Madras High Court
V.Mahendran vs The District Collector on 7 September, 2017
1
B E F O R E T H E MADU RAI B E N C H O F MADRA S HIGH C O U RT
DAT E D : 2 9 . 1 0 . 2 0 1 8
C O R AM:
T H E HO N O U R A B L E MR. J U S T I C E T. RA J A
A ND
T H E HO N O U R A B L E MR. J U S T I C E K RI S H N A N R AMA S AM Y
W. P(MD)N o. 1 4 9 2 o f 2 0 1 8
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.1565 and 3792 of 2018
A ND
W. P(MD)N o. 1 6 5 1 o f 2 0 1 8
and
W.M.P(MD)No.1747 and 3986 of 2018
A ND
W. P(MD)N o. 2 4 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8
and
W.M.P(MD)No.2624 of 2018
W. P(MD)N o. 1 4 9 2 o f 2 0 1 8 :
V.Mahendran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madurai Revenue Division,
Madurai.
3.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Vadipatti Taluk,
http://www.judis.nic.in Madurai District.
2
4.R.S.Ramkumar
5.Athimuthan
[ R. 5 i s s u o m o t u i m p l e a d e d a s p a r t y
r e s p o n d e nt vi d e o r d e r o f this C o u rt
d ate d 2 5.0 1.2 0 1 8 passed in
W. P ( M D ) N o . 1 4 9 2 o f 2 0 1 8 .]
6.A.S.Sekar ... Respondents
[ R. 6 i s i m p l e a d e d a s p a r t y r e s p o n d e n t
vi d e order of this C o urt d ate d
1 8 . 0 9 . 2 0 1 8 p a s s e d i n W. M . P ( M D ) N o .
1 7 6 0 1 o f 2 0 1 8 i n W. P ( M D ) N o . 1 4 9 2 o f
2 0 1 8 .]
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents 1
to 3 from laying pathway in the petitioner's property in Survey No.30/4 of
Rajakalpatti Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District, without putting
prior notice and giving due opportunity to the petitioner in the light of
the judgment rendered in W.P(MD)No.21812 of 2015, dated 07.09.2017
and by considering the petitioner's representation dated 17.10.2017.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.B.Chandran
For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalendhi
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian
Special Government Pleader
for R.1 to R.3
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu for R.4
Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Senior Counsel for
M/s.Veera Associates for R.5
Mr.R.Viduthalai
Senior Counsel for
Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for R.6
*****
W. P(MD)N o. 1 6 5 1 o f 2 0 1 8 :
M.Shanmugam @ Shanmugavel ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate Office, Madurai.
2.The Chief Conservator of Forest,
Panagal Maligai, Saidapet,
Chennai.
3.The District Forest Conservator,
Madurai Circle,
Race Course Road,
Madurai.
4.The District Forest Officer,
Madurai Division,
Race Course Road,
Madurai.
5.The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Periyar Vaigai Vadinila Vattam,
Melur, Madurai District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
4
6.The Superintending Engineer,
Periyar Vaigai Vadinila Vattam,
Pennycuick Campus,
Thallakulam,
Madurai.
7.Aathimuthan
8.The Director of Geology and Mining,
Guindy,
Chennai.
[ R. 7 a n d R . 8 a r e s u o m o t u i m p l e a d e d a s
p a rt y r e s p o n d e nts vi d e o r d e r o f this
C o urt d ate d 2 9. 0 1. 2 0 1 8 p asse d in
W. P ( M D ) N o . 1 6 5 1 o f 2 0 1 8 .]
9.C.Muthuraja
10.A.S.Sekar ... Respondents
[ R. 9 a n d R . 1 0 a r e i m p l e a d e d a s p a r t y
r e s p o n d e nts vi d e o r d e r o f this C o u rt
d ate d 1 8.0 9.2 0 1 8 passed in
W. M . P ( M D ) N o s . 2 3 2 9 a n d 1 7 5 1 4 o f
2 0 1 8 i n W. P ( M D ) N o . 1 6 5 1 o f 2 0 1 8 .]
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents
herein to stop laying of road in Survey No.1, Rajakallupatti over
Perumalmalai leading towards the proposed quarry in Survey No.418 of
66 Mettupatti, Vadipatti Circle, Madurai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sukumaran
for Mrs.P.Sona Alagesh
http://www.judis.nic.in
5
For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalendhi
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian
Special Government Pleader
for R.1 to R.6 & R.8
Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Senior Counsel for
M/s.Veera Associates for R.7
Mr.T.K.Gopalan for R.9
Mr.R.Viduthalai
Senior Counsel for
Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for R.10
*****
W. P(MD)N o. 2 4 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8 :
Villagers of 66M.Usilampatti Village,
Kodankipatty Post,
Vadipatti Taluk,
Madurai District.
represented by
P.Pitchan Poosari ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Madurai District, Madurai.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Madurai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madurai.
4.The Conservator of Forests (Madurai),
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
Race Course Road,
Madurai - 2.
5.Athimuthan
6.A.S.Sekar ... Respondents
[ R. 6 i s i m p l e a d e d a s p a r t y r e s p o n d e n t
vi d e o r d e r d at e d 1 8 . 0 9. 2 0 1 8 m a d e in
W. M . P ( M D ) N o . 1 7 5 1 3 of 2018 in
W. P ( M D ) N o . 2 4 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8 ]
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents
from proceeding with the stone quarry operation in S.No.418, 66,
Mettupatti Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.K.Gopalan
For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalendhi
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian
Special Government Pleader
for R.1 to R.4
Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Senior Counsel for
M/s.Veera Associates for R.5
Mr.R.Viduthalai
Senior Counsel for
Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for R.6
*****
http://www.judis.nic.in
7
C OMMO N O RD E R
T.R A J A , J.
A ND K RI S H N A N R AMA S AMY, J .
W. P.(MD)N o. 1 4 9 2 o f 2 0 1 8 :
Writ Petition(MD)No.1492 of 2018 has been filed for a writ of Mandamus to forbear the District Collector, Madurai District; the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai and the Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District - the respondents 1 to 3 herein, from laying pathway in the petitioner's property in Survey No.30/4 of Rajakkalpatti Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District, without putting prior notice and giving due opportunity to the petitioner in the light of the order passed in Writ Petition(MD)No.21812 of 2015, dated 07.09.2017 and by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 17.10.2017.
2. Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.B.Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition(MD)No.1492 of 2018 would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the property in S.No.30/4 of Rajakkalpatti Village, Vadipatti http://www.judis.nic.in 8 Taluk, Madurai District, having an extent of 2 acres and 56 cents, that has been purchased frrom one Bala Naicker before 20 years ago and even prior to the said purchase, the petitioner inspected the same on several occasions and found no pathway or cart track passing through the said land. Therefore, after seeing the same, he has purchased the same. Moreover, if there has been any pathway, the same should be recorded in the Village 'A' Register. However, in the year 2015, the New Site Map appears to have been prepared showing marks passing through the field indicating the cart track, but prior to that there was no pathway or cart track. As the petitioner has been enjoying the property for more than 20 years, he has never seen any cart track running into his field and the eastern boundary of his property in S.No.30/4 is nothing but a rock. Under such circumstances, the fourth respondent appears to have given a representation to the respondents 1 to 3 stating that there was a cart track passing through the petitioner's property in S.No.30/4, but the same has been erased on the field and hence, the authorities should restore the same. Finding no response, the fourth respondent filed Writ Petition(MD)No.21812 of 2015 seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 therein to remove the encroachment made by Mr.V.Mahendran - the fourth respondent therein/the petitioner herein in Survey No.30/4 of Rajakkalpatti Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District http://www.judis.nic.in 9 and to restore the cart track as per FMB sketch of revenue records.
3. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that this Court, by order dated 07.09.2017, considering the limited prayer for the disposal of the representation, while disposing of the said writ petition, directed the Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District, to conduct an enquiry into the matter and if any encroachment is noticed, the Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, was further directed to remove the same after issuing the notice to the persons concerned by following the statutory procedure within a period of three months. Since there has been a direction by this Court in the said writ petition, after giving notice to the petitioner herein, the petitioner has been advised to file the present writ petition forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 herein from laying the pathway in the petitioner's property in S.No.30/4 of Rajakkalpatti Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District, without putting prior notice and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner in the light of the order passed in Writ Petition(MD)No. 21812 of 2015, dated 07.09.2017.
4. Adding further, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the petitioner has also come to note that some amendment has been made to the survey sketch creating an appearance that there was a cart http://www.judis.nic.in 10 track passing through the petitioner's property and hence, he made an enquiry and finally, came to know that a Syndicate has been formed by the quarry operators in the nearby area and in order to gain access to the quarry, they had played some mischief and he has applied to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking a survey to be held by the District Surveyor and also to make necessary rectifications in the Field Measurement Book in respect of the wrong entry in the FMB Sketch, that has been created by someone who had interest in creating access to the quarry. When the fourth respondent has neither any property in the vicinity nor has got any lease in respect of any Government quarry, wrongly approached this Court in the guise of Public Interest Litigation seeking for a passage. The eastern boundary of the property, in which, the fourth respondent has alleged encroachment, is a rock and there is no possibility for any passage. Further, the fourth respondent alleged that he wanted to participate in the tender cum auction with regard to a stone quarry on the basis of an advertisement inviting tenders published in the Madurai District Gazette, because there was a cart track in Survey No.30/4 that commences from the main road and passes through Survey No.30/4 and so that, he can also make use of the same cart track. When one of the conditions usually mentioned in the Gazette Notification with regard to the auction, shows that a person who takes licence to quarry should http://www.judis.nic.in 11 make necessary arrangements for passage and this apart, several licensees have been operating quarries in the said area, but none of them has so far claimed any right of passage through the petitioner's land and hence, the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent to find out any such cart track and accordingly, the first respondent directed the Revenue Divisional Officer - second respondent herein, who in turn directed the Tahsildar - third respondent herein, to survey the land along with the District Surveyor and a detailed report was also obtained. It also shows that there were no traces of any cart track in Survey No.30/4 and the Village Map also shows that wrong entry with regard to the cart track. Therefore, the report of the Inspector of Land Survey, dated 08.05.2017 cannot be doubted. Even the Assistant Director of Land Survey and Records made an independent measurement and survey of the field in Survey No.30/4 of Rajakkalpatti on the basis of the communication sent by the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 13.07.2016 and the Inspector of Land Survey made a visit to the property in Survey No.30/4 in view of the direction given by the Assistant Director of Land Survey on 02.01.2017. All these records clearly mentioned that there was no cart track found in Survey No.30/4 of Rajakkalpatti Village. Again, referring to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition(MD)No.21812 of 2015, dated 07.09.2017, he has submitted that when the petitioner had http://www.judis.nic.in 12 engaged a Counsel, unfortunately he did not inform him the date of hearing of the proceedings before this Court, as a result, he was unable to produce the requisite documents to show that the high officials in the District Level have conducted separate and independent survey of the field in Survey No.30/4 and they have come to the conclusion that there was no such cart track available and hence, this Court directed the respondents 1 to 3 to dispose of the representation made by the fourth respondent for removal of encroachment. However, he has also filed a review petition along with an application for condonation of delay before the Division Bench of this Court and the same is pending. Thereafter, when the contempt notice was issued in Contempt Petition (MD)No.69 of 2018 in Writ Petition(MD)No.21812 of 2015, he made some enquiry with the officials of the respondents and came to know that in order to avoid contempt proceedings, they are taking steps to set the clock back to rectify the mistake that had crept in the Field Measurement Book and even without notice and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the official respondents are going to create a cart track in the Field Measurement Book. If a Commissioner is appointed to verify the actual landscape and topography of the property in Survey No.30/4, it will become clear that there is no cart track therein. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 should be restrained from laying any pathway in the http://www.judis.nic.in 13 petitioner's property in Survey No.30/4. Therefore, this Court was constrained to appoint Mr.P.Ganapathy Subramaniam, Advocate of this Court, as an Advocate Commissioner, to find out whether there is a pathway in S.F.No.30/4, which belongs to Mr.Mahendran, the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.1492 of 2018. The said Advocate Commissioner inspected the property and filed his report, dated 04.09.2018, wherein it is stated as follows:-
“10. S. F. N o.7 o f M a ni c k a m p att y Villa g e m e a s u rin g a b o ut 0.35.0 a r e s i s cl a s s ifi e d a s c art tra c k in r e v e n u e r e c o r d s. . O n th e e a s t o f thi s , S . F. N o.8/1 i s s it u at e d w hi c h i s cl a s s ifi e d a s O d ai m e a s u rin g a b o ut 0.40.5. T h e l e n gt h o f c art tra c k in S . F. N o.7 i s 329 m e tr e a n d b r e a dt h i s 11.1 m e t r e o n n ort h a n d 8 m e t r e o n s o ut h . T h e b r e a dt h o f O d ai in S . F. N o.8 i s 22 m e tr e o n N ort h a n d 26 f e e t o n S o ut h . T hi s O d ai ru n d s thr o u g h S . F. N o s. 45 and 46 reach e s S . F. N o.35 , M at h al a k ul a m , M a ni c k a m p att y. M r. At hi m ut h a n i s h a vin g hi s p att a la n d in S . F. N o.6/6, 17/1 A , 1 B , 2 A , 2 B , 2 C 1 , 2 C 2 w hi c h i s s it u at e d o n th e W e s t o f S . F. N o.7 . M r. At hi m ut h a n a n d M r. R a vi c h a n d r a n e n c r o a c h e d thi s S . F. N o.7 w hi c h i s cl a s s ifi e d a s c art tra c k in r e v e n u e r e c o r d s . M r. R a vi c h a n d r a n p ut u p a f e n ci n g in S . F. N o. 7 a n d e nj o y e d th e s a m e al o n g wit h hi s p att a la n d . A s o n g r o u n d th e r e i s n o c art tra c k in S . F. N o.7.
http://www.judis.nic.in 14
11. S. F. N o s. 7 a n d 8 r e a c h e s S . F. N o.30/4 w hi c h i s th e p att a lan d o f M r. M a h e n d r a n . In S . F. N o.30/4 th e r e i s a d e t ail s o f c art tra c k in F M B b ut a s o n g r o u n d th e r e i s n o s u c h c art tra c k . T h e r e a r e m a n y a g e ol d tr e e s lik e c o c o n ut , t e a k , n e e m a n d v ari o u s kin d s o f tr e e s a r e th e r e . T h e r e a r e G u a v a tr e e s in S . F. N o.30/4 a n d it i s d e n s e in n at ur e . T h e r e i s n o s i g n o f c art tra c k in S . F. N o.30/4. B ut in r e v e n u e r e c o r d s th e d e t ail s o f c art tra c k i s th e r e e v e n pri or t o U. D. R . Ri g ht fr o m 1920 in r e v e n u e r e c o r d s d e t ail s o f c art tra c k i s a v aila bl e . T h u s in r e v e n u e r e c o r d s , d e t ail s o f c art tra c k i s all al o n g m e n ti o n e d .”
5.The learned Senior Counsel Mr.R.Singaravelan representing Mr.G.Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even as per the Commissioner's report, there was no cart track and in the alleged cart track, there were age old trees like, Coconut tree, teak trees, Neem trees and various kinds of trees and two Guava trees are dense in nature. Therefore even according to the Commissioner's report, there is no sign of cart track in S.F.No.30/4 and the Revenue records were created.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6.Further, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the 15 Commissioner's Report with reference to the three pathways referred by the District Revenue Officer, as follows:-
(1)Through the fifth respondent's patta land in S.F.Nos.201, 216, 218 and 219 and cart track details in S.F.No.207 and 208.
(2)Through the Odai in S.F.No.418 of 66 Mettupatty Village. (3)Through the cart track details in S.F.Nos.258, 248, 249 to 418. Therefore, the fourth respondent has to chose any one of the three pathways alone and he has no right even to chose any other pathway. It is the case of the petitioner that the fifth respondent can use his own patta lands to use virgin quarries taken by him on licence. But instead of doing so, he approached the District Collector and other officials to permit him to use the patta lands of the writ petitioner in S.F.No.30/4 and his brother, as pathway to which, the virgin quarry taken by him on licence.
7.The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that the District Collector, by issuing a letter dated 11.12.2017 without any notice to the writ petitioner, has set aside the order of the District Revenue Officer, dated 31.08.2017 and restored the entry of cart track in the village FMB, though there is no such cart track in reality in the land in S.F.No.30/4, http://www.judis.nic.in 16 which is a patta land owned by the petitioner. However, it is admitted by the petitioner that the order of the Collector, dated 11.12.2017 is not at all challenged by the petitioner as on the date. Therefore, the petitioner by strongly relying upon the Advocate Commissioner's report and District Revenue Officer's order and patta issued to the petitioner and the non availability of the pathway, claims that there is no pathway in S.F.No.30/4. Hence, he prays this Court to give appropriate directions forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from relying any pathway in the petitioner's property in S.F.No.30/4 of Rajakalpatti Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.
8.The learned Additional Advocate General Mr.B.Pugalendhi, assisted by Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that there is a cart track in S.F.No.30/4 of Rajakalpatti Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District even as per the Commissioner's Report. The Commissioner appointed by this Court has stated there was a document which would show that the cart track is in existence since 1920. By virtue of the proceedings dated 31.08.2017, the District Revenue Officer, directed the Revenue officials to remove the cart track appearing in the revenue records . The District Revenue Officer's order was challenged before the District Collector. The District Collector by his order dated 11.12.2017 set http://www.judis.nic.in 17 aside the order of the DRO and restored the original entry made in the FMB sketch. However, due to the petitioner's encroachment in the cart track, some trees were grown as stated in the Advocate Commissioner's report. Due to disappearance of the cart track, at the instance of the petitioner's encroachment, the petitioner cannot claim absolute right over the said cart track, which appeared in the revenue records since 1920 and FMB. Merely obtaining the patta for the cart track, the petitioner cannot claim any right over the cart track. It is a settled law that even in the cart track, situated in patta land, it will be meant for public use, not for the exclusive use of the patta holder of the cart track. Therefore, it is the contention of the respondents 1 to 3 that as of now, the cart track is restored by virtue of the order of the Collector, dated 11.12.2017, which is not challenged as on today by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right over the cart track situated in S.F.No.30/4 for his exclusive use and hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
9.The learned counsel for the fourth respondent would submit that the main approach road starts from Manikampatti Village and it runs through Survey No.7 which is a cart track as per the revenue records and it goes through the Survey No.30/4. The said cart track ends in the Survey No.30/4 and thereafter the quarry is situated. But the said cart track was http://www.judis.nic.in 18 destroyed by the petitioner herein by way of encroachment and that the petitioner herein has used the said cart track along with the fourth respondent's patta land as if he is the owner of the entire Survey No.30/4. Therefore, the fourth respondent informed the revenue officials to remove the encroachment, but they have not taken any steps to remove the encroachment and hence, the fourth respondent herein filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.21812 of 2015 for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 therein to remove the encroachment made by the petitioner herein in Survey No.30/4 of Rajakalpatti village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District and to restore the cart track as per FMB sketch of revenue records. This Court, by order dated 07.09.2017 disposed the said writ petition directing the third respondent therein to enquire into the matter and if any encroachment is noticed, the same shall be removed after issuing notice to the concerned parties and following the statutory procedure. Accordingly, the District Collector, has seen the revenue records that have shown the cart track in S.F.No.30/4, hence, the cart track has been restored now for public use as it was before, therefore, he submitted that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
10.The learned Senior Counsel Mr.Veera Kathiravan, representing M/s.Veera Associates, appearing for the fifth respondent, who is the http://www.judis.nic.in 19 owner of the Virgin quarry would submit that there is a cart track very much available for the public use in S.F.No.30/4 and the said cart track is encroached by the petitioner. Subsequent to the encroachment, he has planted trees like Coconut, neem, Guava etc., and obtained patta in his name. Merely by obtaining the patta for the cart track situated in S.F.No. 30/4 and by virtue of encroachment, the petitioner planted trees as stated above to grow on the cart track, keeping the cart track in his control for quite long time without allowing the public to use, cannot grant any absolute right for the petitioner for the exclusive use of the cart track. Further, there was a cart track appeared in the revenue records. However, the said order was challenged before the Collector. The Collector set aside the order by his order dated 11.12.2017 and directed the revenue authorities to restore the same and subsequently the same was restored by the revenue authorities and as on today, records like FMB sketch, village maps and other revenue records clearly show that the cart track is available in S.F.No.30/4.
11.Even this Court was pleased to appoint an Advocate Commissioner Mr.P.Ganapathy Subramaniam and by virtue of his report, dated 04.09.2018, he has clearly stated that in Survey No.30/4, there is a cart track, which has been existing since 1920, for which, the Commissioner has also filed all the relevant documents in order to prove http://www.judis.nic.in 20 that there was a cart track existing since 1920. However, the learned Advocate Commissioner submitted that at present the cart track in S.F.No.30/4 is disappeared and in the said S.F.No.30/4, only the trees were grown like, coconut, neem etc., but however, he has reported as per the village map and other revenue record that it appears that there is a cart track in S.F.No.30/4.
12.Relying upon the Commissioner's report and the order of the District Collector, village register and other revenue records like FMB sketch since 1920, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Veera Kathiravan, appearing for the fifth respondent advanced his arguments stating that there is existing a cart track in S.F.No.30/4 and the same should be restored for public use and poor farmers to carry their farm produces and therefore, he sought that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
13.Further, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent would submit that from Mannikampatty – rajakalpatti road runs through the cart track in S.No.7 of Manikkapatty village and passes through the cart track in S.F.No.30/4 at Rajakalpatti before it reaches survey No.1 of Rajakalpatti village from which it runs as a road to Chathiravellapatty one side and runs through the S.No.258 of 66, http://www.judis.nic.in 21 Mettupatty village on another side to connect the Mettupatty village and Senthamangalam road. Further, he would submit that S.F.No.30/4 is a Government Tharisu land, but the petitioner claims that he owns the said land and title in his favour. On the contrary, the revenue records before the UDR clearly exposes that it was a Government tharisu land, which is evident from the Survey and Settlement Register copies. Further, he would contend that as per the revenue department procedure, any change or clarification, the candidate should be registered firstly in TK Account No.4, secondly in TK account No.7 then finally in 8A register. The transfer should be recorded in the No.3 register also. On the contrary to the mandatory proceedings, the patta was issued, which is not maintainable under Law. Therefore, the petitioner does not have any lo c u s s t a n di to claim as pattadar. He would further submit that Mr.Mahendran, also owning the quarry in the same locality; that in order to prevent the activities of the fifth respondent, the writ petitioner filed the present writ petition with m al a fid e intention and falsely claiming that the S.F.No.30/4 belongs to him as he obtained the patta for the said property, therefore, the petitioner's claim cannot be considered due to the simple reason that patta was obtained without following the mandatory procedure established under Law, as stated above. http://www.judis.nic.in 22
14.He would also submit that due to the establishment by the fifth respondent a rival business to the petitioner, he filed the present writ petition to stop the rival business and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M I T H I L E S H G A R G v . UNI O N O F I N D I A , A I R 1 9 9 2 SC 4 4 3 , no writ petition can be maintainable challenging the establishment of business in the same locality and further, he referred the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in F L OU R MILLS v.
N. T. G O W D A , A I R 1 9 7 1 S C 2 4 6 , wherein it was held that a Rice Mill owner has no lo c u s s t a n d i to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the establishment of a new Rice Mill by another, even if such establishment is in contravention of Section 8(3)(c) of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958, because no right vested in such an applicant is infringed, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
15.The learned Senior Counsel Mr.T.Viduthalai, representing Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent in W.P.(MD)No.1492 of 2018; 10th respondent in W.P.(MD)No. 1651 of 2018 and 6th respondent in W.P.(MD)no.2432 of 2018, who is also http://www.judis.nic.in 23 owner of the quarry, would submit that he has not been impleaded as party in this proceedings. Further, he would submit that S.F.No.30/4 is a cart track and it can be used by anyone else. The sixth respondent is strictly following the terms and conditions of the licence issued by the Geology and Mining Department and Pollution Control Board and other Central and State Government Agencies.
15.1.Mr.Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the impleading parties argued that the writ petitioners have not impleaded the impleading parties who were already granted quarrying licence by the competent authority after satisfactorily complying with the conditions required for grant of quarrying lease. While so, without hearing the impleading parties, the order passed by this Court on 06.09.2018 giving directions to stop the quarrying operations by the petitioner behind the back of the impleading parties is unknown to the principles of natural justice and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. He has also submitted that when the quarrying lease has been granted, before the grant of lease, minimum notice is required and that is not also complied with and as a result, the impleading parties have been put to irreparable loss. The impleading parties have nothing to do with the writ http://www.judis.nic.in 24 petitioners and the respondents and therefore, for the fight between the writ petitioners and the official respondents, the impleading parties having no interest whatsoever, cannot be penalised by stopping their quarrying operations.
16.From the perusal of the pleadings in the petition and the arguments made by both the petitioner and the respondents and the Advocate Commissioner's report and other relevant records filed before this Court, it is clear that the S.F.No.30/4 is a cart track, which has been in existence from 1920 as stated in the Commissioner's report. However, at present, the said cart track is disappeared due to the reasons of growing various trees by the petitioner by virtue of the encroachment in the cart track, as stated in the Commissioner's report.
17.A mere perusal of the revenue records would go to show that the S.F.No.30/4 is a Government Poramboke land and by virtue of the encroachment in the cart track, the petitioner obtained a patta and as stated by the fifth respondent, the said patta was obtained by the petitioner without following the mandatory procedure of the revenue department. Therefore, the said patta was challenged before the said revenue authorities. The District Revenue Officer, by virtue of order dated http://www.judis.nic.in 25 31.08.2017 rejected the contention of the said encroachment by the petitioner and refused to direct the revenue authorities to remove the cart track appeared in the revenue records and the said order was challenged before the District Collector, the District Collector, set aside the order of the District Revenue Officer and directed the revenue authorities to restore the cart track appeared in the revenue records. From the said date to till date, the order was not challenged. Therefore, it is clear that the cart track is appeared as on today in all the revenue records. Hence, the petitioner cannot claim any right over the said property in question.
18. At this juncture, it is necessary to extract hereunder the relevant portion of the report of the Advocate Commissioner:
"11. S.F.Nos.7 and 8 reaches S.F.No.30/4 which is the patta land of Mr.Mahendran. In S . F. N o. 3 0/4 t h e r e i s a d e t a il s o f c a r t tr a c k in F M B b u t a s o n g r o u n d t h e r e i s n o s u c h c a r t tr a c k .
There are many age old trees like coconut, teak, neem and various kinds of trees are there. There are Guava trees in S.F.No.30/4 and it is dense in nature. There is no sign of cart track in S.F.No.30/4. B u t in t h e r e v e n u e r e c or d s t h e d e t a il s o f c a r t tr a c k i s http://www.judis.nic.in 26 t h e r e e v e n prior t o U.D. R . Ri g h t fro m 1 9 2 0 in r e v e n u e r e c or d s d e t a il s o f c a r t tr a c k i s a v a il a bl e . T h u s in r e v e n u e r e c or d s , d e t a il s o f c a r t tr a c k i s a ll a l o n g m e n ti on e d ."
[emphasis supplied.]
19. The report of the Advocate Commissioner clearly shows that as per FMB, there is a cart track in S.F.No.30/4, but due to patta issued to Mr.Mahendran, who has grown trees, like, coconut, teak, neem and various kinds of trees, the cart track has been completely disappeared and besides, being a pattadhar, he has prevented other people from using the said cart track. Naturally, if the cart track is not allowed to be used, it will disappear. The pattadhar has caused the cart track to be disappeared. However, the District, in his order dated 11.12.2017, restored the entry of cart track in the Village FMB making it clear that there is a cart track in S.F.No.30/4. Till date, this order has not been questioned by any one including the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot maintain the present writ petition. Secondly, as rightly pleaded by the learned Additional Advocate General, the revenue records from 1920 and the FMB clearly indicated the existence of a cart track in S.F.No.30/4, which was encroached by the petitioner by planting and cultivating the http://www.judis.nic.in 27 coconut, neem, quava trees, etc., as it is meant for the public use and not for exclusive use of the patta holder. The District Collect has rightly restored the same in his order dated 11.12.2017. Thirdly, in order to make any change, the candidate should be registered firstly in TK Account No. 4, secondly in TK Account No.7 and then finally, in 8-A Register and the said transfer should also be recorded in No.3 Register also. Violating all these things, patta has been given to the petitioner in S.F.No.30/4 and therefore, the District Collector rightly restored the cart track for public use. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition.
20.It is very clear from the above discussions that the cart track is in existence on the road for the purpose of public use and the same should be restored. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. W. P.(MD)N o. 1 6 5 1 o f 2 0 1 8 :
21.This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to stop laying of road in Survey No.1, Rajakalpatti over Perumalmalai leading towards the http://www.judis.nic.in 28 proposed quarry in Survey No.418 of 66 Mettupatti, Vadipatti Circle, Madurai District, as a Public Interest Litigation.
22.Mr.K.Sukumaran, learned counsel representing Mrs.P.Sona Alagesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Survey No. 1 is situated at Rajakalpatti village, where the Perumalmalai Hill exists, which contains dense forest developed for more than 30 years by social welfare forestry and it also consists of several small check dams benefiting many villages like Manickampatti, Mettupatti, Paraipatti, Vellaiampatti and so on. The rain water which drains through Perumalmali flows through hills and the check dams benefiting nearly 250 acres of agricultural lands in Rajakalpatti area and to other villages, wherein more than 100 farmers are carrying on agricultural operations.
23.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the rain water flowing through the Perumalmalai is the only source of water for the agricultural operations of the petitioner village and others. Without obtaining any opinion from the village people, the respondents are taking steps to lay down a new road for the sole benefit of Mr.Authimuthan, who is the owner of the virgin quarry. Due to the said benefit of the said Authimuthan, the other respondents made all http://www.judis.nic.in 29 arrangements for removing the dense forest for more than 1 kilometer located at Perumalmalai, which cannot be permitted for the benefit of the sole individual to occupy the area with ill-intension to misuse the road in the name of public.
24.It is further submitted that in this regard, the petitioner made several representations and that the representations were not considered by the respondents. Further, the petitioner would contend that Authimuthan has filed the writ petition under the guise of Public Interest Litigation in the name of R.S.Ramkumar, who is only a name lender in W.P.No.21812 of 2015 and obtained a favourable direction for removal of encroachments in cart track located in Survey No.30/4 of Rajakalpatti, which is the place where he planned to commence the proposed road towards Survey No.1 of Rajakalpatti leading to the stone quarry. However, in Survey No.30/4 there is no cart track, but the land is under the enjoyment of one individual named Mahendran of the petitioner's village for more than 25 years. No road can be laid in Survey No.1 in Rajakalpatti village, which is described as a hill and as of now, there is no road. Further, on 24.01.2018 also, the petitioner has made a representation to prevent the laying of road in Survey No.1 of Rajakalpatti, Perumalmalai to create pathway for the proposed quarry in Survey No.418/66 in Vadipatti http://www.judis.nic.in 30 circle.
25.After hearing the petitioner's submission and the parties to the proceedings, Mr.P.Ganapathy Subramaniam, Advocate of this Court, was appointed as Advocate Commissioner, to verify as to whether there is an existing road in Survey No.1 at Rajakalpatti village. The Advocate Commissioner has also inspected the properties and after obtaining instructions from all the parties to the proceedings, he has also filed his report on 04.09.2018, wherein he has stated that there is an existence of the road in Survey No.1 of Rajakalpatti and from the said road, the present virgin quarry is situated about 300 meter away. He has also stated that in the 12th column of 'A' Register, it is mentioned as Hill. Further, the Commissioner stated that from the S.F.No.1 of Rajakalpatty village, the proposed quarry site is situated 300 metre and a new road is to be formed only in 300 metre length. This pathway runs from South to North and breadth in 25 feet. In this area there are 59 trees, 61 saplings and 73 shrubs. Further, the Advocate Commissioner states that the Forest Department planted saplings of various kinds in Survey No.1 of Rajakalpatty village also. Therefore, the said Athimuthan has to get a clearance from the Forest Department regarding the exact number and value of the trees to be cut and removed by him and alternate for http://www.judis.nic.in 31 planting the same. In S.F.No.1 of Rajakalpatti, there is check dam and the main contention of the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.1651 of 2018 is that if the road is formed through this area, it will affect the check dam. Further, the Commissioner stated that Authimuthan assured that even as per the mining plan this is not the way through which he proposed to form a road. Therefore, according to the Advocate Commissioner's report, in S.F.No.1 of Rajakalpatti village, there is an existing road.
26.The main objection raised by the petitioner against the Advocate Commissioner's report is that nothing mentioned anything about the District Revenue Officer's report with regard to S.F.No.1 of Rajakalpatty village, in the Advocate Commissioner's report. The Advocate Commissioner's finding in para No.12 that in S.F.No.1 of Rajakalpatti village there exists a cart track and the proposed quarry is situated 300 metre away from the existing quarries in S.F.No.1 of Rajakalpatti village is not proved. It is the contention of the petitioner that existing quarry is at another village and proposed quarry is located at another village and that the distance would be definitely more than 500 metres away. The Advocate Commissioner failed to give any opinion about the availability of the check dam on both sides of the quarry, which will severely affect, when new road is laid to the quarry. Also, the Advocate Commissioner has http://www.judis.nic.in 32 mentioned about the presence of check dam on either side of Perumalmalai, but not a single photograph of the check dam has been placed on record before this Court. Further, the Advocate Commissioner's report is totally silent about the water bodies around Perumalmalai. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the report of the Commissioner should be rejected in toto.
27.The learned Additional Advocate General Mr.B.Pugalendhi, assisted by Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 1 to 6 and 8 would submit that it is an admitted fact that there is an existing road in Survey No.1 of Rajakalpatti village and even it was confirmed by the learned Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court. At this juncture, the learned Additional Advocate Commissioner brought to our notice that there is a writ petition (MD)No. 15294 of 2016 filed before this Court challenging the granting of permission to Authimuthan, who is the seventh respondent herein, to run this virgin quarry, but in the said writ petition, the Division Bench of this Court after hearing the detailed arguments, have decided that Public Interest Litigation filed by one Mr.S.Chinnazhagan is not maintainable because of the reason that the licence for running quarry was granted by following all the procedures and as per the provisions of both the Central http://www.judis.nic.in 33 and State Government. Therefore, this Court has not found any infirmities in granting licence by these respondents and that the writ petition was filed only with the intention to prevent the seventh respondent from quarrying activities due to the business rivalry. At this juncture, the learned Additional Advocate General stated that no objection was made for running of the quarry, which is in and around 500 to 800 metres from this quarry. If the petitioner's contention is accepted, all those quarries also cannot be allowed to function, ironically no objection has been raised till date for other quarries functioning in the same area, which clearly shows that with oblique motive the petitioner has filed this present Public Interest Litigation making objection for the pathway, which is already very well situated in S.F.No.1 of Rajakalpatti, therefore making any claim that it will severely affect the ecology of this location and thereby agricultural activities will get affected, will also go against other two quarries. Therefore, on this score this writ petition is liable to be dismissed, it is pleaded.
28.The learned Senior Counsel Mr.Veera Kathiravan, representing M/s.Veera Associates, for the seventh respondent would submit that there are three quarries running, may be in other survey numbers, but very near to the proposed quarry site and the Government waste land is http://www.judis.nic.in 34 proposed to be auctioned in order to generate the income of Government. The authorities have found that the land can be utilized for quarrying and the operation will not affect any agriculture operation or the forest planting, hence, the Forest Department concurred with the view of the District Administration. Further, the land is not a forest land since it is not covered under Sections 4, 16 or Section 26 of the Tamilnadu Forest Act, 1882 and also since the existing vegetation is TAP Plantation (Tamilnadu Afforestation Project) and not the natural or spontaneous growth, the provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980, will not be applicable to the present case.
29.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the seventh respondent would further submit that Rule 36 of Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959, and Rule 41 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, stipulate for mining plan, as a prerequisite to the grant of lease for minor minerals other than Granite and Clause (iii) of sub Rule 10 of Rule 41 mandates mining plan as a requirement for the quarries. After complying all legal requirements only, the lease agreement was entered and thus, the contention of the petitioner is liable to be rejected.
http://www.judis.nic.in 35
30.Arguing further, the learned Senior Counsel would also submit that there is only one check dam available in the water route, which is situated far away to the proposed quarry site, that the said check dam has got nothing to do with the proposed quarry site and that the same, in fact, is not maintained properly by the authorities and the same remain covered with bushes and shrubs. It is equally significant to note that the above two quarries are operating within 200 metres from the check dam. However, the petitioner herein had not chosen to raise his finger as against the lessees namely A.S.Sekhar and V.Mahendran. For the reason that the petitioner herein is none other than an associate of the said A.S.Sekhar and V.Mahendran and the present petition has been set up at the instance of the above persons as a tool forbearing the seventh respondent from quarrying in a site nearby their site. Therefore, the writ petition has been filed with a m al a fid e intention in order to wreck vengeance against him. Hence, he submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
31.On the perusal of the records and after hearing the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel on either side, it is clear that there are two cart tracks functioning around 500 metres of the proposed virgin quarry. The petitioner specifically raised the issue of ecological impact due to the establishment of this virgin quarry. However, surprisingly the petitioner http://www.judis.nic.in 36 never raised any issues about the ecological impact against the two other quarries, which are also functioning within 500 metres from the proposed virgin quarry, therefore, the petition filed only against the R7 without raising any objection against other two quarries raises grave doubts in the minds of this Court about the bona fide of the cause raised by the petitioner against the proposed virgin quarry. Further, as per the report of the Advocate Commissioner, there is a cart track in S.F.No.1 of Rajakalpatti village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. The main contention of the petitioner is as against laying down the new cart tack in S.F.No.1 of Rajakalpatti village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. However, it is proved beyond doubt that already a cart track is in existence. Hence, this Court is of the view that nothing to be adjudicated in this writ petition to prevent the respondents from laying any cart tract, since the cart track is already in existence on the road for the public use. Under such circumstances, the prayer sought for by the petitioner to stop laying of road in Survey No.1 of Rajakalpatti cannot be granted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.
W. P.(MD)N o. 2 4 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8 :
http://www.judis.nic.in 37
32.The petitioner has come up with this writ petition as Public Interest Litigation to forbear the respondents from proceeding with the stone quarry operation in S.No.418, 66, Mettupatti village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.
33. Mr.T.K.Gopalan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.2432 of 2018 and 9th respondent in W.P.(MD)No.1651 of 2018 would submit that Mettupatti village is a Hillock in which several hectares of lands belong to Forest Department and the same was maintained by them by growing several trees. The main occupation of the petitioner's village and nearby village is agriculture and they received water for cultivation from the Hillock. The Panchayat also constructed stone check dam to store water. The villagers came to know about the private firm running stone crussing unit, approached the Government for mining in Survey No.418. Since the villagers agitated, the first respondent directed the third respondent to make spot inspection and to submit a report. The third respondent also conducted enquiry and made a recommendation to the first respondent to stop the proposal for quarry operation. The first respondent without considering the same, published a notice dated 02.08.2016 calling for applications for grant of mining lease in respect of Survey No.418. Hence, the said W.P.(MD)No.15294 of http://www.judis.nic.in 38 2016 was filed as Public Interest Litigation. The said writ petition was dismissed on 29.11.2016. Thereafter, on 09.03.2017 public auction was conducted and the fifth respondent got confirmed the auction and on the basis of the confirmation, the fifth respondent started to lay road by destroying the trees by using heavy machineries in the Hillock. Hence, the villagers have filed this writ petition.
34.As per the report of the Advocate Commissioner, there is a check dam in S.F.No.418 of 66, Mettupatti Village and it is situated 200 metre on the south of the proposed quarry site. The agricultural lands, which are situated 1000 metre away from the proposed quarry site. He has also stated that the major apprehension of the villagers is that the proposed quarry operation will affect the free flow of water and ultimately will have an adverse impact on the agricultural operation. Even the Advocate Commissioner has also stated that a temple is situated nearly 3 k.m. away from the proposed quarry site.
35.The petitioner village submitted their objection stating that the Advocate Commissioner without finding out the free flow of water through check dam and without measuring the distance, simply stated that only an environmental expert can decide the issue and he is not http://www.judis.nic.in 39 having any expertise in this regard. Further, the Advocate Commissioner without any hesitation mentioned that the temple is situated nearly 3 km away from the proposed quarry site. The actual distance is only 700 metre and he has wrongly mentioned as 3 km and was not able to reach the hill top and ascertain. Therefore, they stated that the report of the Advocate Commissioner is liable to be rejected.
36.The learned Additional Advocate General Mr.B.Pugalendhi, assisted by Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 has submitted that there are three stone quarries located adjacent to the proposed quarry site and all the agricultural lands are 'B' memo lands and that too they are away from 1000 mts from proposed quarry site. The Thasildhar of Vadipatti conducted enquiry and the villagers did not object for the same. As the lease could be given only under public auction, the first respondent directed the 3rd respondent to conduct spot inspection with regard to the feasibility of leasing out the stone quarry situated in S.No.418 of 66, Mettupatti Village.
37.The learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that the Government land in question is having social forestry apart from http://www.judis.nic.in 40 agriculture operation and no agricultural operations appeared to have been done by the encroachers who were issued with 'B' memos and that the said encroachments are located 1000 mt. away from the site, and within 300 meters no archeological monuments or houses, water bodies such as Orani, Kanmai or Well is located and the quarry site can be accessed through the Jungle Odai and that water flows through the same only during the rainy seasons and that there is no possibility of water flowing through the same during the other season. Apart from that there are two other access road available. Therefore in order to augment the income of Government, the 1st respondent decided to bring the said unassessed waste land for leasing it to the quarry operation and that the writ petition is filed only with baseless apprehension. The Forest Department which planted trees have sufficiently explained that the proposed operation will not affect the plantation and therefore, the same cannot be rejected or taken against the view of authority and thus, the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced, it is pleaded.
38.The learned Senior Counsel Mr.Veera Kathiravan, representing M/s.Veera Associates, for the fifth respondent would submit that admittedly there is an existing road in S.No.1 of Rajakalpatti village http://www.judis.nic.in 41 formed by A.S.Sekhar and V.Mahendran, further the road has to be formed only for 200 metres from the existing road to reach the fifth respondent's quarry site and there is no trees as alleged by the petitioner herein. Neither check dam made in odai nor agriculture will be affected, as alleged by the petitioner, the present petitioner is a name lender of other two quarry owners running in the same site, therefore, by analysing all the details, the District Environment Impact Assessing Authority Committee has issued the clearance Certificate. Hence, the question of violation and damage to the environment does not arise. Hence, he prays that the present writ petition may be dismissed, as it is motivated by the business rivalry.
39.We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the records.
40.The relief sought for in this writ petition has already been decided by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.15294 of 2016, dated 29.11.2016, wherein it is observed and held as follows:-
“16.In vi e w o f th e a b o v e thi s C o urt f e el s th at th e g ri e v a n c e e a r e d b y th e p e titio n e r d o e s n ot s e e m t o b e in th e int e r e s t o f p u bli c a s th e p e titio n e r di d n ot b rin g th e m at e rial fa ct u m o f ru n nin g o f thr e e m o r e s t o n e q u arr y wit h th e p e r mi s si o n o f th e a ut h oriti e s . T h e r e i s n o i m p e di m e nt f or th e a ut h ority t o p r o c e e d wit h th e a cti o n o f th e p r o p o s e d q u a r y. http://www.judis.nic.in T h e v e r y c o nt e nti o n o f th e p e titio n e r th at th e p e o pl e in th e 42 villa g e p ai d ta x u n d e r 'B m e m o' r e v e al s th at th e int e nti o n o f th e p e titio n e r i s n ot t o p r ot e ct a n y b e s t int e r e s t o f s o ci et y b ut t o o b s tr u ct th e utiliz ati o n o f th e u n a s s e s s e d w a s t e lan d b e l o n g t o th e G o v e r n m e nt a n d t o s c o r e hi s p e r s o n al m o ti v e a g ai n s t th e 6t h r e s p o n d e nt . Th e H o n' bl e S u pr e m e C o urt in K a l y a n e s h w a r i v . Uni o n o f I n d i a , ( 2 0 1 1 ) 3 S C C 2 8 7 h a s h e l d a s f o l l o w s :- a t p a g e 3 0 4 :
39 . E v e r y litig a nt, w h o a p p r o a c h e s th e C o urt, o w e s a d ut y t o a p p r o a c h th e C o urt wit h cl e a n h a n d s a n d di s cl o s e c o m pl et e fa ct s . A p e titio n w hi c h la c k s b o n a fid e s a n d i s int e n d e d t o s e ttl e b u si n e s s riv alry o r i s ai m e d at ta kin g o v e r o f a c o m p a n y o r a u g m e ntin g th e b u si n e s s o f a n ot h e r int e r e s t e d c o m p a n y at th e c o s t o f cl o si n g b u s i n e s s o f ot h e r u nit s in th e g a r b o f P I L w o ul d b e n ot hin g b ut a b u s e o f th e p r o c e s s o f la w.
40 . P r e s u m a bly, a n d a s c o nt e n d e d , th e dir e ct i m p a ct o f b a n nin g o f a ctiviti e s o f m i nin g/ m a n uf a ct urin g r el atin g t o a s b e s t o s s h all r e s ult in in cr e a s e in d e m a n d o f c a s t iro n/du ctil e iro n p r o d u cti o n a s th e y a r e s o m e o f th e s uit a bl e s u b s titut e s f or a s b e s t o s . It i s n ot in di s p ut e th at E S C L i s o n e o f th e larg e s t m a n u f a ct ur e r o f ir o n a n d alli e d p r o d u ct s in In di a a n d th e r e w a s a p r of e s s i o n al a n d/or o t h e r c o n n e c ti o n s b e t w e e n E S C L a n d B. K .
S h a r m a o n th e o n e h a n d a n d B. K . S h a r m a a n d S h a nti S w a r u p o n th e ot h e r w h o , a d mitt e dly at p r e s e nt , i s inv ol v e d with th e a ctiviti e s o f N G O f or a c o n s i d e r a bl e ti m e . T h u s , it w o ul d b e a r e a s o n a bl e c o n cl u si o n t o d r a w th at th e w rit p e titio n h a s b e e n h ar dly fil e d in p u bli c int e r e s t b ut i s a pri v at e int e r e s t litig ati o n t o gi v e ri s e t o b u si n e s s o p p ort u niti e s in a p arti c ul ar fi el d.
http://www.judis.nic.in 41 . In A s h o k K u m a r P a n d e y v . S t a t e o f 43 W. B ( 5 ) , thi s C o urt t o o k a c a uti o u s a p p r o a c h w hil e e nt ert ainin g p u bli c int e r e s t litig ati o n s a n d h el d th at p u bli c int e r e s t litig ati o n i s a w e a p o n , w hi c h h a s t o b e u s e d with g r e at c a r e a n d cir c u m s p e c ti o n . T h e ju di ci ar y h a s t o b e e x tr e m e l y c a r e f ul t o s e e th at n o u gly pri v at e m ali c e , v e s t e d int e r e s t a n d/or s e e ki n g p u bli city lurk s b e hi n d th e b e a utiful v eil o f p u bli c int e r e s t . It i s t o b e u s e d a s a n e ff e cti v e w e a p o n in th e ar m o u r y o f la w f or d eli v e rin g s o ci al ju sti c e t o citiz e n s . T h e attra ctiv e b r a n d n a m e o f p u bli c int e r e s t litig ati o n s h o ul d n ot be used f or s u s pi ci o u s p r o d u ct s o f m i s c hi e f.
42 . In R a j i v R a n j a n S i n g h ' L a l a n' v.
Uni o n o f I n d i a , thi s C o urt r eit e r at e d th e prin ci pl e a n d e v e n h el d th at h o w s o e v e r g e n uin e a c a s e b r o u g ht b e f o r e a c o urt b y a p u bli c int e r e s t litig a nt m a y b e , th e c o urt h a s t o d e clin e it s e x a mi n ati o n at th e b e h e s t o f a p e r s o n w h o , in fa ct , i s n ot a p u bli c int e r e s t litig a nt a n d w h o s e b o n a fid e a n d c r e d e ntial s a r e in d o u bt ; n o tru st c a n b e pl a c e d b y th e c o urt o n a m al a fid e a p pli c a nt in a p u bli c int e r e s t litig ati o n .
43 . T h e c o urt s , w hil e e x e r ci si n g juri s di cti o n a n d d e ci din g a p u bli c int e r e s t litig ati o n , h a v e t o ta k e g r e at c a r e , pri m arily, f or th e r e a s o n th at wi d e juri s di cti o n s h o ul d n ot b e c o m e a s o u r c e o f a b u s e o f p r o c e s s o f la w b y th e di s g r u ntl e d litig a nt . S u c h c a r e f ul e x e r ci s e i s al s o n e c e s s a r y t o e n s u r e th at th e litig ati o n i s g e n uin e , n ot m o ti v at e d b y e x t ra n e o u s c o n si d e r ati o n s a n d i m p o s e s a n http://www.judis.nic.in o bli g ati o n u p o n th e litig a nt t o di s cl o s e tru e fa ct s a n d 44 a p p r o a c h th e C o urt with cl e a n h a n d s . T h u s , it i s i m p e r ati v e th at th e p e titio n s , w hi c h a r e b o n a fid e a n d in p u bli c int e r e s t al o n e , b e e nt ert ain e d in thi s c at e g o r y. A b u s e o f p r o c e s s o f la w i s e s s e n ti ally o p p o s e d t o a n y p u bli c int e r e s t . O n e w h o a b u s e s th e p r o c e s s o f la w, c a n n ot b e s ai d t o s e r v e a n y p u bli c int e r e s t , m u c h l e s s , a larg e r p u bli c int e r e s t . In th e n a m e o f th e p o o r l et th e ric h litig a nt n ot a c hi e v e th eir e n d o f b e c o m i n g ric h e r b y in stitutin g s u c h s e t o f p e titio n s t o b a n s u c h a ctiviti e s. .....
18.It i s cl e a r th at th e p e titio n e r, u n d e r th e b a n n e r o f P u bli c Int e r e s t Litig ati o n , with m al a fid e a n d pri v at e m o ti v e h a s fil e d th e p r e s e nt w rit p e titio n a n d th e o bj e cti o n o f th e p e titio n e r i s n ot b o n a fid e . N o p u bli c int e r e s t i s inv ol v e d in thi s W rit P e titio n . T h e P rin ci pl e s laid d o w n by th e S u pr e m e C o urt i s s q u a r ely a p pli c a bl e t o th e fa ct s o f thi s c a s e . A s rig htly c o nt e nt e d b y th e 1 st r e s p o n d e nt h e r ei n , thi s i s o nly a P r o b o n o P u bli c int e r e s t w rit p e titio n a n d th e p e titio n e r h e r ei n h a s n o lo c u s s t a n di t o fil e th e p r e s e nt w rit p e titio n . T h e p e titio n e r c a n't p o k e hi s n o s e int o th e l e a si n g o f g o v e r n m e nt lan d f or q u arr y. It i s f or th e g o v e r n m e nt t o d e ci d e , t o l e a s e a n y u n a s s e s s e d w a s t e lan d o r n ot a n d n ot th e p e titio n e r h e r ei n .” a n d ulti m at ely, di s mi s s e d th e w rit p e titio n .
41.Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that it is for the State Government to decide as a matter of policy in what manner the leases of these quarry operations would be granted and since the http://www.judis.nic.in 45 issue involved in this writ petition was already decided by this Court as extracted above, the present writ petition is hit by principles of R e s ju di c at a . Hence, no further adjudication is required in this matter. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed as devoid of any merits. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.
42.In the result, all the three writ petitions in W.P.(MD)Nos.1492, 1651 and 2342 of 2018 are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the interim order, dated 06.09.2018, passed by us shall stand vacated and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.
Index :Yes/No (T.R., J.) (K. R., J.)
Internet :Yes/No 2 9.1 0.2 0 1 8
rsb/RJ2
N ot e
I s s u e or d er c o py o n 0 1 . 1 1 . 2 0 1 8
To
1.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
46
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madurai.
4.The Conservator of Forests (Madurai),
Race Course Road,
Madurai - 2.
5.The Chief Conservator of Forest,
Panagal Maligai, Saidapet,
Chennai.
6.The District Forest Conservator,
Madurai Circle,
Race Course Road, Madurai.
7.The District Forest Officer,
Madurai Division,
Race Course Road,
Madurai.
8.The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Periyar Vaigai Vadinila Vattam,
Melur,
Madurai District.
9.The Superintending Engineer,
Periyar Vaigai Vadinila Vattam,
Pennycuick Campus,
Thallakulam, Madurai.
10.The Director of Geology and Mining,
Guindy,
Chennai.
11.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Vadipatti Taluk,
Madurai District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
47
T.R A J A , J.
A ND
K RI S H N A N R AMA S AM Y, J.
rsb/rj2
W. P(MD)N o. 1 4 9 2 o f 2 0 1 8
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.1565 and 3792 of 2018
A ND
W. P(MD)N o. 1 6 5 1 o f 2 0 1 8
and
W.M.P(MD)No.1747 and 3986 of 2018
A ND
W. P(MD)N o. 2 4 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8
and
W.M.P(MD)No.2624 of 2018
2 9.1 0.2 0 1 8
http://www.judis.nic.in