Madras High Court
S.Shenbagavalli vs $1. The District Collector on 1 April, 2008
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01/04/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P(MD)No. 2766 Of 2008 and W.P.M.P.(MD)No.1 Of 2008 S.Shenbagavalli ..Petitioner vs. $1. The District Collector, Theni District, Theni. 2. The Assistant Director of Geology and Mines,Theni. ..Respondents. PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents particularly the first respondent to stop the auction proceeding for stone quarry for the site under Survey No.2202/1(PartIV) to an extent of 10.67 hectares situated at Allinagaram Village, Theni District notified by the first respondent in the Gazette under Na.Ka.No.242/2008/Minerals, dated20.2.2008 by considering the representation dated 19.03.2008 made to the first respondent within a time frame fixed by this Court. !For Petitioner ... Mr.V.Janakiramulu ^For Respondents ... Mr.Pala Ramasamy 1&2 Special G.P :ORDER
(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY HIS LORDSHIP S.MANIKUMAR) The petitioner has sought for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents particularly, the first respondent to stop the auction proceedings for stone quarrying for a site in S.No.2202/1(PartIV) to an extent of 10.67 hectares situated at Allinagaram Village, Theni District notified by the first respondent in the Gazette under Na.Ka.No.242/2008/Minerals, dated 20.2.2008, by considering the representation dated:19.03.2008 made to the first respondent within a time frame fixed by this Court.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she owns lands in Theni District, Bodi Taluk, Boothipuram Village in Survey No.261/13, 262/7, 266/2 and 307/13B. The lands are fertile and there are mango trees. The lands adjacent to the petitioner's land are owned by other agriculturists who are cultivating Sugarcane, groundnut and other commercial crops. The Government dry lands in S.No.2202/1 adjacent to petitioner's agricultural lands were notified for granting lease for stone quarry and the date of auction was fixed on 25.3.2008. The quarry site proposed to be leased, to an extent of 10.67 hectares in S.lNo.2202/1(PartIV) in Allinagaram, Theni District is listed as Item No.3 in the Gazette notification. The villagers have raised their objection to the location of the quarry site. Though the petitioner has sent a representation dated 19.3.2008 to the District Collector, Theni District to take immediate action to stop the tender-cum-auction to be held on 25.3.2008, the first respondent has not passed any orders and therefore the petitioner left with no other option, has approached this Honourable Court for the relief as stated supra.
3. Referring to rule 36(1)(a) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though there is a positive prohibition under the rules that there should not be any stone quarrying site within 300 metres from any inhabitated site, the respondents have arbitrarily earmarked the said site, which would affect the cultivable lands, irrigation canal and public road in the viscinity of the site. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when Rule 36 of Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959 contemplates that stone quarrying site should not be located within the prohibited distance of 50 metres from a public road or canal, the statutory authorities, have ignored the scheme of the rules. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that the first respondent has acknowledged the representation of the petitioner dated 19.3.2008, he has not chosen to pass any orders.
4. On the other hand, Mr.Pala Ramasamy, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions submitted that as per rule 8[10-A(a))] of the Taminadu Minor Mineral Concession Rule,notification has been issued by the District Collector, Theni District inviting applications for grant of quarry lease to Co-operative Societies registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act,1983(Swarna Jayanthi Gram Swarozgar Yojana Scheme Groups)and that there is no proposal to conduct any auction for grant of lease. He submitted that S.No.2202/1 is comprised of five parts, each measuring 10.67.5 hectares of Government Poromboke land. He further submitted that out of five parts in Survey No.2202/1 in Allinagaram village, the petitioner's husband is quarrying in in S.No.2201/1(Part III),which is also located closer to the petitioner's agricultural lands, for which the petitioner has not made any objections, Whereas, when quarrying of lease was proposed to be given to a Co-operative Society viz., Swarna Jayanthi Gram Swarozgar yojana Scheme Group, the petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition objecting to location of the quarry site. He further submitted the grievance expressed by the petitioner reflects only his private interest and that there is not even a iota of evidence or material to infer any public interest. For the abovesaid reasons, counsel for the State prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
5. Before adverting to the facts of this case, it is necessary to extract the relevant of rules of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules,1959 for the purpose of proper adjudication of the dispute. Rule 8[(10-A)(a)] reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything contrary contained in this rule, the District Collector shall, by notification in the District Gazette published in the month of April every year, call for applications for direct grant of lease of stone quarries to the (Swarna Jayanthi Gram Swarozgar Yojana Scheme Groups(hereinafter called SGSY groups)registered either under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act,1983(Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1983) or under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act,1975 (Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1975) and the societies formed by released bonded labourers, subject to certain conditions."
6. The general restrictions in respect of quarrying operations by the permit holder or lessee as stated in rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral concessions rules, 1959 is as follows:
"36. General restrictions in respect of quarrying operations:-
(1) The quarrying permit holder or the lessee or their men shall not work or carry on or allow to be worked or carried on any mining operations at or to any point within a distance of 50 metres from any railway line except with the previous written permission of the Railway administration concerned or under or beneath any ropeway or any ropeway trestle or station except under and in accordance with the written permission of the authority owning the ropeway or from any reservoir, canal or other public works such as public roads and buildings except with the previous written permission of the Collector of the District or any other officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf and otherwise than in accordance with such instructions, restrictions and conditions, either general or special, which may be attached to such permission.
The said distance of 50 metres shall be measured in the case of railway, reservoir or canal horizontally from the outer toe of the bank or the outer edge of the cutting, as the case may be, and in case of building horizontally from the plinth thereof. In the case of village roads, no working shall be carried out within a distance of 10 metres and except with the previous permission of the Collector of the district or any other officer duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf and otherwise than in accordance with such directions, restrictions and additions, either general or special, which may be attached to such permission:
Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or any provision in any lease deed or agreement already executed under these rules, there shall be no quarrying of sand in any river bed or adjoining area or any other area which is located within 500 metres radial distances from the location of any bridge, water supply system, infiltration well or pumping installation of any of the local bodies or Central or State Government Department or the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board head works or any area identified for locating water supply schemes by any of the above mentioned Government Departments or other bodies. (1-A)(a) No lease shall be granted for quarrying stone within 300 metres (three hundred metres) from any inhabited site:
Provided that the existing quarries which are subsisting under current leases shall be entitled for continuance till the expiry of the lease period. The lessees whose quarries lie within a radius of 300 metres from the inhabited site shall undertake blasting operations only after getting permission of the Director of Mines Safety, Corgaum:' Provided further that the new and existing units of quarries shall also be required to comply with the pollution control measures [(i.e.,) dust control measures] besides complying with the other conditions in regard to Pollution Control Measures.
(b) The Methodology specified in column (2) of the Table shall be adopted in respect of the operational sources specified in column (1) thereof for rock quarrying operations.
TABLE Sl.No Operational sources Methodology to be adopted for controlling the dust ( 1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) 1 Drilling Liquid injection (water with a wetting agent) of capturing and venting emissions to a control device.
2Blasting Adoption of good blasting practices 3 Loading (at mines) Water wetting 4 Transport Watering treatment with surface agents, soil stabilization on paving.
(c) No new layout, building plans falling within 300 metres from any quarry should be given approval by any agency unless prior clearance of the Director of Geology and Mining is obtained. On receipt of proposals for according clearance, the Director of Geology and Mining shall decide upon the continuance or closure, as the case may be, of any quarry which is situated within 300 metres from the new layout, buildings sought for such clearance."
24. For the purpose of Rule 1(1-A) "Inhabited site" is explained in Clause (iii) of Rule 36 sub-Rule (c ), "Inhabited site" shall mean village site, town site or House site as referred to the revenue records or a house site or layout approved by a Local Body or Town or Country or Metropolitan Planning Authority, where the said Body or Authority is created under a statute and empowered to approve such an area as a house site or lay-out area.
7. Inhabitated site means, a village site, town site or house site as referred to the revenue records or a house site or lay out approved by a local body or town or country or metropolitan authority where the said body or authority is correct in a statute and empowered to approve such an area as a house site or lay out area.
8. Examination of the definition "inhabited site" under rule 36(1- A)(C)(iii) of the rules, would make it clear that it has two parts (1) site should be a village site or town site or house site as referred to in the revenue records;(2) a house or lay out approved by a local body town or country or metropolitan authority where the said body or authority is correct in statute and empowered to approve such an area as a house site or lay out area.
9. It is evident from the pleadings and the Adangal, appended to the typed set of papers that the lands owned by the petitioner in Survey Nos.261/13, 262/7, 266/2 and 307/13B said to have been located adjacent to the dry lands in S.No.2201/1, earmarked, are agricultural lands, and does not fall within the definition house site. A reading of Rule 36 in entirety does not communicate that there is any prohibition of locating a quarry site nearer to an agricultural land and the restrictions placed on the authority are that it should not be located with a distance of 50 metres from any railway land except with the previous written permission of the railway administration concerned or under ropeway or ropeway tussle or station except under and in accordance with the written permission of the authority the ropeway or from any reservoir, Canal or other public road, building with the previous written permission of the Collector of the District or any other officer authorised by the State in this behalf.
10. Excepting the averments made in the Writ petition, the petitioner has not furnished any details of the existence of a canal or road within the prohibited distance. Even in the representation dated 19.3.2008 submitted to the District Collector, Theni District, there is no reference to either a canal or road within the prohibited distance of quarry site. The apprehension of the petitioner in the said representation is that, if S.No.2202/1 (Part IV) is earmarked to be a quarry Site, it would cause damage to the agricultural lands situated nearer to the site.
11. In a recent decision Holicow pictures Private Limited .vs. Prem Chandra Mishra and others reported in (2008) 1 MLJ 1075, the Supreme Court has again reiterated the principles to be followed by courts in dealing with Public Interest Litigations. The Apex Court has defined the scope and extent of the exercise of jurisdiction in dealing with such litigations. At Paragraph 10,17,18,20 the Supreme Court has held as follows:
10...Public interest litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation"
or "private interest litigation" or Politics interest litigation". If not properly regulated and abuse adverted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to relase vendetta and wreak vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure or knight errant borne out of wishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction...."
17. .. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted , the time which otherwise could have been spent for disposal of cases of the genuine litigants..."
"..the busy bodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they loose faith in the administration of our judicial system."
"18. Public interest litigatilon is a weapon which has tobe used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Courts must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the Court is acting bonafide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique considerations. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of medding with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs."
"20. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant:(b) the Prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him:(c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests: (1) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii)avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the constitution to the executive and the Legislature. The court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with impostors and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers impesonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bobo Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own interest."
12.It is apparent that when the petitioner's husband is quarrying in S.No.2201/1Part III, land situated closer to the agricultural lands owned by the petitioner,as well as others, there was no objection, whereas, the petitioner, under the banner of Public Interest Litigation, with malafide and private motive has sought for a Mandamus to forbear the respondents from leasing the quarry site to the Societies of bonded labourers. The objection of the petitioner is not bonafide. No public interest is involved in this Writ Petition. The Principles laid down by the Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts of this case.
13. In the circumstances, we do not find that the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds and satisfied the requirements for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus.
In the result, Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
vsn To
1. The District Collector, Theni District, Theni.
2. The Assistant Director of Geology and Mines,Theni.