Madras High Court
S.Sudalaikannu vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 30 July, 2021
Bench: N.Kirubakaran, B.Pugalendhi
W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 16.12.2020
Pronounced on : 30.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P.(MD) No.10791 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.9496 of 2020
S.Sudalaikannu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Mines and Industries,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Commissioner of Geology and Mining,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032,
Tamil Nadu.
1/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020
4.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
5.The Commissioner,
Tirunelveli Corporation,
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
6.Mr.G.Kannan,
Present Commissioner for Tirunelveli Corporation,
Office of Tirunelveli Corporation,
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
7.Mr.Narayana Nayar,
Retired and now appointed as
Chief Executive Officer,
Office of Smart City Project,
Tirunelveli Corporation Campus,
Tirunelveli.
8.Mr.L.K.Basker,
Executive Engineer (Works),
Office of Tirunelveli Corporation,
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
9.Mr.Ayyappan,
Assistant Commissioner,
Office of Tirunelveli Corporation,
Thatchanallur Zone, Tirunelveli Junction,
Tirunelveli District.
10.Mrs.Shanthi,
Assistant Executive Engineer,
Office of Tirunelveli Corporation,
Thatchanallur Zone,
Tirunelveli Junction,
Tirunelveli District.
2/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020
11.The Tahsildar,
Tirunelveli Town,
Tirunelveli District.
12.The Additional Director,
Crime Branch-CID,
SIDCO Complex,
Guindy, Chennai. ... Respondents
[R.12 suo-motu impleaded vide order dated .2021]
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to
constitute a special investigation team to probe into the transportation of river
sand and clay sand collected during the process of forming basement floor to
the depth of 30 feet from the earth in the redevelopment of Junction Bus Stand,
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District in Block No.7, Survey Nos.589/1A1 and
589/1B under the scheme of Smart City of Nellai as from 2018 onwards to till
date to other State, ie., Kerala, contrary to the existing laws and rules and bring
the offenders to justice forthwith.
3/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Palani Velayutham
For Respondents : Ms.Narmatha Sampath,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.M.Muthugeethaiyan,
Special Government Pleader
for R.1 to R.4, R.11 & R.12
Mr.Issac Mohanlal, Senior Counsel
for Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar,
Standing Counsel for R.5
Mr.Issac Mohanlal, Senior Counsel
for M/s.Issac Chambers for R.6 to R.10
*****
ORDER
B.PUGALENDHI, J., The petitioner, claiming to be the former Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation Councilor of Ward No.50, has filed this writ petition as a public interest litigation for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to constitute a special investigation team to probe into the transportation of river sand and clay sand collected during the process of forming basement floor in the redevelopment of Junction Bus Stand, Tirunelveli, in Block No.7, S.Nos. 589/1A1 and 589/1B.
4/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020
2. Tirunelveli Corporation is selected under the Smart City scheme and the Tirunelveli Junction Bus Stand was identified for the redevelopment and renovation under the said scheme, at a cost of Rs.78.54 Crore. It was proposed to construct a three floored building with a basement and various amenities. The case of the writ petitioner is that the said Bus Stand is situated 500 meters from river Thamirabarani. In fact, the river was also flowing in that area and it was encroached and several buildings have been constructed. During the course of digging the earth for forming the basement, several loads of sand have been removed and the respondents 6 to 10 have illegally transported the excavated sand to the State of Kerala, without obtaining any permission from the concerned authorities as per the existing rules and regulations under Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that more than 800 loads of river sand and clay sand in Torres lorry were transported by respondents 7 to 10 and therefore, the petitioner has lodged a complaint to the 4 th respondent / District Collector on 13.05.2019 to the mobile no.97865-66111 under the procedure “call your Collector”, by way of a text message along with 5/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020 photographs. Subsequent to the complaint of the petitioner, the 5th respondent / Commissioner, Tirunelveli Corporation made a request to the District Collector in Na.Ka.No.E1/1682/2019 dated 13.05.2019, seeking permission for storing and for disposing the sand mixed with clay. Based on this request of the 5th respondent dated 13.05.2019, the District Collector by letter dated 20.05.2019, in Na.Ka.No.M3/16897/2019, permitted the 5th respondent to store the sand in the place between Parvathi – Arunagiri theaters and to effect the sale on public auction through the Tahsidlar / 11th respondent herein. It is further instructed that the dumped sand should not be dealt with commercially. Taking advantage of the same, several loads of river sand / clay sand were transported to the State of Kerala and the respondents 7 to 10 got illegal enrichment and therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. He has also referred about a case registered in Crime No.398 of 2020 for sand theft on the file of the Manur Police Station, Tirunelveli.
4. Mr.Issac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel representing the 5th respondent and respondents 6 to 10 submitted that the Tirunelveli Junction Bus Stand was constructed in the year 1956 and under the Smart City project, it is proposed to demolish the existing structure and to reconstruct the Periyar Bus 6/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020 Stand with basement and upto three floors. In execution of the project, the service of Anna University, Trichy, was availed to conduct sub soil investigation. One Dr.R.Ilangovan, Professor and his team conducted a sub soil investigation from 19.03.2019 to 21.03.2019 and submitted a report that the top layer contains gravel, sand mixed with clay, soft rock at middle with 9.36 to 20.50 % of water content and hard rock at bottom. As per the report, there is no identification of availability of any river sand and that the unified classification of soil is of silt clay.
5. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the project was entrusted with a Contractor on 20.11.2018 and the excavation was commenced on 02.05.2019. The excavated materials were stored in five dumping yards and as there was no sufficient space for storing the excavated materials, the Contractor made a request to take appropriate steps to remove the soil dumped near the work site. Accordingly, the 5th respondent / Commissioner requested the District Collector vide his letter dated 13.05.2019 to give permission for storing and for disposing the soil through public auction. In the meantime, the Corporation, vide letter dated 02.05.2019, requested the Anna University, Tirunelveli, to conduct excavated soil test. The District Collector gave 7/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020 permission for disposing the soil by conducting public auction, in the presence of the 11th respondent / Tahsildar, vide letter dated 20.05.2019. On the request of the 5th respondent / Corporation, the Anna University, Tirunelveli, analyzed the samples produced and submitted its report dated 06.06.2019 stating that the excavated materials are not as per standard and are not suitable for construction and are suitable only for filling purpose.
6. He further submitted that the Contractor, in the meantime, has requested the District Collector through the 5th respondent / Commissioner and expressed his willingness to purchase the sand excavated for construction purposes on 22.05.2019. However, by letter dated 13.11.2019, the construction company stated its non willingness to purchase the same. Thereafter, the Corporation passed a resolution for conducting the public auction on 21.11.2019 for about 836.57 cubic metre of excavated soil by fixing the minimum price as Rs.4,20,000/- and issued a notification in this regard on 22.11.2019. Two tenders were received and one Balasubramanian offered maximum price of Rs.4,25,000/- and the tender was allotted to him. The mineral cost of Rs.4,25,000/- was also credited to the Head of Account of Geology and Mining, Tirunelveli, through Demand Draft No.962624 dated 12.03.2020. 8/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020 Pursuant to the same, the Corporation has also issued transport permit to the auction purchaser on 27.12.2019. The auction purchaser has transported 444.31 cubic metre of excavated sand and the remaining quantity of about 392 cubic metre of excavated sand is still in the yard, since the auction purchaser vide letter dated 09.06.2020 expressed his unwillingness to transport the remaining stating that there is no benefit for him and asked the Corporation to use it, despite payment of entire auction value. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, there is no illegality or irregularity and prays for dismissal.
7. Heard the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.
8. According to the petitioner, the Periyar Bus Stand, which is under renovation, is nearby Thamirabarani river and the said river is passing through the subject place from ancient days. There is a rich deposit of sand in the site and the same is exploited by the officials illegally. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel, armed with the report of the Expert Committee of Anna University, Trichy, which conducted the sub soil test, submitted that the top layer contains gravel, sand mixed with clay, soft rock at middle with 9.36 to 9/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020 20.50 % of water content and hard rock at bottom. As per the report, there is no identification of availability of any river sand and that the unified classification of soil is of silt clay. The learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon yet another report of Anna University, Tirunelveli, which states that the [excavated] supplied materials are substandard and are not fit for construction but for filling purpose alone.
9. Normally, by recording the aforesaid two reports of Anna University, Trichy and Anna University, Tirunelveli, this Court would have closed the case. But then, the petitioner has referred to about a criminal case registered in Crime No.398 of 2020, on the file of the Manur Police Station, Tirunelveli. The said criminal case was registered on 25.08.2020 that when the Sub-Inspector of Police was on vehicle checkup, they found a Ashok Leyland Tipper Lorry, bearing registration no.TN-93-C-1849, carrying sand with clay and on enquiry, they found that it was being transported illegally from the Tirunelveli Bus Stand Junction, without any permit. Therefore, the case was registered for the offence under Section 397 IPC and the vehicle was also seized. Curiously, the counter affidavits filed before this Court does not speak anything about this case in Crime No.398 of 2020.
10/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020
10. Therefore, in order to ascertain the actual and factual position, this Court, by order dated 04.11.2020, appointed Mr.K.Kalaivanan, M.Sc (Geology) B.L., a Retired Geologist turned Advocate, as a Commissioner. The Advocate Commissioner was directed to inspect the premises, dug a bore Well in the adjacent area of the renovating site, to draw samples to ascertain the quality of the soil / sand in the area and to report before this Court.
11. On the directions of this Court, the learned Advocate Commissioner has inspected the premises and has also filed his report before this Court on 24.11.2020. From the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner, it appears that the excavation site is an ancient (paleo) channel of River Thamirabarani and that the sand available and excavated in the site is river sand. However, the report of the Anna University is otherwise.
12. The learned Advocate Commissioner in his report has given his findings as follows:
“13. I submit that based on the detailed scientific and systematic studies conducted in the subject area especially drilling, sampling, sieve analysis, mineralogical and chemical composition of 11/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020 the samples, it is found that the sediments ie., sand, siltyclay, clay and other heavy minerals are found to be terrigenous / fluvial deposits produced by mechanical weathering of pre-existing rocks (Aggregate of minerals), transported, sorted and deposited by the river water and derived from the sources external to the basin of deposition. Thus the subject area is found to be a ancient river course of river Thamirabarani. The sediment deposits contain various grade of sand used for various construction purpose, apart from the heavy minerals which are the major source for placer minerals like garnet, ilmenite, rutile, zircon, sillimanite and monazite found in the coastal area. (emphasis supplied)”
13. Learned Senior Counsel for the fifth respondent Corporation in addition to the oral submissions had also filed a written statement. In fact, he has accepted the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner that it is in consonance with the reports of the Anna University. The Advocate Commissioner, pursuant to the directions of this Court, has inspected the site and conducted a scientific study by taking bore hole samples. In his report dated 24.11.2020, he has stated that four bore holes have been drilled in the site on 17.11.2020. Two bore holes in the Northern [BH1] and Southern [BH3] parts and two bore holes in the Eastern [BH2] and Western [BH4] parts of the site and submitted his report as follows:
12/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020 Bore Hole Depth in meters Classification of minerals 0-1.5 Top soil 1.5 – 3 Clay BH1 3–6 Coarse Sand 6 – 7.5 Very Coarse Sand 7.5 – 10.5 Hard Gneiss Rock BH2 0 – 0.5 Top Soil 0.5 – 3 Silty Clay 3 – 4.5 Clay Sand 4.5 – 6 Sand 6 – 7.5 Weathered Rock 7.5 – 8.5 Basement Rock 0 – 1.5 Top Soil BH3 1.5 – 8 Coarse Sand 8 – 10.5 Weathered Rock (below which, Basement Rock) 0 – 1.5 Top Soil BH4 1.5 – 3 Clay Sand 3 – 7.5 Coarse Sand 7.5 – 8 Basement Rock He has also filed the photographs showing the pit holes made by him in the typed set of papers. A similar such test was also conducted by the Anna University by taking bore hole samples on all the four sides of the site. 13/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020
14. The fifth respondent Corporation Commissioner has also admitted the presence of sand in the excavated material, however, he claims that the sand which was excavated consist of clay, fine silt and fine dust over and above 10%, which is not suitable for construction as per Tamil Nadu Building Practice. However, the learned Advocate Commissioner has conducted a sieve analysis test in respect of the samples which were collected from the bore hole drills, by adopting certain standard operating procedures and submitted that the grain size of the sand various from coarse to coarse and concluded that the ratio of sand in the site is 90%.
15. The respondent Corporation in the written submission has taken a similar stand that the sand which has been excavated from the bus stand consist of fine silt and fine clay over and above 10% and therefore, it was considered as not suitable for construction as per the Tamil Nadu Building Practice. No doubt, the sand with clay and silt of more than 10% cannot be used apparently for construction. However, one should not loose sight of the fact that this 10% silt can easily be segregated from the 90% sand.
14/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020
16. Be that as it may, since contra reports are available before this Court, one by the Anna University and the another by the Court appointed Advocate Commissioner [Retired Geologist], the issue needs to be investigated and answered by another Expert body.
17. Apart from the above contradictions, this Court, on a perusal of the available materials, finds the following discrepancies:
17.1. It appears that the fifth respondent Corporation has proceeded based on the report of the Anna University, Tirunelveli and claim that the materials which were excavated are not suitable for construction. The Assistant Executive Engineer by his letter in E1/1682/2018 dated 02.05.2019 made a request to the Assistant Professor, Structural Engineering Department, Anna University, Tirunelveli to conduct a test for the excavated sample. The fine aggregate gradation reports of the Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Anna University, Tirunelveli are also filed before this Court in a separate typed set of papers.
17.2. The reports dated NIL of the Anna University, Tirunelveli, disclose that two excavated top surface samples were sent for analysis. Those two 15/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020 samples alone were analyzed by the Assistant Professor and a report was submitted as if the entire materials excavated are not suitable for construction. It is not in dispute that the excavated place is covered with top soil, silt and clay, apart from sand. The Corporation has also claimed that silt and clay materials are stocked in the stock yard. From the report of the Anna University, it appears that the top surface soil alone has been taken and sent for analysis and a report has been obtained based on that.
17.3. Apart from this lacuna, it is seen that the Gradation report of the Anna University, Tirunelveli, is submitted without any date. Even in the reference cited in the report, the date of request by the Tirunelveli Corporation is found missing. It is not known when this report has been sought for; when this report has been submitted; how the samples have been taken; and how the samples have been analyzed. Therefore, this report of the Anna University, Tirunelveli, itself raises serious doubt on the manner in which the issue has been handled by the fifth respondent.
17.4. In fact, it appears that this report has been obtained to fill up the mistake committed by the Corporation in selling the sand, which has been 16/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020 excavated from the site. It is to be mentioned that the fifth respondent Corporation has availed the services of Anna University, Trichy, to conduct the sub soil investigation on 09.03.2019, however, the Corporation has availed the services of Anna University, Tirunelveli, for obtaining the quality of the sand on 02.05.2019.
17.5. From the record, it appears that the excavations were commenced on 02.05.2019, but the request for storing the sand and to dispose the same was made by the Commissioner only on 13.05.2019. In fact, it is the case of the petitioner that after his complaint to the 4th respondent / Collector, on 13.05.2019 through 'Call your Collector' in the mobile, such a request was made. Be that as it may, in the letter dated 13.05.2019, the Corporation Commissioner, despite the availability of two reports of Anna University, has specifically mentioned the excavated material as sand.
17.6. Though a request for storing and for disposing has been made by the Corporation Commissioner on 13.05.2019 by referring the material excavated as sand, it is not known why the District Collector has not instructed either the Department of Geology and Mining or the Public Works Department, the 17/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020 authorities competent under the Act, to verify the quality of sand and to fix the value before disposing the said material. Based on this requisition dated 13.05.2019, the District Collector, by proceedings dated 20.05.2019, has simply permitted the Corporation Commissioner to store the excavated material in between Parvathi – Arunagiri Theatre and permitted to dispose of the same through public auction, in the presence of the 11th respondent / Tahsildar.
17.7. Without obtaining any valid permit and without any valid license from the competent authorities under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealers' Rules, 2011, the excavated minerals were stocked and were sold by the Corporation. In fact, any mineral can be transported only on a valid permit issued by the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules.
But the Corporation, without any authority, appears to have issued the transport permits. In fact, they have also fixed the mineral cost for the public auction.
17.8. It appears that the availability of a Department, namely, Directorate of Geology and Mining, has been completely forgotten. In fact, the 3rd respondent / Commissioner of Geology & Mining has not even filed any 18/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020 counter affidavit in this petition. Even the 4th respondent / District Collector has not filed any separate counter affidavit and the 5th respondent / Commissioner, Corporation alone has filed a common counter affidavit.
17.9. PSK Engineering Construction Company / the Contractor, which is constructing the bus stand under the Smart City Project, by their letter dated 21.05.2019, made a request to the District Collector, Tirunelveli, stating that when they have excavated for basement work, after five metre depth, river sand upto 844 cubic metre was found in Zone II and they have requested the Collector that they are prepared to take up the said sand for their construction purpose by paying the necessary amount fixed by the Government for the sand and also by paying the seigniorage fee. The said Construction Company, which has excavated the sand in the month of May, 2019, has taken a different stand after six months on 13.11.2019 that the said sand is not suitable for construction and refused to clear the same. Therefore, the auction notification was issued on 22.11.2019 and thereafter, the auction was conducted on 10.12.2019.
17.10. We are not able to understand as to how an experienced construction company, having several Engineers, involved in several 19/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020 construction activities, made a request on 21.05.2019 claiming the excavated material as sand and having kept quite for nearly six months and then took a different stand on 13.11.2019 that it is not suitable for construction.
17.11. Moreover, it is not known as to what happened to the excavated materials between 21.05.2019 and 13.11.2019. Whether it was cleared or it was kept there itself. The excavation was said to be commenced on 02.05.2019. The Corporation Commissioner made a request for storage and disposal on 13.05.2019. The District Collector permitted to dispose the materials by public auction on 20.05.2019. While so, the Corporation passed a resolution for public auction only on 21.11.2019, after six months, to dispose of the excavated sand on public auction, when the Construction Company refused to take the sand. It is not known why the Corporation has waited for six long months for conducting the auction. Whether the request of the Construction Company dated 21.05.2019 to purchase the sand was considered positively and therefore, the order of the District Collector dated 20.05.2019 has been withheld.
17.12. As stated supra, the excavation was commenced on 02.05.2019. From the records, it is seen that the Corporation Commissioner, by proceedings 20/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020 in E1/1682/2018, dated 06.06.2019 [prepared on 23.05.2019], has requested the 11th respondent / Tahsildar for the public auction, as directed by the District Collector. In the said proceedings, the Commissioner has mentioned that 526.67 cubic metre of excavated sand was stored in the bus stand and 309.9 cubic metre of excavated sand was stored in the exhibition ground. Therefore, it is clear that within few days from the commencement of excavation, 836.57 cubic metre of sand have been excavated. In the auction notice dated 22.11.2019, the excavated sand to be removed is shown as 836.57 cubic metre. All along, it was maintained that the excavated sand is 836.57 cubic metre. Whether it would mean that there was no excavation at all after 23.05.2019.
17.13. The fifth respondent / Corporation Commissioner; the Construction Company / Contractor; and the fourth respondent / District Collector have stated in their proceedings in the month of May, 2019, that the mineral which has been excavated from the site is sand mixed with silt. After six months, it is not known how a different stand has been taken by all of them?
17.14. Even the auction purchaser, who came into the scene, after paying the entire tender amount, has cleared only half of the excavated materials and 21/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020 refused to clear the remaining half, stating that the sand was not fit for anything. We are at a loss to understand as to how an auction purchaser, who has put-in his money to purchase the materials, after verifying the quality and quantity and has also removed half of the materials, refused to remove the remaining, despite paying the entire auction amount. He has not even made any claim for refund.
17.15. In fact, it is also not known whether the auction was conducted in the presence of the 11th respondent / Tahsildar, as directed by the District Collector in the proceedings dated 20.05.2019.
17.16. The cost of the mineral collected from the public auction was rightly credited to the Geology and Mining Account. But even at this stage also, there is a discrepancy., ie., though the transport permits were alleged to be issued on 27.12.2019, the amount was credited to the Geology and Mining Account only on 11.03.2020, after a period of three months. That apart, there is no whisper about the payment of any seigniorage fee.
18. The possibility of availability of mineral sand in the subject site cannot be ruled out. If it is a sand, then it should have been disposed of and 22/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020 appropriated in the manner as per Rule 38(A) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and as per Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, which, in this case, is not followed.
19. The available minerals were allowed to be exploited and the authorities have not acted as per the Act and Rules and they have not even bothered to identify the quality of the materials, which has been excavated. It appears there are so many procedural lapses on the part of the officials. It is not known whether they are wilful lapses to cause wrongful loss to the Government and wrongful gain to themselves. A report has been obtained from the Anna University, Tirunelveli, by sending two samples of silt and it was also placed before this Court without any reference on which date the samples were sent and analyzed. All these materials would make out a prima facie case that an offence has been committed with the connivance of some of the officials and the available minerals have been exploited by some few people with the connivance of some officials.
20. This Court feels that apart from the contra reports regarding the nature of the sand, the aforesaid discrepancies noted by this Court need to be 23/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020 investigated thoroughly and therefore, this Court is inclined to order for an investigation by the Crime Branch – Crime Investigation Department.
21. Accordingly, the Additional Director, Crime Branch – CID, SIDCO Complex, Guindy, Chennai, is suo-motu impleaded as 12th respondent in this writ petition, who shall take over the investigation in Crime No.398 of 2020, pending on the file of the Manur Police Station, Tirunelveli, and entrust the same to an Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, even if it is closed. The investigation officer, to be assigned by the 12th respondent, shall conduct the investigation not only in Crime No.398 of 2020, but also on the discrepancies pointed out by this Court supra as well as on the nature of the excavated materials, by getting necessary guidance from the Geology Department of Madras University. They shall dig bore wells in the site, draw samples, ascertain the nature and quantity of the mineral excavated therefrom. The Head of Department, Department of Geology, University of Madras, shall extend their fullest co-operation to the investigation officer by conducting a scientific study and submitting a report within a outer time limit of four months. Further, the investigation officer shall also get the required technical assistance from the concerned departments, including the Department of Mines 24/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020 and Minerals; Directorate of Geology and Mining; and Public Works Department. The investigation officer shall also get the assistance from the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research, Department of Atomic Energy, Union of India, if need be, since the report of the Court appointed Advocate Commissioner speaks about the presence of heavy minerals as well, in the site. The respective Departments are directed to extend their fullest co-operation to the investigation officer.
23. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
Post the matter 'for compliance' on 01.12.2021.
[N.K.K.J.,] [ B.P.J.,]
30.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
gk
25/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020
Note:
Registry is also directed to mark a copy of this order to
- The Head of Department, Department of Geology, University of Madras, Chennai – 600 025.
- The Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai.
- The Director, Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research, Department of Atomic Energy, Union of India, 1-10-153/156, AMD-Complex, Begumpet, Hyderabad – 500 016.
To
1.The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Mines and Industries, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Government of Tamil Nadu, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
4.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
26/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020
5.The Commissioner, Tirunelveli Corporation, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
6.The Tahsildar, Tirunelveli Town, Tirunelveli District.
7.The Additional Director, Crime Branch-CID, SIDCO Complex, Guindy, Chennai.
27/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.10791 of 2020 N.KIRUBAKARAN, J., and B.PUGALENDHI, J., gk Pre-Delivery Order made in W.P.(MD) No.10791 of 2020 30.07.2021 28/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/