed on merits.
Sd/Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM
Sd/Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM
O.A. No.160/2024(SZ) 05th July, 2024. AD.
Page 4 of 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether further direction is required to prevent private operators in the mining area given existing High Court directions.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C. Subramaniyan
The State of Tamilnadu
Pushpa Sathyanarayana
Satyagopal Korlapati
As recorded by the court registry
An original application before a tribunal, most commonly a service dispute before the Central or a State Administrative Tribunal.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
