B.Raman vs The District Collector on 27 July, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

B.Raman vs The District Collector on 27 July, 2020

Since the subject matter in all these writ petitions pertains to a stone quarry and stone crusher unit located in lands comprised in the same survey numbers, these writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner in W.P.(MD) Nos.7402 of 2020 and 10113 of 2020 is one B.Raman, son of Balaguruvan. The prayer in W.P.(MD) No.7402 of 2020, filed as a public interest litigation, is for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the official respondents 1 to 5 therein to take action, against the sixth respondent Pari, son of Gopalasamy / petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.9406 of 2020 and the seventh respondent, namely, K.Murugesan, son of Kandasamy and M/s.Gopalsamy Blue Metals for having illegally quarried in the lands comprised in Survey Nos.22/1A, 22/1B, 23/1, 23/3A, 23/3B, 23/4B, 23/5B1, 23/5B2, 23/6, to an extent of more than 200 feet in depth and also illegally quarried in poromboke lands comprised in Survey No.23/2 of Karuvelampatti Village, Tiruparankundram Talum, Madurai District, to an extent of 90 cents and for a consequential direction to reclaim the lands, _____________ Page 6 of 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) Nos.7402, 9406 & 10113 of 2020 which have been encroached and to impose penalty for quarrying in Government poromboke lands by invoking the powers under Rule 36-A of Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (in short, “the Rules”) and consequently, to direct the District Collector, Madurai, to allot alternate site for Government poromboke land, which is classified as “Kalam” for agricultural purpose in Karuvelampatti Village.

3. The prayer in W.P.(MD) No.10113 of 2020 is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order, dated 27.07.2020, passed by the District Collector, Madurai District, permitting the continued operation of the stone crusher unit/s under the name and style of M/s.Gopalsamy Blue Metals, being run by the sixth respondent herein, namely, Pari, son of Gopalsamy / petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.9406 of 2020.

4. The said Pari, son of Gopalsamy, has filed W.P.(MD) No.9406 of 2020 praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to afford police protection to him for carrying on the stone crusher unit under the name and style of M/s.Gopalsamy Blue Metals, as per the permission granted by the District Collector, Madurai District, dated 27.07.2020, which proceedings is impugned in W.P.(MD) No.10113 of 2020.

_____________ Page 7 of 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) Nos.7402, 9406 & 10113 of 2020

5. Heard Mr.J.Jeyakumaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – B.Raman; Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.Babu Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – Pari; Mr.K.P.Krishnadass, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the official respondents and Mr.S.Bageerathan, learned counsel appearing for the District Environment Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Madurai.

6. First we take up W.P.(MD) No.10113 of 2020 for consideration. The said writ petition has been filed as a public interest litigation to quash the order passed by the District Collector, Madurai District, dated 27.07.2020, by which the stone crusher unit operated by Pari under the name and style of M/s.Gopalsamy Blue Metals was permitted to carry on its operations.

7. It is submitted that there are nearly 3000 families residing in Karuvelampatti, Chokkanathapatti and Koothiyarkundu Villages and they are entirely depending upon agricultural operations. While so, the said Pari obtained licence to run a stone crusher unit in Survey Nos.22/1A, 22/1B, 23/1, 23/3A, 23/3B, 23/4B, 23/5B1, 23/5B2, 23/6, measuring an extent of nearly 3.68.5 Hectares (9.09 Acres) of Patta land owned by Pari and also that _____________ Page 8 of 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) Nos.7402, 9406 & 10113 of 2020 he had encroached nearly an extent of 90 Cents of Government poromboke land in Survey No.23/2 and carried on illegal quarry operations.

8. Further, it is submitted that a compound wall has been erected to a height of about 20 Feet and on account of illegal quarrying operations carried on in the Government poromboke land, agricultural activities were completely affected and the stone crushing unit established by Pari is functioning within the said premises and there is also a bitumen plant in the said premises.

9. Further it is submitted that the order of the District Collector, Madurai District, permitting to continue the stone crushing operations within the said premises is in derogation of the order passed by the District Collector, Madurai District, dated 12.05.2020, by which, there was a ban imposed on K.Murugesan to carry on quarrying operations.

10. Further, it is submitted that the said Pari and Murugesan had obtained licences for carrying on quarry of rough stones, but, they had started three crushing units, M-Sand unit and Bitumen plant within the same premises without obtaining any licence or order of consent from the Pollution _____________ Page 9 of 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) Nos.7402, 9406 & 10113 of 2020 Control Board. Further, having obtained electricity connection for one unit, illegally the said service connection has been used for the other crusher unit as well.

11. It is further submitted that the District Collector having taken action against K.Murugesan and suspended all quarrying operations in the subject quarry, which is completely surrounded by a compound wall, permitting the stone crusher unit to function within the said premises by passing order dated 27.07.2020 is illegal.

12. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner B.Raman has also filed W.P.(MD) No.7402 of 2020 as a public interest litigation to take action against the said Pari and Murugesan for having illegally quarried both in the patta lands as well as by encroaching the Government poromboke lands. Therefore, it is submitted that the permission granted for operating on the stone crushing unit situated within the same premises is illegal and the same has to be quashed and also action to be taken for the illegal M-Sand unit and bitumen plant.

_____________ Page 10 of 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) Nos.7402, 9406 & 10113 of 2020

13. The case of the petitioner Pari is that he is not concerned about the rough stone quarry, but he is running a stone crushing unit, which should be permitted to function and the District Collector has rightly granted permission by order dated 27.07.2020 and unjustified objections have been raised by the petitioner – Raman and others in the area and these objections / obstructions need to be dealt with in accordance with law and therefore, Police protection should be afforded to him to enable him to carry on stone crushing activities.

14. First, we need to take note of as to what is the present position with regard to the permission granted in the name of K.Murugesan for carrying on quarrying operations. By proceedings of the District Collector, Madurai District, dated 19.05.2015, permission was granted to Murugesan for quarrying rough stone in the lands in question for a period of five years from 04.06.2015 to 03.06.2020 under Rule 19(1) of the Rules. The letter of permission contained various conditions, which had to be strictly adhered. Necessary safety distance has to be maintained from the Government poromboke lands, streams, water courses etc. The quarried stones are to be transported after getting necessary transport permits on payment of _____________ Page 11 of 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) Nos.7402, 9406 & 10113 of 2020 seigniorage fees. Based upon the complaint given by the petitioner – Raman, enquiry was conducted by the Department and quarrying operations were suspended by order dated 12.05.2020, wherein the following violations were found:

“(i) Quarrying operation in patta SF.No.23/1, 3A, 3B, 4B, 5B1, 5B2 and 6 of Nilaiyur Bit-2 had been conducted in violation of lease conditions.

(ii) The adjoining Government Poromboke SF.No.23/1, 3A, 3B, 4B, 5B1, 482 and 6 of Nilaiyur Bit-2 had been conducted in violation of lease conditions.

(ii) The adjoining Government Poramboke SF.No.23/2 (0.36.0 hect) had also been quarried.

(iii) Permanent structures like school and habitations are located within the safety distances stipulated.

(iv) Damages were caused to the nearby structures, due to the vibrations generated by the heavy blasting operations conducted in the quarry.

(v) Stone crusher and M-sand unit are functioning in the ara.

(vi) The cultivated land, surrounding the quarry area are affected by the dust emanated from stone crusher and M- sand units.

(vii) The villagers of Nilaiyur Bit-2 complained that consequent to heavy blasting in the quarry a bore well have been caved and cracks developed on the side wall, lead to the collapsing of the said well.” _____________ Page 12 of 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) Nos.7402, 9406 & 10113 of 2020

15. From the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, Madurai, dated 30.07.2020 in W.P.(MD) No.7402 of 2020, it is seen that inspections have been conducted and reports have been submitted and it clearly reveals various violations committed by the said Murugesan. While so, the period of licence granted to him has come to an end on 03.06.2020. The said Murugesan has not questioned the order suspending the quarrying operations vide order dated 12.05.2020. However, he has filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(MD) No.7402 of 2020 seeking to justify his quarrying operations and that he has been observing all the conditions stipulated by the District Collector in the proceedings, dated 19.05.2020. Since the said Murugesan has not separately questioned the order suspending the quarrying operations, dated 12.05.2020, we have to necessarily observe that no further quarrying operations can be done in those lands, which were the subject matter of licence being granted to Murugesan, more particularly, investigation has been completed and proceedings are yet to be commenced for fixing responsibility on Murugesan on the allegation of illegal quarrying and for other violations as set out above.

_____________ Page 13 of 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) Nos.7402, 9406 & 10113 of 2020

16. Next we move on to consider as to whether the petitioner – Pari is entitled to carry on the operations of stone crushing unit. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the public interest litigation filed by Raman is motivated and in this regard, there are certain averments made regarding financial transactions between his maternal grandfather and wife with the petitioner – Pari and that a mortgage by deposit of title deeds has been made by Sankaralingam, the maternal grandfather of Raman and he is also involved in a criminal offence etc.. However, in these writ petitions we are not required to go into those aspects as such a plea of mala fide and lack of bona fides for the purpose of public interest litigation has not been set out in the manner required to be done for the Court to examine as to whether there was any other intention for filing the writ petition as a public interest litigation.

17. Furthermore, the aspersions cast upon certain persons, who are not parties to the writ petition, cannot be adjudicated by this Court and therefore, all such issues alleging that the public interest litigation filed by Raman is not bona fide are rejected as not having been established by the petitioner – Pari. It is the contention of the petitioner – Pari that the stone _____________ Page 14 of 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) Nos.7402, 9406 & 10113 of 2020 crusher unit established by him has been done after obtaining an order of consent from the Pollution Control Board and the said order of consent was renewed on 18.06.2020 both under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

18. Further, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam and the District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Madurai, have submitted reports conveying their no objection to operate the stone crusher unit and only based upon such recommentations, the District Collector passed the order, dated 27.07.2020 and in terms of the said permission, the petitioner – Pari has been operating the stone crushing unit.

19. It is further submitted that since the petitioner – Raman had obtained an order of interim stay and the permission granted to Pari for carrying on the stone quarrying operations in W.P.(MD) No.10113 of 2020, a petition to vacate the interim order has been filed, wherein also, it has been clearly stated the operation of the stone crushing unit has nothing to do with the licence granted to Murugesan for carrying on quarring operations in the subject lands.

_____________ Page 15 of 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) Nos.7402, 9406 & 10113 of 2020

20. Further, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the licence granted for carrying on quarrying operations has since expired and no quarrying activities can be carried on and the premises has been sealed by the Department and the stone crusher unit is to be operated by outsourcing material from other places and the petitioner being a road contractor, he requires crushed rough stones and therefore, he should be permitted to operate.

21. At the first blush, the case as projected by the said Pari appears to be reasonable as his claim is that the stone crushing unit has got nothing to do with the licence to quarry rough stones and dehors the fact that the licence granted for quarrying rough stones has been suspended and thereafter, the period of licence has expired on the ground of illicit quarry, the quarry has been sealed, it cannot have any impact on the stone crushing unit. However, a closer scrutiny into the factual position gives a different picture. From the photographs, which have been produced before this Court, we find that the entire quarry area has been covered on all sides with compound wall to a height of about 20 feet, partly by brick wall and partly by barbed wire fence. It is rather surprising that a person carrying on mining activity would _____________ Page 16 of 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) Nos.7402, 9406 & 10113 of 2020 have erected a compound wall covering the entire extent, which is measuring about 3.68.5 Hectares and within that area, there is also a Government poromboke land. This leads to a lot of suspicion as to why the entire quarry area should be covered by a compound wall, more particularly, the permission granted for carrying on quarrying operations in the name of Murugesan, who appears to be a name lender, because the owner of the land is none other than the said Pari. Thus, what is important to note is that the stone crushing unit / units are situated within the same premises, which is covered by a compound wall. No person would be entitled to have an access inside the area, which is under the control of the land owner, who is none other the said Pari. In such circumstances, can the stone crushing unit be construed as a separate and distinct unit and its activities can have no bearing on the action to be initiated for illicit quarry. As noted above, Murugesan, who was the licensee, has not objected to the suspension of the permission granted to quarry nor any steps were taken by him to seek for unsealing and unlocking of the premises by the Department. Therefore, the suspecion, which looms large in the instant case, is not without material and it is a reasonable suspicion, which will ultimately lead to detecting more than what meets the eye. _____________ Page 17 of 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) Nos.7402, 9406 & 10113 of 2020

22. The undisputed fact is that the stone crushing unit / units are situated within the same premises. The premises has been sealed by the Department. After suspension of quarrying operations, by order dated 12.05.2020, the officials of the Department of Geology and Mining accompanied by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Thiruparankundram Village and the Village Administrative Officer of Nilayur Village have inspected the area over an extent of 3.68.5 Hectares in the patta lands in the presence of Murugesan on 22.05.2020. The report reveals that the quarried portions are uneven and measurements have been taken in the lease area through an already quarried bit approximately with a length of 110 to 120 meters, width of 70 to 80 meters and depth of about 20 to 30 meters. In the adjoining Government poromboke land comprised in Survey No.23/2, a quarried pit to a depth of about 20 – 30 meters has been noticed. The District Collector would emphatically state that Murugesan has violated the conditions stipulated in Rule 36 of the Rules not only in the lease area, but also he has unauthorisedly conducted quarrying operations and transported minerals from the Government poromboke land and the penal provisions under the Rules are attracted. By proceedings dated 09.07.2020, the District Collector instructed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam, to measure the quarried _____________ Page 18 of 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) Nos.7402, 9406 & 10113 of 2020 portions of the lease area and non-lease area, including the Government poromboke land in Survey No.23/2 and to proceed for initiating action under Rule 36-A of the Rules. Further, the District Collector directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to inspect the stone crushing unit and M-sand unit put up by Pari under the name and style of M/s.Gopalsamy Blue Metals with regard to the report of the District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.

23. Further, from the counter affidavit, it is seen that action against the said Murugesan is under the process for illicit quarrying not only in the lease area, but also in the Government poromboke land and simultaneously, action is also being initiated to ascertain as to whether the stone crushing unit, M-Sand unit and bitumen plant are all permissible to be operated. In such circumstances, the question of hiving off the stone crushing unit / units, M-Sand unit and bitumen plant from the quarry area would be detrimental to the action being initiated against the said Murugesan for illicit quarry. It is not clear as to whether the department had probed the role played by Pari in the illegal quarrying done in the site, as he is the owner of the patta land and he has established the stone crushing unit/s in the same lands or adjoining lands, but within the compounded area. _____________ Page 19 of 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) Nos.7402, 9406 & 10113 of 2020

24. From the facts, which have been placed before this Court by way of counter affidavit by the District Collector as well as the other proceedings, we find that the action initiated for illicit quarrying has not proceeded in the required pace and there appears to be some slackness on the part of the officials in progressively and quickly taking the entire matter to the logical end, bringing to books the persons, who have violated the rules, recovering the penalty and if necessary, launching of prosecution. It is not clear as to why the officials are dragging on the matter for this long.

25. In the interregnum, surprisingly, the official respondents granted permission to operate the stone crushing unit, which is admittedly located within the same premises without noticing the fact that action has been initiated for illicit quarrying and penalty proceedings are in the pipeline and yet to attain finality. Therefore, to permit a stone crushing unit, within the same premises, especially when the entire extent is surrounded by a compound wall, it would derail the proceedings, which are being initiated for illicit quarrying and there is every possibility of evidence being destroyed so as to make the entire efforts of the Department a fait accompli. The permission granted to operate the stone crushing unit by proceedings dated 27.07.2020 is _____________ Page 20 of 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) Nos.7402, 9406 & 10113 of 2020 thoroughly misconceived and without considering the sensitivity of the entire issue and probably brushing aside the fact that stone crushing unit / units and M-Sand unit and bitumen plant are situated within the same area, which has access through a gate provided by none other the petitioner – Pari, who is the pattadar, where licence was granted in the name of Murugesan to carry on quarrying operations. Therefore, the role of Pari as a land owner, also needs to be examined, because we can safely conclude that Murugesan is a name lender, because he has not questioned the order suspending the quarrying operations, allowed the licence to get expired and has not initiated any steps so as to sustain his right to quarry based on the licence granted. Therefore, the said Murugesan is none other than a name lender of Pari and the entire operations are at his behest. In such circumstances, the stand taken by Pari stating that stone crushing unit / units is an independent entity and has got nothing to do with the proceedings initiated for illicit quarrying and that the unit is being operated by outsourcing material are all averments, which have to be outrightly rejected as completely lacking in bona fides.

26. The theory of operating the stone crushing unit by outsourcing material is mentioned for the first time, when the writ petitions were heard. Therefore, the statement appears to be not geniune nor _____________ Page 21 of 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) Nos.7402, 9406 & 10113 of 2020 established in the manner known to law. Further, the location of the stone crushing unit, which is stated to be within the prohibited distance of the stone quarry is a very relevant factor, which has to be borne in mind. This is so because, the proximity of the stone crushing unit with the quarry is an advantage for easy transportation for minerals, which are quarried. Apart from that since there is a compound wall around the entire extent and very little can be done by the officials to monitor the quantity quarried on a day-to- day basis and the quarried material without being transported outside after remitting seigniorage fee could be very well be used in the stone crushing unit to be crushed into jelly stones to be used for road laying and other purposes. Therefore, the complexity of the operations has to be thoroughly examined and we are at a loss to understand as to why the official respondents have not probed the matter in the manner required to be probed. If Murugesan was granted permission to quarry, he cannot transport the quarried material without remitting seigniorage fee and it is only thereafter, transport permit is issued. Therefore, if illicit quarrying had been done in violation of the conditions imposed or illicit quarrying have been done in the Government poromboke land and the illicit quarried materials have been consumed in the stone crushing unit, there is a double advantage not only for Pari, but as well as the name lender Murugesan in the sense that no amount of licence fee or _____________ Page 22 of 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) Nos.7402, 9406 & 10113 of 2020 lease amount has been remitted to the Government in respect of the areas, where they have quarried in violation of the conditions more particularly the quarrying done in the Government poromboke land.

27. The second aspect is such illicitly quarried minerals will be consumed then and there in the stone crushing unit and transported from the quarry site as crushed stone, as a result of which, in all probabilities seigniorage fee cannot be recovered because Murugesan will never approach the Authorities for issuance of transport permit and what will be transported is crushed jelly stones for being used by Pari because he is a road contractor. Therefore, there is more than what meets the eye and the investigation done sofar is only in the peripheral level and the officials of the Geology and Mining Department are required to put in more efforts to ascertain the actual impact of such illicit quarrying coupled with crushing of stones in a stone crushing unit situated in the close proxmity to the quarry site where illicit quarry had been carried on for a long period of time. In such circumstances, we reject the arguments of the petitioner – Pari that the stone crushing unit is an independent entity and should be allowed to function as such based on certain permissions obtained by them from the Pollution Control Board. _____________ Page 23 of 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) Nos.7402, 9406 & 10113 of 2020

28. In the counter affidavit filed by Murugesan in W.P.(MD) No. 7402 of 2020, a feeble defence has been raised by Murugesan by referring to certain portions of the proceedings of the first respondent and he seeks to pick holes in the said proceedings, which admittedly has not been put to challenge by Murugesan. Therefore, all these averments made in the counter affidavit of the seventh respondent are to be outrightly rejected.

29. Further, there is an averment made that since the lease period expired on 03.06.2020, he has approached the first respondent for grant of further lease and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam and the Tahsildar, Thiruparankundram have inspected the site and found that no residential place and schools are located within 300 meters. The seventh respondent has not given the date on which he applied for renewal or for extension of lease or for fresh lease. In any event, Murugesan is not entitled to renewal or for fresh grant or for the matter no fresh lease or permission can be granted in respect of the subject lands, because the proceedings initiated for illicit quarrying are yet to attain finality. Therefore, even assuming that the land owner Pari enters into an agreement with any third party for grant of permission to quarry in the subject land, such application cannot be _____________ Page 24 of 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) Nos.7402, 9406 & 10113 of 2020 entertained because the entire area in which illicit quarrying operations had taken place cannot be permitted to be restarted by either the land owner or a third party because there is already proceedings incitiated for illicit quarrying.

30. Thus, for all the above reasons, we are of the clear view that the attempt made by Pari, land owner, who also runs a stone crushing unit, seeking to make out a case that the stone crusher unit is a separate entity has to necessarily fail and such a prayer has to be outrightly rejected and accordingly, rejected.

31. In the result,

(i) W.P.(MD) No.10113 of 2020 is allowed and the proceedings of the first respondent dated 27.07.2020 is quashed and the stone crushing unit / units, M-Sand unit and bitumen plant should not be permitted to be operated in the subject land. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek for permission from the official respondents for removing the machinaries from the said area.

_____________ Page 25 of 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) Nos.7402, 9406 & 10113 of 2020

(ii) W.P.(MD) No.7402 of 2020 is allowed and the official respondents are directed to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter taking note of the observations made by this Court in the preceding paragraphs and take stringent action against the respondents 6 and 7 under the Rules and the District Collector, Madurai, shall form a team of officers and closely monitor the entire matter till it attains finality by imposition of penalty and other penal action against the offenders and also to ensure that the penalty imposed is recovered and remitted to the Government account.

(iii) In the light of the orders passed in W.P.(MD) Nos.

7402 and 10113 of 2020, W.P.(MD) No.9406 of 2020 is dismissed.

(iv) The petition to vacate the interim order in W.M.P. (MD) No.10187 of 2020 in W.P.(MD) No.10113 of 2020 is dismissed.

_____________ Page 26 of 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) Nos.7402, 9406 & 10113 of 2020

(v) No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

                                                                 [T.S.S., J.]           [S.A.I., J.]
                                                                           06.05.2021
                 Index : Yes / No
                 Internet : Yes / No

                 Note :
                 In view of the present lock down
                 owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
                 web copy of the order may be
                 utilized for official purposes, but,
                 ensuring that the copy of the order
                 that is presented is the correct
                 copy, shall be the responsibility of
                 the advocate / litigant concerned.

                 krk




                 _____________
                 Page 27 of 29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                      W.P.(MD) Nos.7402, 9406 & 10113 of 2020


                 To:
                 1.The District Collector,
                   Madurai, Madurai District.

                 2.The District Revenue Officer,
                   Madurai, Madurai District.

                 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
                   Tirumangalam, Madurai District.

                 4.The Assistant Director of Mines,
                   Madurai Collectorate Buildings,
                   Madurai District.

                 5.The Tahsildar,
                   Tiruparankundram,
                   Madurai District.

                 6.The Inspector of Police,
                   Austinpatti Police Station,
                   Madurai.




                 _____________
                 Page 28 of 29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                       W.P.(MD) Nos.7402, 9406 & 10113 of 2020


                                                     T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
                                                                   and
                                                           S.ANANTHI, J.

                                                                          krk




                                            COMMON ORDER
                                                    IN
                                   W.P.(MD) Nos.7402, 9406 & 10113 of
                                                  2020
                                                   and
                                    W.M.P.(MD) Nos.6854, 9007, 9103,
                                         10157 & 10187 of 2020




                                                 06.05.2021



                 _____________
                 Page 29 of 29

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

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court