Madras High Court
M.Antony Gomez vs The District Collector on 23 September, 2014
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.09.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN W.P.No.9829 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 to 5 of 2014 M.Antony Gomez ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. 2.The Deputy Director, Geology and Mining, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the record relating to the impugned order in Rc.No.499/2012-03 dated 10.05.2013 passed by the 1st respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue transport permit to carry on the quarry operation for the unutilized lease period between 10.09.2012 and 29.05.2013 to compensate the loss of period during the currency of the lease as per the order in Rc.No.785/2007-03 dated 30.05.2008 passed by the 1st respondent by considering the representation dated 18.03.2014. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy (senior counsel) for Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondents : Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian (AAG) Assisted by Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan Special Government Pleader ***** (C.A.V on 27.06.2014 and Order pronounced on .09.2014) O R D E R
The short facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner submits that on 21.05.2005 he applied for stone and earth soil quarry lease in respect of his patta land measuring an extent of 2.58.5 Hectares comprising in Survey Nos.243/5, 244/1, 244/2, 244/5, 244/9, 244/10, 244/11 of Palayaseevaram Village, Sankarapuram, Kancheepuram Taluk, for a period of five years under Rule 19-A of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The first respondent received his application and instructed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram and the Assistant Director (M & G), Kancheepuram, to submit their reports. Accordingly, after the field inspection, the authorities have submitted their reports dated 17.10.2007 and 02.05.2008 respectively. After considering his application and the reports submitted by the authorities, the first respondent / District Collector passed an order in Rc.No.785/2007-03 dated 30.05.2008 granting stone and earth quarry lease for a period of five years under Rule 19A of the Rules, 1959 subject to the terms and conditions incorporated therein. Thereafter, quarry lease agreement dated 30.05.2008 was entered into between him and the first respondent as per the format prescribed in Appendix IV of the Rules 19(1) and 22 of the Rules, 1959. Accordingly, he was granted lease for a term of five years between 30.05.2008 to 29.05.2013.
2.The petitioner additionally added that in compliance with the conditions imposed in the lease order, he engaged the services of an explosive licence holder after verifying the licence issued by the Chief Controller of Explosives. Accordingly, he entered into an agreement with one Danakoteeswaran for the purpose of supplying the materials for blasting and for carrying on the blasting operations through his men and agents. However, the said licence holder was not only irregular and acted against the terms and conditions of the agreement. Therefore, he took a decision to discontinue the service. As such, he entered into a new agreement with one Balasundaram on 05.03.2012 for the purpose of blasting operations. On and after 05.03.2012, he never had any transaction with the erstwhile explosive licence holder by name Danakoteeswaran. Hence, he has developed some personal grudge for obvious reasons. The said Danakoteeswaran is the proprietor of one M/s.Parry Chemicals and Company, a dealer for fertilizers and chemicals having a place of business at 158, Kunnavakkam, Kancheepuram District. The said Danakoteeswaran being the dealer and agent for fertilizers and chemicals under quotation placed orders to purchase various chemicals and fertilizers inclusive of Ammonium Nitrate.
3.The petitioner further submits that the said Danakoteeswaran purchased the materials and loaded the fertilizers and chemicals in a lorry bearing Registration No.AP16-TV-5445 at Andhra Pradesh and it was being transported to Tamilnadu under invoice, way bills, trip sheet, etc. While the lorry was on the way to M/s.Parry Chemicals and Company, it was intercepted by the officials nearby his quarry on the way to the godown of M/s.Parry Chemicals and Company and that the officials seized the entire materials loaded in the lorry. Immediately, the lorry driver and the cleaner allegedly ran away from the scene, thereafter, the jurisdiction police i.e. D5 Palur Police Station registered a criminal case in Crime No.225 of 2012 under Section 5 of the Indian Explosives Substance Act. One Krishnan, father of Danakoteeswaran was arrested and he gave a confession statement to the police whereupon his name has been implicated as accused No.4, alleging that the ammonium nitrate found in the lorry was for the purpose of using it in the blasting operation in his quarry. He had no knowledge as to the usage and handling of the explosives in the blasting operation, therefore, as per the terms and conditions in the lease order, he has engaged the service of an explosive licence holder for blasting operation. Neither he had knowledge of the transportation of the ammonium nitrate nor utilized the services of M/s.Sri Danam Koteeswaran Explosive and Company or M/s.Parry Chemicals and Company both owned by Danakoteeswaran.
4.The petitioner additionally added that out of previous enmity and ill-motive, the said Danakoteeswaran had conveniently taken revenge by implicating his name in Crime No.225 of 2012 in the confession statement given by his father S.Krishnan accused No.1, who recently expired. He was not found in possession of the ammonium nitrate or presented the time of the alleged occurrence. However, his name has been implicated solely on the basis of the confession statement given by the 1st accused to the police station, which is inadvisable in law except to the extent of recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. More so, the alleged recoveries were made from the place called Thailam Thoppu, Sankarapuram Village. Immediately on knowing the same, he has sent a letter dated 09.06.2012 to the said Danakoteeswaran complaining against his role in the false implication of his name in the above Crime No.225 of 2012. Thereafter, he was granted anticipatory bail by this Court. His name has been falsely implicated only with a view to prevent him from carrying on the quarry operation in his patta land. The said purpose has been achieved by his trade rivals by the investigating agency which is evident from various correspondences between the investigating agency and the respondents herein.
5.The petitioner further submits that as he is afraid of, the respondents who have stopped issuing the transport permit from 10.09.2012 to 10.05.2013. Ultimately, the 1st respondent has acted under undue pressure given by the investigating agency and thereby cancelled his lease on 10.05.2013. He submits that for no fault on his part, he was denied transport permit during the currency of the lease for the period between 10.09.2012 and 25.09.2013. In the result, he has been forced to face an aggrieved situation before his customers, workers and as well as those in the business circle. He was not able to meet his business commitments and unable to settle the dues to the bank. The ammonium nitrate allegedly seized from the lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TV-5445 had not been notified as an explosive under the Explosive Substance Act by the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO). He submits that the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization, Nagpur issued a notification only on 21.12.2012, therefore, the police have no authority to treat the fertilizer material called ammonium nitrate as an explosive substance as early as on 08.06.2012. The invoice, way bill, trip sheet, etc., found in the lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TV-5445 would ipso facto prove that the ammonium nitrate was meant for M/s.Parry Chemicals and Company and has no nexus in the quarry lease.
6.The petitioner additionally submitted that immediately on knowing the FIR dated 08.06.2012, he sent a letter dated 09.06.2012 to his erstwhile explosive licence holder complaining about his role in implicating his name through his father's confessional statement to the police. Immediately, after the FIR, the police has sent letters dated 15.06.2012, 31.08.2012 and 03.09.2012 to the first respondent insisting to cancel his quarry lease. He submits that he has had no role in the above said alleged occurrence, however, the first respondent has issued a notice dated 03.10.2012 to him. He has sent a representation requesting the first respondent to furnish the report received from the police, but, it was not complied to. He submits that the first respondent has again issued a notice dated 27.03.2013 and it was also suitably replied by him on 01.04.2013. In continuation of his representations dated 08.12.2012, 15.10.2012 and 01.04.2013, he has submitted his detailed explanation on 19.04.2013, inter alia disputing the allegations levelled against him. However, unmindful of the complaints of natural justice, the first respondent has passed an impugned order dated 10.05.2013 made in Rc.No.499/2012-03 by canceling the lease on the ground that, as per the report of the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, the lessee has violated the lease deed conditions, hence the above writ petition has been filed.
7.The first respondent / District Collector has filed a counter statement and resisted the above writ petition. This respondent submits that one Thiru.M.Antony Gomez of Kancheepuram has filed writ petition in W.P.No.9829 of 2014 with a prayer of interim injunction restraining the respondents and their subordinates from in any way interfering with the petitioners right to carry on quarrying operation in his patta land measuring 2.58.5 hectares comprised in S.Nos.243/5, 244/1,2,5,9,10,11 Palayasivaram Village, Sankarapuram, Kancheepuram Taluk for the unutilized lease period of 248 days by granting necessary trip sheet to transport the quarry materials pending in W.P.No.9829 of 2014.
8.It is submitted that the petitioner was granted permission to quarry and transport stone and earth for a period of five years from 30.05.2008 to 29.05.2013 in his patta land bearing S.Nos.243/5, (0.45.5), 244/1(0.07.5), 244/2(0.09.0), 244/5(0.21.0), 244/9(0.28.0), 244/10,(0.99.5) and 244/11(0.48.0) hectares totally over an extent of 2.58.5 hectares in Palayasivaram Village, Kancheepuram Taluk in respondent's pro.785/2007 Q3 dated 30.05.2008. He has executed the lease deed on 30.05.2008 and the lease period had expired on 29.05.2013. The lessee has operated the quarry and transported the stone after remitting the necessary seigniorage fee as stipulated in the TNMMC Rules 1959.
9.On instruction from the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram, Inspector of Police, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station, Inspector of Police, Palur Police Station and other Police officials conducted surprise raid at Palayaseevaram and Sankarapuram Village, Kancheepuram on 08.06.2012. During the course of inspection on that day at about 1.45 p.m. in the premises of stone quarry lease hold area held by the petitioner it was noticed that i)Electric Detonator 358 nos., ii)Detonators with Electric wires 429 nos., iii)Ammonium Hydrate packed rolls 131 nos., iv)Gelatin Sticks 128 Nos., v)Boosters 135 Nos, vi) cables 346, vii)Ammonium Nitrate seven bags weighing 25 Kg each were kept in the premises. Apart from this a vehicle bearing Registration No.AP16-TV-5445 was stationed in the stone quarry premises and the Mamallapuram Custom officials were checking the vehicle. On verification, 340 bags of Ammonium Nitrate were found in the vehicles. The Police Officials have prepared mahazar and seized the electric detonators, detonator with electric wires, Ammonium Hydrate, Geletin sticks, boosters, cable and ammonium nitrate 7 bags (25 kg each) in rolls, allowing explosives substances which were kept in the premises without valid license. The possession of explosive materials without proper account is an offence and under Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substance Act 2001, a case has been registered against the persons involved vide FIR No.225/2012 dated 08.06.2012 in the Police Station, Palur, Chengleput Taluk.
10.Since the lease holder Thiru.Antony Gomez was in possession of the explosive substances in unlawful manner in the lease hold area and the Superintendent of Police informed to take action for the cancellation of stone / earth quarry lease for the violation of Rules.
11.The Condition No.15 of the lease deed, which reads as follows the registered holder shall abide by the conditions laid down in the payment of Wages Act 1936 (Central Act IV of 1936) the Mines Act, 1952 (Central Act XXXV of 1952) and the Indian Explosives Act 1884 (Central Act IV of 1884).
12.As per Rule 36(5)(h) of the TNMMC Rules, in case of breach by the quarrying permit holder or quarrying lease holder or his transferee or assignee of any of these rules or of the conditions of lease, the Director of Geology and Mining or the Chief Conservator of Forests, as the case may be or the District Collector as the case may be without prejudice to any other penalty which may be imposed in respect of such breach, may cancel the lease after granting an opportunity of hearing to the said person.
13.Accordingly, opportunity of hearing was afforded to Thiru.M.Antony Gomez on 15.10.2012 and 01.04.2013. The lessee appeared for enquiry along with his counsel and submitted the written statement as follows:
The petitioner has stated that he was granted permission to quarry and transport of stone and earth for a period of five years from 30.05.2008 to 29.05.2013 in his patta land bearing S.Nos.243/5, etc. hectares totally over an extent of 2.58.5 hectares in Sankarapuram hamlet of Palayaseevaram Village, Kancheepuram Taluk. He has executed the lease deed on 30.05.2008 and the lease period is due to expire on 29.05.2013.
(ii)He has appointed Thiru.Dhanakoteeswaran as licensed vendor for handling explosive materials. He has indulged in certain irregularities and that he was removed from service on 28.02.2012.
(iii)Subsequently one Thiru.K.Balasundaram, license holder was appointed from 05.03.2012. On 08.06.2012, Thiru.Dhanakoteeswaran, has intentionally taking revenge, drove a vehicle bearing No.AP-16-TV-5445 with the consignment of Ammonium Nitrate and chemical intended to be delivered at whole / retail sale centre Kunnavakkam Village, Kancheepuram diverted the vehicle stationed near the subject quarry area held by the lessee Thiru.Antony Gomez. By giving wrong information to the police officials, the team of police have falsely registered the case under the provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substance Act 2001 and registered a case under explosive Act for the possession of ammonium Nitrate.
(iv)The petitioner has further stated that he did not know about the use of explosive device and the license holder alone is handling the explosive materials. The Explosives materials are not stocked in the lease hold area and the explosive substances are purchased as and when required. He has further stated that there was no explosive materials seized from the premises and a case is foisted by projecting false information.
(v)Since, his name has been included in the FIR, he has obtained anticipatory bail from the High Court in Crl.No.13738/2012 on 12.06.2012. Further, the Superintendent of Police instead of recommending for the cancellation of licenses held by Sri Lakshmi Explosives and Parry Fertilizers and Chemicals who are prime accused in the case filed against him is totally false. Further the chemical ammonium nitrate does not come under the Indian Explosive Substance Act 2001. Hence, he has denied the entire charges and prayed that the Police enquiry has not been completed and that he cannot be denied from continuing quarry operation in the said subject area since the lease granted to him is in existence. He has requested permission to quarry and transport of rough stone on payment of seigniorage fee.
14.The report of the Superintendent of Police, Statement of the lessee have been examined and it is revealed that the lessee has possessed explosive substances in the lease hold area in S.Nos.243/5, (0.45.5), 244/1(0.07.5) 244/2(0.09.0) 244/5 (0.21.0), 244/9 (0.28.0), 244/,10,(0.99.5) and 244/11(0.48.0) hectares totally over an extent of 2.58.5 hectares in Palayaseevaram Village, Kancheepuram Taluk without a valid license, in contravention to the Indian Explosive Act 1884. Hence, the lessee has violated the lease conditions No.15 and Rule 36(5)(h) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959.
15.Therefore, the stone quarry lease granted to Thiru.M.Antony Gomez, in S.Nos.243/5, (0.45.5), 244/1 (0.07.5), 244/2 (0.09.0), 244/5(0.21.0), 244/9 (0.28.0), 244/,10,(0.99.5) and 244/11(0.48.0) hectares totally over an extent of 2.58.5 hectares in Palayaseevaram Village, Kancheepuram Taluk was cancelled in respondent's proceedings Rc.499/2012/03 dated 10.05.2013 for the violation of Rules 36(5)(h) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959 with an appeal provision for filing appeal before the Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Chennai within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order as contemplated in the rule. Therefore, the prayer for the petitioner for the grant of permission to quarry and transport of rough stone for the lapses period of 267 days in lieu of non operative period from 10.09.2012 to 29.05.2013 does not conform to the Rule. Further according to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in SLP.MP.19628-29629 of 2009 dated 27.02.2012 the leases of mineral including their renewal for an area of less than 5.0 ha, be granted by the States/UTS only after getting environmental clearance from the MoEF, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority. Therefore, the grant of lease / permission to quarry and transport of mineral should conform to the norms only after Environment Clearance from the MoEF.
16.Further, The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District in his letter Gs/473/17154/DPO/2014 dated 01.04.2014 has reported that the petitioner has filed Criminal Original Petition Number 6882 of 2014 of 2005 on the file of this Court, and prayed to stay all consequential proceedings in Crime No.225 of 2012 on the file of the respondent police, Palur Police Station pending disposed of Crl.OP.No.6882 of 2014. This Court in Crl.OP.No.6882 of 2014 dated 26.03.2014 has ordered interim stay of all consequential proceedings in Cr.No.225 of 2012. Hence, the FIR has not been stayed only further consequential proceedings have been stayed. Therefore the representation of the petitioner dated 18.03.2014 cannot be considered since the criminal case is pending under the India explosive Substance Act 2001 and that the question of considering the petition does not arise till the Criminal writ petition is disposed. Therefore, no prima case is made out and the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be rejected as devoid of merits.
17.Regarding the averment in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4, it is submitted that the averments made in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the affidavit are untenable. It is submitted that the petitioner has applied for the grant of stone and each quarry lease in SF No.243/5, 244/1,2,5,9,10 & 11 over an extent of 2.58.5 hectare in Palayaseevaram Village, Madura Sankarapuram, Kancheepuram Taluk for a period of five years under Rule 19A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959. After obtaining reports from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram and the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Kancheepuram permission was granted to quarry and transport of rough stone and earth at S.No.243/5, 244/1,2,5,9, 10 and 11 over an extent of 2.58.5 hectares in Palayaseevaram Village, Kancheepuram Taluk for five years from 30.05.2008 to 29.05.2013 under the provision of Rule 19A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959 and executed the lease agreement. According to the condition 15 of the lease agreement, the registered holder shall abide by the conditions laid down in the payment of wages act, 1936 (Central Act 1936) Mines Act 1952 *Central act XXXV of 1952 and the Indian Explosive Act 1884 (Central act IV of 1884). The Superintendent of Police in his letter G2/317/30729/2012 dated 31.08.2012 has reported, that as per instructions the Inspector of Police, Maraimalai Nagar, Inspector of Police, Palur and other police officials have conducted surprise raid at Palayaseevaram and Sankarapuram Village, Kancheepuram on 08.06.2012. During the course of inspection on that day at about 1.45 p.m. in the premises of stone quarry lease hold area held by Thiru.Antony Gomez, it was noticed that (i) Electric Detonator 358 nos. (ii) detonators with electric wires 429 nos. (iii)Ammonium Hydrate packed rolls 131 nos., (iv)Gelatin sticks 138 Nos. (v)Boosters 135 Nos. (vi) cables 346 (vi)Ammonium Nitrate seven bags weighing 25 Kg each were kept in the premises. Apart from this a vehicle bearing No.AP-16-TV-5445 was stationed in the stone quarry premises and the Mamallapuram Custom officials were checking the vehicle. On verification, 340 bags of Ammonium Nitrate were found in the vehicle. The Police officials have prepared mahazar and seized the electric detonators, detonator with electric wires, Ammonium Hydrate, Gelatin sticks, boosters, cable and ammonium nitrate 7 bags (25 kg each) in rolls, allowing explosives substances which were kept in the premises without valid license.
18.The possession of explosive materials without proper account is an offence and under section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substance Act 2001, a case has been registered against the persons involved vide FIR No.225 of 2012 dated 08.06.2012 in the Police Station, Palur, Chengleput Taluk. The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram has requested to cancel the lease granted for the violation of rules. As per the conditions of the lease agreement in para 15 executed by the petitioner, the registered holder shall abide by the conditions laid down under the Indian Explosive Act 1884 (Central act IV of 1884).
19.The petitioner has stated that he has appointed Thiru.Dhanakoteeswaran as licensed vendor for handling explosive materials. He has indulged in certain irregularities and that he was removed from service on 28.02.2012. Subsequently one Thiru.K.Balasundaram, license holder was appointed from 05.03.2012, who is handling the blasting operation. In this connection, that lapses were noticed by the Police officials at the time of inspection. Since the petitioner has violated the conditions of the lease agreement and the criminal case is pending against the petitioner and FIR has been filed for the offence committed under the Indian Explosive Substance Act 2011, the petitioner is personally responsible for such a grave offence.
20.Regarding the averments in Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7, it is submitted that the averment made in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the affidavit are untenable. During the course of inspection by the Inspector of Police, Maraimalai Nagar and Palur on 08.06.2012 it was noticed that the Electric detonator, with electric wires, Ammonium Hydrate, Gelatin sticks, Boosters, cable ammonium nitrate were kept in the premises. Apart from this, a vehicle bearing Registration No.AP16-TV-5445 was stationed in the stone quarry premises and the Mamallapuram customs officials were checking the vehicle. Therefore the possession of explosive materials as stated above is clear violation of rules and that the possession of the Explosive materials without proper account is an offence and under Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act 2001, a case has been registered against the persons involved including the petitioner as per FIR No.225/2012 dated 08.06.2012 in the Police Station Palur, Chengalpattu Taluk. Further, the contention of the petitioner that he had no knowledge as to the usage and handling of the explosives in blasting operation and transportation of the ammonium nitrate is totally not acceptable. As the crime has been detected in the premises of the petitioner's quarry, the petitioner is personally held responsible for such offence committed.
21.Regarding the averment in Paragraph 8, it is submitted that the averment made in paragraph 8 of the affidavit is untenable. The petitioner's contention that due to enmity the said Dhanakoteeswaran has implicated his name in Crime No.225 of 2012 is not acceptable. During the course inspection by the authorities concerned that the ammonium nitrate and other explosive materials were found in the quarry site held by the petitioner and it is well established that the explosive materials such ammonium nitrate and ammonium hydrate were in possession in contravention to the provisions of the Explosive Substance Act 2001. Therefore, the Inspector of Police, Palur Police station has filed FIR No.225 of 2012 under Explosive Substance Act 2001.
22.Regarding the averments in Paragraphs 9 and 10, it is submitted that the averment made in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the affidavit are untenable. It is stated by him that one Thiru.Dhanakoteeswaran has falsely implicated his name in the above crime No.225 of 2012. In this connection, it is submitted that case is pending for trial in Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpattu. However, the explosive substances were detected at the premises of the petitioner's quarry site and that he had contravened the Explosive Substance Act 2001. The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram in his reference G2/317/30729/2012 dated 31.08.2012 has requested to take action for the cancellation of the stone quarry lease granted to the petitioner, since the possession of the explosive substances in unlawful manner in the leasehold area. Since the offence committed is great and grave crime, the lease was immediately cancelled by the respondent in the Proceedings Rc.499/2012-Q3 dated 10.05.2013 after affording opportunity of personal enquiry and after following all the formalities as per law. After taking into various documents which are relied upon, it is necessary for the respondent to cancel the lease by an order dated 10.05.2013 since the possession of the Explosive Substances is an offence under the provision of the Explosive Substance Act 2001. The petitioner if aggrieved by the order of cancellation, ought to have filed an appeal but without exhausting the appeal remedy has filed this writ petition.
23.Regarding the averment in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13, it is submitted that the averments made in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the affidavit are untenable. The Inspector of Police, Maraimalai Nagar and Palur Police station have conducted inspection of the premises of the lease hold area premises and found the explosive materials were stored in contravene to the Explosive Substance Act 2001 and Registered the case in FIR No.225 of 2012 dated 08.06.2012. During the personal Enquiry the petitioner had not adduced any substantial evidence and records in support of his claim. Based on the records and materials as recommended by the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram, considering the gravity of the crime committed by the petitioner, the stone quarry lease was cancelled in respondents Proceedings Rc.499/2012 Q3 dated 10.05.2013. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner to grant permission to quarry and transport of rough stone for lapses period of 267 days in lieu of non operative period from 10.09.2012 to 29.05.2013 does not conform to the Rule and act. Further, the lease period is already over and therefore the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner deserves no consideration and liable to be dismissed. The various grounds raised are unsustainable and devoid of merits.
24.It is submitted that the averment made in grounds (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the affidavit are untenable. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 10.05.2013 is well within the provisions of rules. The petitioner has violated the conditions 15 of lease agreement executed by him. It is left to the petitioner to defend the case before the Judicial Magistrate's Court. The explosive materials including ammonium nitrate were found in the premises of the petitioner's quarry site. The petitioner was heard personally and he has not adduced any further evidence to support his claim. Hence, the offence committed is proved and orders passed on the materials available. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner is disputing facts and hence the writ petition is not maintainable.
25.It is submitted that the averment on grounds (v), (vi), (vii), (ix), (x) of the affidavit are untenable. The petitioner was issued with transport permit for a total quantity of 13800 cum from 04.04.2012 to 03.09.2012. The petitioner has called for a copy of the letter dated 31.08.2012 received from the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram. It is submitted that the letter dated 31.08.2012 was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram. Therefore, the petitioner should have applied to the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram who is competent to issue the copy applied for. The petitioner was called for personal enquiry on 01.04.2013. He has sent representation on 01.04.2013 narrating that he has not committed the offence by possessing the explosive materials as alleged. The petitioner has not adduced any additional materials in support of his claim. Therefore, after taking into various materials available and as per the records available, the respondent has passed orders cancelling the lease in respondents proceedings Rc.499/2012 Q3 dated 10.05.2013. Therefore, the lease was cancelled and that the transport permit applied for thereafter was not considered, for the above reasons.
26.Regarding the averment in Paragraphs 14 and 15, it is submitted that the averment made in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the affidavit are untenable. The petitioner has committed the offence which is a grave crime, the respondent has passed orders cancelling the lease as the petitioner is responsible for such lapses and committed the crime. Further, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of the lease, he is at liberty to file an appeal before the competent authority but he has not done so. The extension of lease applied for in lieu of non operative period deserves no consideration as the offence committed is serious in nature and also there is no rule provision to extend the lease period after the expiry of lease.
27.It is submitted that the averment made in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of the affidavit are untenable. It is submitted that the present case is different from other cases cited in the affidavit for the reasons that the quarry operation was stopped due to the court directions / objections in the later stage, it was found that the ex-lessee have not committed the offence. Therefore, the ex-lessee's request was considered based on this Court direction. In the present writ petition case has been registered under Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substance Act, 2001 in the Police Station, Palur, Chengalpattu Taluk vide FIR No.225/2012 dated 08.06.2012 and the case is pending.
28.It is submitted that the averment made in paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 of the affidavit are untenable. Since the case was taken up for investigation and filed in the Judicial Magistrate's Court it is not open to the petitioner to seek remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
29.It is submitted that the averment made in paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 of the affidavit are untenable. The respondent has passed orders cancelling the lease granted to the petitioner since it involves criminal cases filed against the petitioner under the Explosive Substance Act 2001. Further according to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in SLP.MP.19628-29629 of 2009 dated 27.02.2012 the leases of mineral including their renewal for an area of less than 5 ha. be granted by the States / UTS only after getting environmental clearance from the MoEF, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority. Therefore, the grant of lease / permission to quarry and transport of mineral should conform to the norms of Environment Clearance from the MoEF. Hence, if fresh period is given, they have to get Environment clearance.
30.Moreover, the petitioner has filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition with a prayer to stay all proceedings in crime No.225 of 2012 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram. This Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1 of 2014 in Crl.OP.No.6882 of 2014 dated 26.03.2014 has ordered interim stay. Therefore, the criminal case filed against the petitioner has not been disposed and that the prayer of the petitioner for the grant of extension of lease for 267 days in lieu of non operative period from 10.09.2012 to 29.05.2012 does not conform to the Rules and Act.
31.It is submitted that no prima facie case is made and the lease cancelled by the respondent is well within the provisions of Rules. Further, the lease period had expired on 29.05.2013. The petitioner has violated the condition 15 of the Lease agreement and was also in possession of the ammonium Nitrate and other explosive materials without obtaining license and that criminal action has been taken under Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substance Act 2001 and filed FIR 225 of 2012 dated 08.06.2012 at Palur Police Station. There is no rule provision to extend the lease period after the expiry of the lease. Further, the criminal case is pending disposal in the Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpattu. Considering the various facts of the case, it is prayed that this Court may please vacate interim order granted in MP.No.3 of 2014 in WP.No.9829 of 2014 on 04.04.2014 till 25.04.2014 and also dismiss the WP.No.9829 of 2014 with exemplary cost and thus render justice.
32.The highly competent senior counsel Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy submits that the writ petitioner was granted lease to quarry stone and earth soil by the first respondent dated 30.05.2008 to 29.05.2013. He had lease deed executed by the first respondent in favour of the petitioner. As per the condition of the lease deed, the petitioner was carrying on the quarry operation within the leasehold area. The petitioner engaged one Dhanakoteeswaran, an explosive licence holder for blasting operations after making an agreement between them. The said Dhanakoteeswaran had broken the said agreement, hence the petitioner entered into a new agreement with another explosive licence holder on 05.03.2012. Under the circumstances, the Station House Officer who is attached to the Palur Police Station registered a criminal case in Crime No.225 of 2012 on 08.06.2012 against one Krishnan and six others stating that the Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station had seized some quarry explosive substances from the licence holder besides they interrupted a lorry bearing Registration No.AP16-TV-5445 found nearly the quarry site and seized electric detonators, ammonium nitrate rolls. Thereafter, the investigation officer had collected confession statement from the accused No.3 and registered a case under Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substance Act. In the said case, the petitioner's rank is A4. The respondents had denied the transport permit from 10.09.2012 since the criminal case had been levelled including the petitioner. Actually the petitioner had engaged the services of an explosive licence holder for blasting work in the quarry operation and no incriminating explosive materials had been recovered from the petitioner's possession. The first respondent had issued a show cause notice on 03.10.2012 and asked him an explanation for cancelling the lease. The writ petitioner made a representation on various dates to the first respondent and requested him to obtain a report from the police. The first respondent had not received a report from the concerned police. However, the petitioner had submitted his explanation on 19.04.2013 to the first respondent, thereafter the first respondent cancelled the lease and licence of the petitioner.
33.The highly competent senior counsel further submits that the writ petition has filed a petition before this Court to quash the criminal case in Crime No.225 of 2012 on the file of Palur Police Station, this Court was please to grant interim stay on 26.03.2004, as such the criminal proceedings cannot be operated any further. Therefore, the first respondent's order for cancelling the lease is maintainable since it was passed on the ground of the said criminal case. The petitioner was not permitted to carry out quarry operation from 10.09.2012, hence the petitioner had sent a representation to the first respondent on 18.03.2014 to permit him to carry out the quarry operation for the unutilized period of 248 days since no fault has not been committed and not violating any of the terms and conditions as per the lease agreement. This Court had granted interim stay on 17.06.2014 and stayed the cancellation of the lease by the first respondent. Under the circumstance, the District Collector has passed an order to conduct a detailed inspection by his subordinates. The inspection team of officers have been chosen with a malafide intention at the behest of the Assistant Director, Geology and Mining by name Mr.Kandan who has been arrayed as the third respondent in the connected writ petition No.14505 of 2014. As per the lease condition, the petitioner is permitted to utilize the minimum explosive substance after being recognized by the authorities. Accordingly the petitioner had availed the service of an authorized explosive licence holder under the deed of a blasting agreement with one Mr.Balasundaram whose duty and obligation of the explosive material under his control as per the conditions incorporated in the explosive licence. Therefore, the petitioner had not violated any norms or not being involved in any offence, as such the impugned order for cancelling the quarry licence passed by the District Collector is not valid. Further, the explosive substance was not been found in the petitioner's possession. The criminal case had been levelled including the petitioner on the strength of A1 to A3 confessional statement provided to the investigating officer.
34.The very competent counsel further submits that the petitioner had absolutely adhered to the terms and conditions mentioned in the lease agreement and operated the quarry. Due to the criminal case the petitioner was prevented from operating the said quarry for an unutilized period of 248 days which is unjustifiable and also violates the conditions on lease and licence granted by the first respondent dated 30.05.2008. Therefore, the petitioner may be given to operate the quarry for the remaining period of 240 days. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to allow the above writ petition.
35.The highly competent Additional Advocate General Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian submits that the petitioner was granted permission to quarry to transport stone and earth soil for a period of five years from 13.05.2008 in his patta land situated in Palayaseevaram Village, Kancheepuram District to an extent of 2.58.5 hectares. The said lease period had expired on 29.05.2013. The lessee has operated the quarry and transported the stone after remitting the necessary seigniorage fee as stipulated in the rules. The Superintendent of Police at Kancheepuram and his subordinates namely the Inspector of Police, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station and Inspector of Police, Palur Police Station and other police personnel had conducted surprise raid at Pallayaseevaram Village and Sankarapuram Village on 08.06.2012. During the course of inspection in the premises of stone quarry lease hold area held by the petitioner, it was noticed that electric detonators of 353 Nos., detonators with electric wire 429 Nos., ammonia hydrate packed rolls 131 Nos., Gelatin sticks 128 Nos., Boosters 135 Nos., Cables 346 Nos., ammonia nitrate 7 bags weighing 25 kgs. each were kept on the premises. Apart from this a vehicle bearing Registration No.AP-16-TV-5445 was stationed in the stone quarry premises and the Mamallapuram custom officials were checking the vehicles. On verification 340 bags of ammonia nitrate were found in the vehicle. The police officials had seized the said goods under Mahazar and registered a criminal case in Crime No.225 of 2012 on the file of Palur Police Station dated 08.06.2012 as alleged under Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substance Act. As such, the writ petitioner had violated the lease and licence conditions for quarrying operations.
36.The very competent counsel further submits that the first respondent had given an opportunity and obtained explanation from the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed, therefore, the above writ petition is not maintainable. The criminal case report clearly reveals that the petitioner was possessing explosive substances in the lease hold area without a valid licence and violated the rules as per Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Further, the petitioner cannot challenge the first respondent's order before this Court. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the first respondent's impugned order he has to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Geology and Mining. Further, the lease had not been granted after obtaining environmental clearance from the concerned authorities. The criminal case stayed by this Court, but not quashed so far. The investigation officer is prepared to establish the prosecution case against the petitioner under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act by producing material evidence, documentary evidence besides eye witnesses. The police officials made on request to the first respondent for cancelling the lease of licence in order to carry out quarrying of soil and stone on the ground of it being an heinous offence which has been committed by the petitioner. The first respondent had conducted a comprehensive enquiry after affording sufficient opportunities to the petitioner and then the impugned order had been passed which is fit to be proceeded with further. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition.
37.On considering the above discussion, this Court is of the view that (1)The first respondent / District Collector had granted stone and earth soil quarry lease for a period of five years i.e. from 30.05.2008 to 29.05.2013. The respondents have stopped issuing the transport permit from 10.09.2012 to 10.05.2013, it clearly proves that the petitioner is unable to carry out the quarry operation for which he obtained a licence for lease. As such, the petitioner had not completed his five years period, as per the original lease agreement dated 30.05.2008. (2)The Inspector of Police, who is attached to the Palur Police Station and had registered a criminal case in Crime No.225 of 2012 dated 08.06.2012 on his file for an alleged offence under Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substance Act 2001. The said criminal case has been stayed by this Court, under the circumstances, the respondents cannot treat the petitioner as an offender, before deciding the petitioner cannot be prevented from operating the quarry for the rest of the period as per the original agreement. No one is guilty until he is proven so. As such the Superintendent of Police, who is attached to the Kancheepuram District had recommended to the first respondent for cancelling the lease and licence on the ground that the petitioner was possessing explosive material, however the recommendation was made at the preliminary stage and not on the basis of a Court verdict. Further, the Superintendent of Police is not a competent authority to decide that the petitioner is guilty before conducting trial at the Court. Therefore, the view taken by the first respondent / District Collector on the recommendation of the District Superintendent of Police, the impugned order will be prejudiced to the petitioner and run against the principle of natural justice. As such the impugned order becomes infructuous. (3)This Court was pleased to stay the criminal proceedings in Crime No.225 of 2012 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Palur Police Station, which had been levelled against the petitioner since the petitioner is having a prima facie case, besides the petitioner has been implicated as a co-accused on the strength of confessional statement rendered by the co-accused. (4)The petitioner made an agreement with M/s.Lakshmi Explosives besides the explosive licence is also in the name of M/s.Lakshmi Explosives. As such, the explosive substance may not be in the possession of the petitioner at all time. Further, the deed of blasting agreement made between the petitioner and one Balasundaram, therefore there is no possibility that the petitioner is utilizing the explosive substance. The criminal case is also levelled against the said Balasundaram in Crime No.225 of 2012.
38.On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on reviewing the views mentioned in points 1 to 4 as above, this Court is inclined to allow the above writ petition. Consequently, the impugned order in Rc.No.449/2012-03 dated 10.05.2013, passed by the first respondent is quashed. Further, this Court directs the respondents to issue transport permit to carry out the quarry operation for the unused lease period i.e. between 10.09.2012 to 29.05.2013. Accordingly ordered. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
vs/ub Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No To 1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. 2.The Deputy Director, Geology and Mining, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.