Madras High Court
Transworld Garnet India Pvt. Ltd vs The Regional Controller Of Mines on 7 July, 2014
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.07.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN W.P.No.No.12851 of 2014 & M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2014 Transworld Garnet India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its General Manager, Stephen David, No.34/46, MGR Road, Kalakshetra Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai-90. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Regional Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, C-4A, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090. 2.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Industries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai. 3.The Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai. 4.The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Tirunelveli. 5.The District Collector, Collector Office Campus, Tirunelveli. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent herein, pertaining to order bearing No.TN/TNL/GNT/MS-996-MDS, dated 06.03.2014 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, SC For Mr.S.Raj Makesh For Respondents : Mr.M.L.Ramesh for Mr.N.Ramesh, Central Government Standing Counsel for R1 Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan Special Government Pleader for R2 to R4 Mr.S.T.S.Murthi, Government Pleader for R5 - - - O R D E R
The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioner is the firm engaged in the mining and processing of beach sand minerals. The mining and processing of beach sand minerals is governed by provision of Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957 ("MMDR") and the relevant rules thereafter, viz., Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 ("MCR") and Minerals Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 ("MCDR"). Under the scheme of MMDR Act, any person desirous of mining beach sand minerals is required to apply to the State Government for a Mining lease. Having regard to the fact that the beach sand mining contains certain major minerals, the State Government will, after processing application, refer the same to the Central Government for prior approval, under Section 5 and 11 of the Act.
2. The petitioner further submits that at the time of applying for mining lease, the applicant is required to submit a mining plan. This mining plan is to be submitted in accordance to Rule 22 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. At the time of grant of mining lease, the mining plan is also required to be approved. Once the mining plan is approved, it is valid for the entire duration of the lease, as per Rule 22(6) of the Mineral Concession Rules. It is relevant to point out here that under Rule 22(5), the documents to be submitted as part of the mining plan is a tentative scheme of mining and this is valid for only five years. The very word "tentative" makes it clear that the scheme of mining is not a binding document, but is only required to be a broad, approximate plan of how the miner plans to extract the ore in the forthcoming five years. Therefore, once the mining plan is approved the tentative scheme of mining takes effect and remains valid for five years. Thereafter, under Rule 12 of Minerals Conservation and Development Rules, 1988, the miner is required to submit a fresh scheme of mining for the next five years at least 120 days prior to the expiry of the previous scheme. Rule 12(5) makes it clear that a scheme, if not rejected within 90 days, is deemed to be approved. Under Rule 13 of the Minerals Conservation and Development Rules, if any person carried on mining activities contrary to the mining plan or scheme of mining, then, the respondents herein are empowered to suspend the mining operations so far as necessary to ensure that mining will be only as per the mining plan undertaken. Thus from the above statutory scheme, the following position emerges:-
(A) Every mining lease requires a mining plan. This is seen from Section 5(2)(b) of the Act. Thus the mining plan is sacrosanct.
(B) The mining plan is for the validity of the lease, namely, twenty to thirty years.
(C) The mining plan is implemented by a document known as a scheme of mining which has a shorter validity period, viz., five years.
(D) A scheme of mining is expressly stated to be "tentative" under Rule 22(5) of the MCR.
(E) Before the expiry period of one scheme of mining, the next scheme should be submitted for approval.
(F) If, a miner carries out mining contrary to the mining plan or a scheme of mining, suspension of mining operation is permitted, but only insofar as necessary as to restore the mines and mining operations back in accordance to the mining plan.
3. The petitioner additionally added that in this case, the petitioner was granted a mining lease by the State Government, in respect of an extent of 1.008 hectares in Survey Nos.329/5A1 in Karaichithu Uvari Village, Tirunelveli District vide DGM Proc No.4643/MM7/2000, dated 17.07.2001. Thus, at the time of grant of lease, the mining plan was in force and approved. The petitioner applied for a modified scheme of mining and this was approved on 19.06.2006. Although the modified scheme of mining was still valid, the first respondent took a very strange stand and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 16.09.2013, alleging that the petitioner had not applied for renewal of scheme of mining in a timely manner and asked the petitioner to explain the same. The petitioner, not wishing to antagonize the all powerful respondent, immediately submitted a scheme of mining to the first respondent on 01.10.2013. The first respondent, viz., the Regional Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, Chennai, replied on 23.12.2013 pointing out certain minor defects in mining scheme and returned the said scheme for rectifying the said defects. The petitioner immediately sent a detailed response, rectifying all the defects, point by point and represented the scheme for approval. To the petitioner's shock and disappointment, the first respondent passed an order on 06.03.2014, without any application of mind, simply stating that "most of the technical points communicated vide letter of even no. dated 23.12.2013 has not been attended." Consequently, the petitioner's scheme was rejected. The said order is now being challenged by the writ petitioner.
4. The first respondent also strangely issued an order on 19.03.2014, suspending all mining operations in a blanket manner with respect to the approved mining lease which was already on file. The first respondent has passed a cyclostyled order giving the same kind of shabby disposal for all of its scheme of mining submitted by the petitioner. Each of the rejection orders are being challenged through this writ petition. This kind of slipshod disposal, without any application of mind, giving identical cyclostyled order in 13 different cases, is no order at all in the eye of law and the time of consuming revision remedy is not an effective redressal. That apart, the first respondent with a vindictive motive, and without any kind of application of mind has also passed an order of suspension of mining, purportedly under Rule 13(2) of the MCDR as mentioned above, and has instructed respondents 2 to 5 to implement the same. A casual glance at Rule 13(2) of the MCDR, and a harmonious reading of the same with Rule 22(6) of the MCR, would disclose that the power to suspend mining operations can only be exercised subject to the rider that mining operations should be permitted so as to ensure that the operations as per the mining plan are preserved. The petitioner has already given a plan of extraction in the mining plan, and will abide by the same. The scheme of mining has been rejected on specious grounds as seen in this writ petition. The petitioner further submits that it is a national waste if the mines remain inoperative, due to the short-sighted and illegal actions of the first respondent.
5. It is relevant to point out here that the Government of Tamil Nadu has ordered a probe into beach sand mining and has ordered stoppage of mining until inspection is completed. The petitioner undertakes not to do any kind of mining activity except in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.156 Industries (MMD.1), dated 08.08.2013 and G.O.Ms.No.173, Industries (MMD.1), dated 17.09.2013. In view of the illegal order of the first respondent, the other respondents are refusing to permit the petitioner to undertake mining operations. Hence, the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the first respondent's order bearing No.TN/TNL/GNT/MS-996-MDS, dated 06.03.2014.
6. The first respondent, viz., Regional Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, Chennai, has not filed a counter statement, but stated that the contentions made by the first respondent in the connected writ petitions are also applicable to this case. Hence, the first respondent entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition.
7. The third respondent, viz., the Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai has filed a counter statement on behalf of the other respondents, viz., respondents 2, 4 and 5 and himself. The third respondent submits that the writ petitioner, viz., Transworld Garnet India Pvt. Ltd., have filed 13 writ petitions in W.P.Nos.12849 to 12861 of 2014, in respect of mining leases granted to them for Garnet, etc., minerals in Tirunelveli and Thoothukudi Districts. The Indian Bureau of Mines suspended mining operations under Rule 13(2) of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted the final modified scheme of mining within the stipulated time and the mining operations were carried out in the mine without having valid proposal in the form of approved scheme of mining, leading to violations of Rule 13(1) of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988. Aggrieved by the orders of the Indian Bureau of Mines, the petitioner filed 13 writ petitions.
8. The third respondent further added that Garnet is a major mineral and the mining of this major mineral is governed by the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (Central Act No.67 of 1957) and the relevant rules framed under the same Act, viz., the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988. The State Government is competent to grant mining leases for mining Garnet in Government Poromboke land and the Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Chennai is competent to grant lease in respect of patta lands. But the grant of lease for major minerals specified in the first schedule is subject to the approval of Central Government as per Section 5(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The third respondent further submits that in the chapter IV of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 deal with procedures for grant of mining leases in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the Government. The application for mining lease should be made to the State Government in Form I through such officer or authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf under Rule 22(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 with the required documents specified in Sub-Rule (3)(i) of the above Rule. The receipt of each application shall be acknowledged in Form D as per Rule 23(4) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The received application is being processed by the District Collector concerned and on his satisfaction, he recommends the application to the Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Chennai. After a detailed scrutiny and verification, the Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Chennai sends the application to Government for appropriate orders on the merits of the application.
9. The third respondent further submits that as per Rule 22(4) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the Government have to communicate the precise area to the applicant in the event of Government taking a decision to grant mining lease to the applicant. On receipt of this communication of the precise area, the applicant should submit mining plan duly approved by the Central Government namely, by the Regional Controller of Mines, Chennai, Ministry of Mines, Government of India which shall be valid for the entire duration of lease as per Rule 22(6) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. To implement the approved mining plan, the lessee should submit a tentative scheme of mining valid for five years as per Rule 22(5) of the Mineral concession Rules, 1960. The Rule 12 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 prescribed the review of mining plan by submitting a scheme of mining for every five years block. The scheme of mining should be submitted to the Regional Controller of Mines at least 120 days before the expiry of the five year period and it should be got approved. The lessee should do the mining operations only in accordance with the approved mining plan. If the mining operations are not carried on as per the approved mining plan, the Regional Controller of Mines is competent to pass an order of suspension of all or any of the mining operations and permit continuance of only such operations as may be necessary to restore the conditions in the mine as envisaged under the said mining plan as per Rule 13(2) of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988. Since the petitioner has not got his scheme of mining approved by the Regional Controller of Mines the order of suspension of mining operations has been passed in his letter No.TN/TNL/GNT-38/MDS etc., dated 15.10.2013 and 19.03.2014. The writ petitions have been filed against these orders of suspension.
10. The third respondent further submits that the District authority communicated the orders of the first respondent, viz., The Indian Bureau of Mines who suspended the mining operations of the petitioner as per Sub Rules (1) and (2) of Rule 13 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 since mining operations is being carried out in the mine without having valid proposal in the form of approved scheme of mining. As such, the District Authority only communicated the orders of the first respondent and no fresh orders or directions were given. Therefore, the writ petitions are only with regard to orders issued by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Chennai and not against the State Government. The third respondent further submits that the Government have issued two orders in G.O.Ms.No.156, Industries (MMD1) Department, dated 08.08.2013 and G.O.Ms.No.173, Industries (MMD1) Department, dated 17.09.2013 instructing all the Assistant Directors of Geology and Mining in Thoothukudi, Tirunelveli, Kannyakumari, Madurai and Tiruchi to stop immediately the transport permit to the private lessees of Garnet, Ilmenite and Rutile till the inspections of the Special Team headed by the Revenue Secretary to Government are completed. Hence, the respective District authority have stopped the mining operations of private leases of the above major minerals immediately on issue of the Government Orders. Therefore, the issue of transport permit has been stopped even before the issue of the order of the suspension was impugned. Therefore, the averment that the Collector stopped the issue of transport permits based on the order of suspension is not true.
11. The third respondent further submits that it is true that the Government of Tamil Nadu constituted a Special Team headed by the Revenue Secretary to Government in G.O.Ms.No.156, Industries (MMD.1) Department, dated 08.08.2013 to probe into the complaints of illicit quarrying of minerals-Garnet, Ilmenite and Rutile in Thoothukudi District. The Special Team completed the investigation in Thoothukudi District. The Government have also authorized the Special Team in G.O.Ms.No.173, Industries (MMD1) Department, dated 17.09.2013, to inspect all the lease hold areas of the mineral-Garnet, Ilmenite and Rutile in Tirunelveli, Kannyakumari, Madurai and Tiruchi Districts and submit a report. The Special Team has completed the inspections in Tirunelveli and Kannyakumari Districts during the month of November 2013 and the field inspections in other Districts have not been completed and the final report is pending. The Government have also ordered in the above G.Os' instructing all the Assistant Directors of Geology and Mining in the above Districts not to issue transport permits to the private lessees of the Garnet, Illmenite and Rutile till the inspections are completed. The above Government orders issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu have not been challenged in these writ petitions. As per the G.Os', only after the field inspections and enquires are over, the Government may permit to mine or to take the materials already mined if any. If the petitioner is permitted now to take the Garnet sand before submission of the final report to the Government, it will surely affect the enquiry and verification of the Special Team formed by the Government and defeat the very purpose of forming a Special Team.
12. The third respondent further submits that the first respondent herein, viz., the Indian Bureau of Mines, Chennai, Ministry of Mines, Government of India, who are competent authority, put-forth his reply on the contention of the petitioner since the matter relates to them. Further, the method of scrutiny of mining plan / scheme of mining / modified mining plan submitted by the petitioner if any and the consequential orders of the same either approval / rejection are only vested with the Indian Bureau of Mines, Ministry of Mines, Government of India. The third respondent submits that the State Government is not vested with the authority on the subject matter. Hence, the respondents 2 to 5 have prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
13. The highly competent senior counsel Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan appearing for the petitioner submits that the orders of rejection of schemes of mining are "cyclostyled" orders, that is to say, they are identical orders which are merely copied from one to the other, without any application of mind to the individual merits of each case; That the orders of rejection of the Schemes of Mining have been passed without consideration of the replies submitted by the petitioner, while re-presenting the relevant schemes of Mining. In respect of mining operation without scheme, according to Section 5(2)(b) of MMDR Act, the State Government, shall not grant the mining lease unless it is satisfied that there is a mining plan duly approved by Central Government. In this case, all the areas the State Government, already granted mining lease. Hence there is a mining plan duly approved by Central Government. According to Rule 22A of MC Rules, the mining operation to be undertaken in accordance with the duly approved mining plan. According to Rule 22(6) of MC Rules, the mining plan once approved for shall be valid for the entire duration of the lease. Hence, once the mining plan is valid for the entire duration, and since the lessee has to carry out the mining operation in accordance with the approved mining plan, the mining lease cannot be suspended merely for non-compliance of submission of scheme of approval of scheme, as the scheme is a tentative scheme valid for 5 years showing the mining, production, waste generation and exploration etc., This may vary due to the market trend. In respect of non-possibility of replenishable reserve to the patta lands, the highly competent senior counsel during argument brought to the notice of the judgment of this Court made in W.P.No.5386 of 1997, dated 04.12.1997 and Division Bench judgment made in W.A.No.69 of 1998, and C.M.P.No.423 of 1998, dated 30.04.1998 in which it was clearly decided that this is a renewable deposit by reason of continuous wind and wave action and the wind will transport the same to the patta lands. No person has right to block the wind movement or action by which garnet is carried out by the wind to the near by patta lands. Hence deposition of garnet by wind action has already been decided by this Court and confirmed by Division Bench. Accordingly, the respondent also approved the mining plan with replenishable deposit reserve. Hence he cannot oppose the replenishable deposit in the scheme. In respect of estimation of replenishable reserve, this is only estimation, not exact calculation as, no one has control over the nature and no one can calculate the exact quantity of replenishable deposit. He further pointed out that the Government of India, appointed a committee viz., "Nagar Committee" who also confirmed that "the collection of replenishable deposit accumulated within the lease hold area is not illegal." That being so, when the lessee has a valid mining plan when carrying out the mining operation in accordance with the approved mining plan, the lease cannot be suspended. Moreover, when all the points are attended by the RQP and when the original mining plan is approved with replenishable deposit, the approval of scheme cannot be refused for the same reason. That the orders of rejection of Schemes of Mining have been passed without complying with the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the first respondent had passed orders and rejected the petitioner's schemes of mining plans. The said orders are identical and cyclostyled without any application of mind and as such, the said order is not found to be fit to be proceeded with any further. The petitioner had submitted a suitable reply to the first respondent, but the same was not considered and as such, the impugned order is not valid under law. The mining plan is valid for 20 to 30 years. Further, the respondent had approved the original mining plan after observing all legal formalities and as such, the first respondent could not reject the schemes of mining. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the first respondent runs against the principles of natural justice. Further, the impugned order is not a final one and therefore the petitioner has filed the above writ petition in order to point out the irregularities committed by the first respondent in their impugned proceedings, since prior to passing this order no first stage of enquiry was initiated and as such, the Article 14 and 21 of Constitution is violated. Hence, the writ petition is maintainable for challenging the impugned order.
14. The highly competent senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that if the first respondent's impugned order had been passed after conducting a comprehensive enquiry, then the petitioner can file a revision petition under Rule 57 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules. In this case, the respondent had violated the principles of natural justice since they had not conducted any domestic enquiry before passing the said order. In order to rectify the same, the writ petitioner has approached this Court by invoking Article 226 of Constitution of India. The highly competent senior counsel had cited a judgment in (2007) 10 SCC 88 (M.P.State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd., v. Jahan Khan, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; where there is failure of principles of natural justice or where the orders of proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged, an alternative remedy does not operate as a bar. In the instant case, all the three points are squarely applicable, therefore, the impugned order does not warrant execution. The highly competent senior counsel has cited another judgment in Satwati Deswal v. State of Haryana reported in (2010) 1 SCC 126, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court pointed out that if there had been a violation of a principle of natural justice, in the instant case, the first respondent did not give any opportunity to the petitioner and passed the impugned order which is absolutely partisan. The first respondent mentioned in the impugned order that most of the technical points are not complied with. If the first respondent provides an opportunity, the petitioner may comply with the same. Further, the petitioner has not violated any legal points and therefore, he is entitled to receive renewal of the mining scheme. The other judgment cited by the highly competent senior counsel, which is reported in 2004(4) CTC 727 (Masilamani Vs. Murugesan), wherein, the learned Judge pointed out that the respondent cannot pass cyclostyled orders without an appropriate application of mind. Further, Rule 22(6) reads that a mining plan once approved shall be valid for the entire duration of the lease, but the scheme of mining is valid for only 5 years since the petitioner's mining leases are valid for 20 years. As per Rule 12 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules provides that before the expiry of the scheme in mining, a fresh scheme of mining should be submitted and approval sought. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted a scheme of mining for approval prior to the mandated expiry of 120 days. The respondents have adopted a back door method and passed the impugned order, which does not portend to be required justice. In the instant case, the following are noted while going through the Act and Rules:-
(1) Section 5(2)(b) of the MMDR Act makes is mandatory to obtain a mining plan before the grant of a mining lease;
(2) Rule 22 of the Mineral Concession Rules deals with the Mining Plan (3) Rule 22(5) says that along with the mining plan, a tentative scheme of mining is to be submitted. This is an indication that a scheme of mining is not accorded the same importance under the Act as a Mining plan.
(4) Rule 22(6) says that a mining plan once approved shall be valid for the entire duration of the lease, but the Scheme of Mining is valid for only five years. The Scheme of Mining is therefore important only to the extent of indicating how the miner will be proceedings during a five-year period, which forms part of the much longer time period for which the mining lease is valid. It was admitted in all these cases that the petitioner's mining leases are in all for twenty years, and are in force as on date.
(5) Rule 12 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules provides that before the expiry of the scheme of mining, a fresh scheme of mining should be submitted and approved.
(6) Rule 12(4) makes it incumbent upon the authorities to consider the Scheme of Mining within 90 days, and convey their approval or refusal of the Scheme.
(7) Rule 12(5) says that once the Scheme is submitted, if the authorities fail to pass orders on the Scheme of Mining one way or the other within 90 days, it is deemed to be approved.
(8) Rule 13(1) says Holder of mining lease shall carryout mining operations in accordance with the approved mining plan approved under Rule 9 or 10 or the scheme approved under Rule 11 or 12.
(9) Rule 13(2) of MCD Rules says that if mining operations are not carried out in accordance with the mining plan as referred to under Sub Rule1, the RCM or the authorized officer may order suspension of all or any of the mining operations and permit continuance of only such operations as may be necessary to restore the condition in the mine as envisaged under the said mining plan.
This will establish that mining operation can be carried out either in accordance with the approved mining plan or the scheme of mining. In case, the scheme of mining is not approved, as long as the lessee continues the mining operation in accordance with the approved mining plan, the mining operation cannot be suspended, as the mining plan approved is valid for the entire lease period as per Rule 22(6) of MC Rules. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner did not carry out the operation in accordance with the approved mining plan. Hence, the suspension of mining operation is without application of mind.
15. The highly competent senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that in the instant case, the respondent had returned the scheme of mining for certain complaints and the same was suitably complied with and the petitioner herein represented the scheme of mining with a detailed letter and had given explanation. After receipt of this submission, the respondent had rejected the scheme of mining without assigning any valid reason and had also not called the petitioner for future clarification regarding technical points to enable the carrying out of the same. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for an opportunity in order to execute the technical points for future processing in the scheme of mining. Further, the respondent's order is not a speaking order, but only a one-line order. He further submits that the petitioner is eligible to proceed with the operation of scheme of mining for 20 years and as such, the petitioner is eligible for a renewal of a scheme of mining sand, as the petitioner had not committed any aberrations in his mining operations except some technical points which can be set right at any time. On the other hand, if the scheme of mining is not renewable, then the original scheme of mining becomes violated.
16. The highly competent senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the respondent is discharging a quasi-judicial function and as such, he is required to apply his mind on the papers before passing an order. When all the returns pointed out on 23.12.2013 had been complied with and re-presented on 24.01.2014, the respondent passed a cyclostyled order rejecting the scheme of mining with an one-line order i.e., "previous return not complied with". The sort of stereotyped orders amounting to 13 is not appropriate or acceptable. The petitioner has submitted a scheme of mining for renewal prior to the expiry of 5 years initial period. Therefore, the petitioner stands eligible for a future renewal.
17. The very competent Central Government Standing Counsel, Mr.Ramesh, appearing for the first respondent has stated that the contentions made by him in the connected writ petitions are also applicable in the instant case. Hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition.
18. Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan, highly competent Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 submits that the first respondent has suspended mining operations under Rule 13(2) of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988, since the writ petitioner had not submitted the final modified scheme of beach sand mining, within the specified period. Furthermore, the Government is the authority to grant mining leases in the Government poromboke land. The Commissioner of Geology and Mining is the competent authority to grant mining lease in the patta land. The impugned order has been passed by the Regional Controller of Mines against the writ petitioner as he had violated the procedures as per the Mineral Concession Rules. The Government had issued G.Os' and instructed all the Assistant Directors of Geology and Mining attached at Thoothukudi, Tirunelveli, Kanyakumari, Madurai and Tiruchi Districts not to issue transfer permits to the private lessees. Hence, the highly competent Special Government Pleader entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition.
19. The highly competent Government Pleader Mr.S.T.S.Murthi, appearing for the fifth respondent submits that the first respondent has passed the interim order against the writ petitioner. Further, the fifth respondent is the competent authority to grant mining lease in the Government poromboke land. The writ petitioner had not strictly adhered to Minerals Conservation and Development Rules and Mineral Concession Rules. Hence, the writ petitioner's scheme of sand beach mining had been rejected. Further, the writ petitioner has to submit his application to the first respondent within 120 days prior to the expiry of the initial lease period. The fifth respondent is not vested with authority to consider the petitioner's scheme of beach sand mining. He further submits that the State Government had issued two G.Os' viz., G.O.Ms.No.156 dated 08.08.2013 and G.O.Ms.No.173, dated 17.09.2013 in order to stop the transport permit to the private lessees in the area, viz., Thoothukudi, Tirunelveli, Kanyakumari, Madurai and Tiruchi. As such, the transport permit has been stopped before passing the impugned order. Hence, the highly competent Government Pleader entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition.
20. From the above discussions, this Court is of the view that:-
(i) The writ petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings No.TN/TNL/GNT/MS-996-MDS, dated 06.03.2014, an extract of which runs as follows:-
"most of the technical points communicated vide letter of even no. dated 23.12.2013 has not been attended."
It is evident on scrutiny of the said order that the first respondent, who is the competent authority and has the jurisdiction and command over the said mining area, has not mentioned about the illicit sand mining operation on coastal areas.
(ii) The petitioner had submitted a draft mining scheme on 01.10.2013 for further approval. After examination, the first respondent had issued comments on 23.12.2013, to the writ petitioner to rectify the deficiencies and hence, the writ petitioner resubmitted the draft scheme on 24.01.2014, after rectifying all the deficiencies. As the first respondent was not satisfied with the writ petitioner's compliance, the draft mining scheme was returned and the impugned order has been passed. As such, it is evident that the first respondent, without getting clarification or explanation has passed the impugned order which is prejudicial to the interest of the writ petitioner.
(iii) The writ petitioner has submitted an application for a scheme of beach sand mining for a further period of 5 years. This Court is of the view that the Rule framed by the first respondent that the application has to be submitted before the stipulated period of 120 days prior to the expiry of the initial period, is only meant for administrative purpose and is not mandatory and as such, the filing of the application by the writ petitioner after the stipulated period, cannot be taken as a serious violation. As such, this Court holds that the writ petitioner's application for draft scheme for beach sand mining may be processed further.
(iv) As the one-line orders have been passed in a cyclostyled fashion, in 13 different cases in cryptic fashion without regard to the intrinsic merits of each case, and have been passed without hearing, this Court is of the view that the orders cannot stand the scrutiny of law. The respondents have passed certain orders which are said to be under Rule 13(2) of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, which are consequential to these orders rejecting the Schemes of Mining. Needles to say, when the main order of rejection of the Scheme of Mining is itself held to be illegal, all the consequential orders will fall to the ground. As pointed out by the Division Bench in 2011(4) CTC 492, the existence of an alternate remedy will not be a bar where the order challenged is passed without application of mind.
21. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on all sides and on perusing the impugned order passed by the first respondent and on further perusing the documents of the said parties and taking into consideration, the views listed above, this Court allows the above writ petition. Consequently, the impugned order of the first respondent in order bearing No.TN/TNL/GNT/MS-996-MDS, dated 06.03.2014 is quashed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2014 is closed.
07.07.2014 Index : Yes/No. Internet : Yes/No. r n s To 1.The Regional Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, C-4A, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090. 2.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Industries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai. 3.The Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai. 4.The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Tirunelveli. 5.The District Collector, Collector Office Campus, Tirunelveli. C.S.KARNAN, J. r n s W.P.No.No.12851 of 2014 & M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2014 07.07.2014