Madras High Court
N.Kathir Kamaraj vs The District Collector on 18 December, 2020
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
W.P.(MD)Nos.18749 & 18751 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.12.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD)Nos.18749 & 18751 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD).Nos.15665 & 15666 of 2020
(Through the Video Conferencing)
W.P.(MD).No.18749 of 2020
N.Kathir Kamaraj ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Collector,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi,
2.The Assistant Director (Geology and Mines),
Office of the District Collector,
Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records in ROC.NO.GM1/303/2010 dated 27.10.2020 on the file of
the first respondent and quash the same and direct the first
respondent to permit the petitioner to quarry in the property
situated at S.F.No.794/1, Padmanabhamangalam Village,
Srivaikundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District for the unutilised period
of 834 days under first respondent's proceedings in GM1/303/2010
dated 28.06.2010.
1/16
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)Nos.18749 & 18751 of 2020
W.P.(MD).No.18751 of 2020
N.Kathir Kamaraj ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Collector,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi,
2.The Assistant Director (Geology and Mines),
Office of the District Collector,
Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records in ROC.NO.GM1/304/2010 dated 27.10.2020 on the file of
the first respondent and quash the same and direct the first
respondent to permit the petitioner to quarry in the property
situated at S.F.No.794/3, Padmanabhamangalam Village,
Srivaikundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District for the unutilised period
of 834 days under first respondent's proceedings in GM1/304/2010
dated 28.06.2010.
For Petitioner : Mr.Mahaboob Athiff
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.M.Ramesh
Special Government Pleader
(In both Writ Petitions)
2/16
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)Nos.18749 & 18751 of 2020
COMMON ORDER
These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the impugned order, dated 27.10.2020 passed by the first respondent rejecting the application of the respective petitioners seeking permission to conduct stone quarrying operation in S.F.Nos.794/1 and 794/3, Padmanabhamandalam Village, Srivaikundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District for the unutilised period of 834 days.
2. Heard A.Mahaboob Athiff, learned counsel for M/s.Ajmal Associates for the petitioner and Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. It is the contention of the respective petitioners that they were granted licence to conduct stone quarry operation in S.F.Nos.794/1 and 794/3, Padmanabhamandalam Village, Srivaikundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District, under the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 28.06.2010 for a period of ten years from 3/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.18749 & 18751 of 2020 20.09.2010 to 19.09.2020. According to them, on 18.04.2017, a suspension order was issued by the first respondent suspending the stone quarrying operation by the respective petitioners on the ground that clearance is required from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wild Life and only then, the respective petitioners will be allowed to continue with the quarrying and transportation of minerals.
4. The suspension order, dated 18.04.2017 issued by the first respondent was revoked under the proceedings of the respondent, dated 13.12.2018 on the ground that the quarry lease area of the respective petitioners falls outside the eco sensitive zone notified by the Ministry of Environment and Forest. Since the respective petitioners were unable to quarry rough stones over the respective areas for the period from 20.09.2010 to 19.09.2020 due to the suspension order, they have filed these Writ Petitions seeking for permission to conduct stone quarry operation for the un-utilised period of 834 days.
4/16http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.18749 & 18751 of 2020
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that under Rule 8(8)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, there is no power to grant extension of the lease and it has been clearly mentioned in the respective lease deed executed in favour of the respective petitioners that the subject premises shall be held by the lessee only for a period of ten years from 20.09.2010 to 19.09.2020.
6. Mr.Mohamed Athiff, learned Counsel for M/s.Ajmal Associates, for the respective petitioners would submit that the respective petitioners are not seeking for extension, as alleged by the respondents. He drew the attention of this Court to the suspension order, dated 18.04.2017 passed by the first respondent and pointed out that the first respondent had suspended the mining operation of the respective petitioners only on the ground that the clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wild Life was not 5/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.18749 & 18751 of 2020 obtained by the respective petitioners. He also drew the attention of this Court to the revocation order, dated 13.12.2018 issued by the first respondent revoking the earlier order of suspension, dated 18.04.2017 and pointed out that under the revocation order, the first respondent has revoked the suspension order, dated 18.04.2017 on the ground that as per the notification of the Ministry of Environment and Forest (SO.4075 (E), dated 08.11.2019), the lands of respective petitioners fall outside the Eco-Sensitive Zone and hence, the subject quarry does not attract the submission of clearance from the Standing Committee of National Board of Wild Life.
7. The learned Counsel also drew the attention of this Court to the following authorities:
(a)A Division Bench judgment of Madras High Court, dated 17.03.2011, passed in W.A.Nos.1018 and 1019 of 2010 in the case of the District Collector, Namakammal vs K.Anbarasi and another;6/16
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.18749 & 18751 of 2020
(b)A Division Bench judgment of Madras High Court, dated 24.07.2011 passed in W.A.No.918 of 2014, in the case of the District Collector, Krishnagiri and another vs K.A.Gunasekaran; and
(c)A judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 11.03.2019, passed in W.P.No.34852 of 2018, in the case of P.Subramani vs the District Collector, Krishnagiri and another, reported in CDJ 2019 MHC 1255.
8. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions, the learned Counsel would submit that in identical set of facts, wherein, the period of mining operation was suspended on account of the objection raised by the District Forest Officer, which was subsequently withdrawn, the lessees were permitted to continue operation even after the expiry of the lease for the non-operative period due to the suspension of the mining operation. 7/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.18749 & 18751 of 2020
9. This Court has perused and examined Rule 8(8)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, which reads as follows:
“8. Leasing of lands for quarrying minor minerals other than the minerals covered under rules 8-A and 8-C of these rules:-
...........
(8) 4 [ The period of lease for quarrying stone in respect of the virgin areas, which have not been subjected to quarrying so far, shall be ten years. The period of lease for quarrying stone in respect of other areas shall be five years. The period of lease for quarrying sand and other minor minerals, other than the minerals covered under rules 8-A and 8-C of the said Rules, shall not exceed three years and shall not be less than one year and shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(i) 3 [The date of commencement of the period of lease granted under this rule shall be the date on which the lease deed is executed;]
(ii) The lease shall expire on the date specified in the lease deed and in no case extension of the period of lease shall be made].”
10. The aforesaid Rule talks about only the maximum period for which quarrying licence can be granted. It does not deal with a situation, where, the mining operations were suspended for no fault of the lessee. In the case on hand, the respective petitioners are 8/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.18749 & 18751 of 2020 not seeking for extension of mining lease, but, they are only seeking for permission to do mining operation over their respective lands for the un-utilised period due to the suspension of mining operation by the first respondent on the ground that the lands, in which respective petitioners quarrying rough stone, fall within Eco-Sensitive Zone and hit by the notification, dated 20.08.2014, issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India.
11. Admittedly, the respective petitioners were unable to do stone quarrying operation over their respective lands for the un- utilised period of 834 days. The suspension order was revoked by the first respondent on 13.12.2018 on the ground that the lands belonging to the respective petitioners, for which mining lease was granted, fall outside the Eco-Sensitive zone notified by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, by its notification in S.O.4075(E), dated 08.11.2019. As seen from the revocation order, dated 13.12.2018 issued by the first respondent, it is clear that for no fault of the 9/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.18749 & 18751 of 2020 respective petitioners, the mining lease was suspended by the first respondent under its order, dated 18.04.2017.
12. The respective petitioners were originally granted mining lease for a period of ten years from 20.09.2010 to 19.09.2020. Admittedly, they were unable to do mining operation in their respective lands for the un-utilised period of 834 days. Rule 8(8)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, does not prohibit the respective petitioners from seeking permission from the first respondent to conduct stone quarrying operation over their respective lands for the un-utilised period, when their lands were suspended mistakenly on the ground that their lands fall within Eco-Sensitive zone. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that in view of Rule 8(8)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, the respective petitioners cannot seek permission to conduct mining operation during the non- operative period, has to be necessarily rejected. 10/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.18749 & 18751 of 2020
13. The very same issue was considered in the authorities relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of the District Collector, Namakkal vs K.Anbarasi and another, passed in W.A.Nos.1018 and 1019 of 2010, by its order, dated 17.03.2011, held that the respondent has got power to permit the lessees to continue with the quarrying operation, even after the expiry of the lease, in cases, where the lease was suspended and/or lessees were stopped from doing quarrying operations.
14. Another Division Bench of Madras High Court by its judgment, dated 24.07.2014, passed in W.A.No.918 of 2014 in the case of District Collector, Krishnagiri and another vs K.A.Gunasekaran, has held the same view.
15. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by its judgment, dated 11.03.2019, passed in W.P.No.34852 of 2018, in the 11/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.18749 & 18751 of 2020 case of P.Subramani vs The District Collector, Krishnagiri and others, reported in CDJ 2019 MHC 1255, held that Rule 8(8)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, will not get attracted for the non-operative period of the mining lease.
16. After giving due consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as to the authorities and orders referred to above, this Court is of the considered view that the first respondent has got power to grant permission to the respective petitioners to conduct stone quarrying operation over their respective lands for a period of 834 days, which is the un-utilised period on account of suspension of the mining lease granted in favour of the respective petitioners for no fault on them. It is also clear from the aforementioned authorities that Rule 8(8)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, does not bar the first respondent from granting permission to the respective petitioners for conducting mining operation over their 12/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.18749 & 18751 of 2020 respective lands for the un-utilised period on account of suspension of the lease for no fault on the part of the respective petitioners.
17. This Court has also perused and examined the impugned order, dated 27.10.2020 passed by the first respondent rejecting the request made by the respective petitioners to conduct stone quarrying operation in their respective lands for the un-utilised period. The first respondent under the impugned order has erroneously come to the conclusion that Rule 8(8)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, gets attracted for the petitioners' case and hence, he does not have power to grant extension during the non-operative period. This Court, therefore, holds that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and not passed in accordance with law.
18. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order, dated 27.10.2020 passed by the first respondent is hereby quashed and the 13/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.18749 & 18751 of 2020 first respondent is directed to pass an order permitting the respective petitioners to conduct stone quarrying operation over their respective lands at S.F.Nos.794/1 and 794/3, Padmanabhamangalam Village, Srivaikundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District for the un-utilised period of 834 days, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
19. With the aforesaid directions, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
18.12.2020 Index: Yes/No Internet : Yes/No tsg 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.
14/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.18749 & 18751 of 2020 To
1.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi,
2.The Assistant Director (Geology and Mines), Office of the District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
15/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.18749 & 18751 of 2020 ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
tsg Common Order made in W.P.(MD)Nos.18749 & 18751 of 2020 Dated:
18.12.2020 16/16 http://www.judis.nic.in