Madras High Court
The District Collector vs K.A.Gunasekaran on 24 July, 2014
Bench: Satish K.Agnihotri, M.M.Sundresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.07.2014 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.A.No.918 of 2014 & M.P.No.1 of 2014 1.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri. 2.The Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Department of Geology and Mining, Collectorate, Krishnagiri. ... Appellants Vs. K.A.Gunasekaran .. Respondent PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 05.09.2013 made in W.P.No.13028 of 2013 on the file of this Court. For Appellant : Mr.N.Srinivasan, Additional Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.V.Sanjeevi JUDGMENT
The appellants herein were the respondents before the learned single Judge. The respondent herein was granted lease by the appellants. During the currency of the lease, a request was made by the District Forest Officer, Hosur, to cancel the lease. Accordingly, the first appellant asked the respondent to stop the quarrying operation and in pursuant to which, the quarrying operation was stopped. Thereafter, in pursuant to the communication sent by the District Forest Officer, Hosur, the respondent was permitted to continue the quarrying operation till the end of the lease period. As the representation made by the respondent was not considered by the appellants, the respondent filed writ petition in W.P.No.13028 of 2013 before the learned single Judge seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to quarry and transport stones from the leasehold land, bearing S.F.No.329 (Part-5), admeasuring 5.00.0 Hectares in Halekottah Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, for a period of 3 years and 10 months from the date of issue of transport permit after 09.06.2013 , i.e. the date of expiry of lease.
2. The learned single Judge, after noting the fact that for no fault of the respondent, the quarrying operation was stopped. Thereafter, the respondent was permitted in view of the subsequent communication sent by the District Forest Officer, Hosur. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to do the quarrying operation for the remaining period. Challenging the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submitted that as the period has been fixed for quarrying operation, the respondent cannot claim for the extension of the period as a matter of right. Hence, it is submitted that the writ appeal will have to be entertained by staying the order passed by the learned single Judge.
4. We do not find any merit in this appeal. The facts involved in the present case are not in dispute. The respondent was asked to stop the quarrying operation in view of the objection raised by the District Forest Officer, Hosur. Thereafter, the very same District Forest Officer, withdrew his objection. Accordingly, the respondent was permitted to continue the quarrying operation. The respondent only sought for the permission to quarry for the interregnum period during which he was stopped from doing so by the appellants in pursuant to the objection raised by the District Forest Officer, Hosur. Therefore, the respondent was not at fault. The respondent do not have any connection with the District Forest Officer, Hosur.
5. On the contrary, it is the appellants, who made the respondent to stop the quarrying operation, in view of the objection raised by the District Forest Officer, Hosur. The very fact that the objection was withdrawn and thereafter, the respondent was permitted to quarry subsequently itself is a sufficient factor for the respondent to continue for the period during which he was not permitted to do the quarrying operation. Therefore, the learned single Judge by taking into consideration the element of fairness, particularly, when the decision was made by the appellants and the respondent has not committed any error coupled with the fact that he has complied with all the conditions, including the required payment. We do not find any error in the order passed by the leaned single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.K.A.,A.C.J.) (M.M.S.,J.) 24.07.2014 Index:Yes/No raa To
1.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
2.The Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Department of Geology and Mining, Collectorate, Krishnagiri.
The Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice and M.M.Sundresh,J.
raa W.A.No.918 of 2014 24.07.2014