Madras High Court
The Deputy Superintendent Of Police vs M/S.Prp Granites on 29 January, 2015
Bench: S.Tamilvanan, V.S.Ravi
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.01.2015 Coram THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI Writ Appeal (MD) Nos.4 of 2015 and 5 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015 in W.A.(MD)Nos.4 and 5 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2015 in W.A.(MD)No.2 of 2015 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, (Investigation Officer), Madurai District, Madurai. ... Appellant/Respondent/ Respondent in both the WAs. vs. 1.M/s.PRP Granites, rep.by its Partner P.Senthil Kumar, Therkku Theru Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. ... Respondent/ Petitioner/Petitioner in W.A.(MD)No.4/2015 2.M/s.PRP Exports, rep.by its Partner P.Senthil Kumar, Therkku Theru Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. ... Respondent/ Petitioner/ Petitioner in W.A.(MD)No.5/2015 W.A.(MD)No.4/2015: Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 22.12.2014, made in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 in W.P.(MD)No.20226 of 2014. W.A.(MD)No.5/2015: Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 22.12.2014, made in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 in W.P.(MD)No.20227 of 2014. !For Appellant : Mr.A.L.Somayaji, in both the WAs Advocate General, assisted by Mr.B.Pugalendhi, Spl.Govt.Pleader. ^For Respondents : Mr.V.T.Gopalan, in both the Was Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Kadarkarai :JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.TAMILVANAN,J) Heard Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Advocate General, appearing for the appellant and Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondents.
2.These writ appeals have been preferred, challenging the order, dated 22.12.2014, passed in M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 1 of 2014 in W.P.(MD)Nos.20226 and 20226 of 2014, by the learned Single Judge. It is seen that W.P.(MD)No.20226 of 2014 was filed by the respondent in W.A.(MD)No.4/2015 seeking an order in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the respondent in the writ petition and the appellant herein, to send clarification letters to the Port Authorities of Chennai and Tuticorin and also to the Regional Director for Tamil Nadu, Reserve Bank of India, Chennai, Manager - State Bank of India, Sivakasi, Manager - Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Madurai, Manager - Indian Bank, Madurai, Manager - State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Madurai, Manager - State Bank of India, Kulithalai and to the Manager - Indian Bank (MEPZ), Chennai, clarifying that the letters issued to the Chennai Port Trust, dated 21.08.2012, Tuticorin Port Trust, dated 21.08.2012, and the Reserve Bank of India, Chennai, dated 21.08.2012 and all other letters sent to the said Banks, on different dates, pertaining to the quarries in Madurai District in respect of the specified bank account numbers and not pertaining to any other quarries available outside the Madurai District and to clarify that there is no prohibition for the respondent herein, either to quarry or to export materials from the other quarries located outside Madurai District and that there is no prohibition for the respondent to open and operate fresh bank accounts in respect of the respondent's business pertaining to the other quarries situated outside the Madurai District. In the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent herein also filed a miscellaneous petition in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014, wherein he has prayed for similar relief, as an interim measure, pending disposal of the writ petition.
3.The respondent in W.A.(MD)No.5/2014 has also filed W.P.(MD)No.20227 of 2014 seeking similar prayer in respect of his firm. The miscellaneous petition in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 was also filed seeking similar interim relief, pending disposal of the writ petition.
4.The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 22.12.2014 passed in M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 1 of 2014 in W.P.(MD)Nos.20226 and 20227 of 2014, granted ad-interim direction to the appellant to send clarification letters as prayed for, until further orders and directed the matter to be listed after three weeks. Challenging the order, the present writ appeals have been filed by the appellant, who is the respondent in both the writ petitions.
5.According to Mr.A.L.Somayaji, the learned Advocate General, the prayer sought for by the respondents, both in the writ petitions and in the miscellaneous petitions, is one and the same, which is in the nature of mandamus, however, by the impugned order passed in miscellaneous petitions, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant herein to send clarification letters to the authorities, which amounts to allowing the writ petitions themselves, which would not be proper in accordance with law and therefore the writ appeals have been preferred challenging the order of the learned Single Judge.
6.Per contra, Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the writ appeals are only not legally maintainable. According to him, no final order was passed by the learned Single Judge and main writ petitions are also pending. In the aforesaid circumstances, preferring writ appeals would not be maintainable, as remedy would be available before the same Court. In support of his contention, the learned Senior counsel, cited the following decisions.
(1)Spl.Tahsidlar., L.A., Lignite Project, Neyveli v. V.Rangasamy, reported in AIR 1988 Madras 162; and (2)Deoraj vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2004) SCC 698. The learned Senior Counsel strenuously argued that when there is an ad- interim order, remedy would be available before the very same Court. In such circumstances, the appellant/respondent in the writ petition is not entitled to approach this Court by way of writ appeals, without seeking the remedy before the learned Single Judge.
7.According to Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Advocate General, the writ appeals are maintainable, since in the name of ad-interim order, the learned Single Judge has granted the main relief itself. In support of his contention, the learned Advocate General cited the following decisions.
(1)Asst.Collector, C.E., Chandan Nagar v. Dunlop India Ltd., reported in AIR 1985 SC 330; and (2)State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sukhi Devei, reported in AIR 2005 SC
284.
8.It is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that an ad-interim order cannot be challenged by way of appeal, on account of the fact that remedies are available before the very same Court which granted the ad- interim order. Hence, without availing the said remedy, no party could avail the remedy of appeal. However, in the present case, as contended by the learned Advocate General, we are of the view that the main relief itself has been granted, directing the appellant to send clarification letters and by ad-interim order main relief mandatory in nature itself has been granted and therefore we cannot ignore the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate General that the same amounts to allowing the main relief sought for in the writ petitions. Therefore, we are of the view, in the light of various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the writ appeals are maintainable, if an interim order granted is the same as that of the main relief sought for in the writ petition. It is not in dispute that the interim order was passed directing the appellant to send clarification letters which is the main relief sought for in the writ petitions, according to the learned Advocate General.
9.It was also contended by the learned Advocate General that the matter involves quarrying operations, as there were serious allegations of illegal quarrying by the respondents and others to the tune of more than Rs.16,000 crores, on the direction given by this Court, a Senior I.A.S. Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry and submit his report. In the said circumstances, it warranted the appellant, who was the respondent in the writ petition, to address letters to the Port Trust Authorities at Chennai and Tuticorin and Banks.
10.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the appellant, who is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Madurai District, has no authority to address such letters beyond his jurisdiction, since he has addressed letters to the Port Trust Authorities at Chennai and Tuticorin and banks outside Madurai Dsitrict, that would stall even the business of the respondents in other districts.
11.Learned Advocate General, however, drew the attention of this Court to the letters, which are available in the typed-set of papers, wherein, the appellant has stated that criminal cases have been registered in Keelavalavu, Melur and Othakadai Police Stations, which are under the territorial jurisdiction of the appellant and they relate to illegal granite quarrying/operations and the names of the firms against whom investigations are pending are also stated in those letters. The names of the companies are:
(1)PRP Granites, Madurai (2)Madura Granites Pvt.Ltd., Madurai. (3)Olympus Granites Pvt.Ltd., Madurai. (4)Sri Om Sri Granites, Madurai. (5)Deepa Impex Pvt.Ltd., Madurai. (6)P.S.Granites, Madurai. (7)Sindhu Granites, Madurai. (8)Kumar Granites, Madurai. (9)Sait Granites, Madurai. (10)PRP Exports, Madurai.
12.As contended by the learned Advocate General, we are of the view that the appellant has stated only the cases relating to Keelavalavu Police Station, Melur Police Station and Othakadai Police Station, which are within the jurisdiction of the appellant, pending against the respondents as well as other private limited companies, having office at Madruai.
13.It is not in dispute that the writ petitions are yet to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge. Even the miscellaneous petitions relating to the Writ Appeals are pending before the learned Single Judge. It is also not in dispute that the appellant, who is the respondent in the writ petitions, is entitled to file counter and argue for the dismissal of the miscellaneous petitions filed, wherein the impugned relief has been granted. However, as there is no final order passed by the learned Single Judge in the miscellaneous petitions, the writ appeals need not be preferred without getting the remedy before the learned Single Judge.
14.Having considered the facts and circumstances and also the arguments of the learned Advocate General appearing for the appellant and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, we are of the view, to meet the ends of justice, to allow the appeals and modify the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In the result, the writ appeals are allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified and accordingly, both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo until further orders. We make it clear that it is open to the appellant/respondent to file counter in the main writ petitions within two weeks and we find it reasonable to observe that the matter shall be disposed of as early as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, considering the importance and sensitive nature of the dispute.
15.Registry is directed to place the material papers before the learned Single Judge dealing with the subject. The learned Single Judge shall dispose of the writ petitions, according to law, at an earliest date, since the scope of the writ petitions is very limited. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index:yes/no (S.T.,J) (V.S.R.,J)
Internet:yes/no. 29.01.2015
gb
To:
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
(Investigation Officer),
Madurai District, Madurai.
S.TAMILVANAN,J
and
V.S.RAVI,J
gb
Judgment in
W.A.(MD)Nos.4 & 5 of
2015 and M.P.(MD)No.1
of 2015 in W.A.(MD)
Nos.4 & 5 of 2015 and
MP(MD)No.2/2015 in
WA(MD)No.5/2015
Dated:29.01.2015