Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

M/S.Prp Granites vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 October, 2014

Author: C.S.Karnan

Bench: C.S.Karnan

       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:   08/ 10  /2014

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN

W.P.No.20166 of 2013 &
M.P.No.1 of 2013


M/s.PRP Granites,
Rep. by its Partner Mr.P.Senthilkumar,
Near Veerakaliamman Koil,
Keelavalavu, Melur Taluk,
Madurai District.	   			  	...	Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
   Rep. by its Secretary,
   Industries Department,
   Fort St. George,
   Chennani - 600 009.

2.The District Collector,
   Madurai District,
   Madurai.							...  	 Respondents

PRAYER:  Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents, their agents, subordinates, officers and men etc., in any way dealing with waste, overburden, rejects and non-saleable granite blocks etc., stored / lying either in the vacant patta lands of the petitioner or in the vacant patta lands in respect of which the petitioner got surface rights or in the vacant lands of the Government which are situated either in the adjoining or nearby lease granted patta lands of the petitioner measuring 8.41 acres in Survey Nos.684/2A etc., situated in Navinipatti Village, Melur Taluk, 2-67 acres, in Survey No.69/1 etc., 5.61 acres in Survey No.92/1 etc., 2.56 acres, in Survey No.113/1 etc., 5.00 acres in Survey No.30/1B etc., situated in Keelaiyur Village, 17.92 acres, in Survey No.71/4 etc., 6.15 acres, in Survey No.62/1 etc., 3.84 acres, in Survey No.63/1A etc., 5.34 acres in Survey No.298/3A1 etc., Keelavalavu Village, 7.16 acres, in Survey No.268/1 etc., situated in Keelavalavu and Saruguvalayapatti Villages, 7.20 acres in Survey No.221/1A1 etc., 6.89 acres in Survey No.321/1, etc., 2.54 acres in Survey No.214/2 etc., 6.83 acres, in Survey No.7/12 etc., 9.42 acres, in Survey No.225/3 etc., 3.64 acres, in Survey No.237/1 etc, situated in E.Malampatti Village, and all the five villages situated in Melur Taluk, Madurai District, 15-45 acres in Survey No.197/1A1(P) etc.,  situated in Poolampatti Village, 29.31 acres in Survey No.56/1 etc., situated in Sivalingam & Thirumohur Villages and 16.62 acres in Survey No.3/1 etc., situated in Karuppukkal Village and all the four Villages are situated in Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District till the completion of the investigation and adjudication and till the disposal of the matters pending before the Hon'ble Courts. 

	(Prayer amended as per order dated 14.08.2013 by DHPJ in M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2013 in W.P.Nos.20166 and 20167 of 2013.)

		For Petitioner		: Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Senior Counsel
				 	  For Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy
		For Respondents	: Mr.A.L.Somaiyaji
					  Advocate General
				 	  Assisted by Mr.P.Pugalenthi
					  Additional Government Pleader	
- - -








CAV on  08/08/2014 and pronounced on     /10/2014

O R D E R

The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner submits that the petitioner's company is a registered Partnership Firm and he is the partner of the petitioner Company. The petitioner submits that he is owning several granite bearing patta lands in Madurai District. He applied for granite quarrying leases in respect of some of the said patta lands by complying with all necessary formalities and requirements. The first respondent, viz., the Secretary, who is attached to the Industries Department granted granite quarry leases in favour of the petitioner by issuing different Government Orders, which are subsisting and are in force. The quarries are situated at Navinipatti, Keelaiyur, Keelavalavu, Saruguvalayapatti, E.Malampatti, Poolampatti, Sivalingam & Thirumohur and Karuppukkal.

2. The petitioner additionally added that after execution of the respective lease agreements, the petitioner undertook quarrying operations in the above said lease granted areas. The quarrying operations are being carried out by strictly following the conditions of the lease and the laws governing the grants. There are no violations whatsoever in the said quarry operations and also there are no illegalities or irregularities regarding the same. The petitioner further submits that the entire mining field is under the Union control as per Section 2 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Under Section 15 of the said Act, power has been delegated to the State Government to frame Rule in respect of Minor Minerals. Exercising power under Section 15 of the Act, the State of Tamil Nadu framed Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959. The first respondent granted the above mentioned quarrying leases under Section 19-A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959. The lease agreements are executed as per Appendix IV of the said Rules. Since each state is used to frequently change the Minor Mineral Concession Rules thereby making uncertainty regarding the period of lease and the procedure for granting of leases in respect of granite, on the representation of the All India Granite Quarry Operations and Exporters Association, the Central Government framed Granite Conservation and Development Rules 1999, which came into effect from 01.06.1999, to have an uniform policy throughout India for granting of granite quarrying leases and for the purposes connected therewith.

3. The petitioner further submits that as per Rule 12 of the said Granite Conservation and Development Rules 1999, Mining Plan is a pre-requisite to the grant of granite quarrying lease. In view of the said requirement by G.O.Ms.No.86, Industries Department, dated 22.02.2001, Rule 19-A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules has been amended incorporating the requirement of mining plan. As per the said Rules the mining operations shall be strictly in accordance with the approved mining plan. There is no specific rule in the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959 regarding the storing of quarried mineral either marketable or non marketable materials. But as per Clause 1 of Appendix IV of the said Rules, the waste generated during quarrying operation shall be stored only on the lease hold area. The lease agreements also have the said condition stating that the quarried mineral shall be stored only in the lease granted area. The relevant clause 1 of Appendix IV of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959 reads as follows:-

"1. The registered holder shall be at liberty at all times during the period of the lease to carry on mining operations for .......... in the said lands in a proper and workman like manner and to deposit mining waste on the said lands and shall at all times be answerable and accountable to the Government for all the acts and defaults by any of his nominees, servants or agents in carrying on such operations or in making such deposit."

Since the valuable granite deposit bearing area of the lease granted area was wasted for storing quarried mineral including waste, the Central Government, taking note of the said fact, has specifically introduced Rule 22 in the said Granite Conservation and Development Rules 1999 directing to store / stock the non saleable granite away from the lease granted area and the said rule reads as follows:-

"22. Separate stacking of non-saleable granite. - (1) The non-saleable granite rejects at quarry bottom should regularly be collected and transported to the surface and the quarry floor kept reasonably clear of debris.
(2) Small granite blocks from such non-saleable granite suitable for possible use in manufacture of bricks as well as flooring or wall tiles by small scale industries sector shall not be used as road metal or stone aggregate and such material shall be segregated from the dumps of granite rejects and stored separately for future use as far as possible, whenever such dumps are worked for recovery of stone aggregate or used as quarry backfill.
(3) The ground selected for dumping of top soil, overburden, waste mineral or non-saleable granite shall be away from working quarry.
(4) Before starting mining or quarrying operations, conceptual ultimate limits of the quarry shall be determined and dumping ground shall be so selected that dumping is not carried out within the limits of ultimate size of the quarry except where simultaneous back filling is proposed."

4. The petitioner additionally stated that the Granite Conservation and Development Rules 1999 framed by the Central Government under Section 18 of the Act came into effect on and from 01.06.1999, which overrides the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959 framed by the State Government under Section 15 of the Act. Hence, as per the above mentioned Rule 22 of the Granite Conservation and Development Rules 1999, the wast materials shall be stored outside the lease granted area. In compliance of the said Rule 22 and as per the trade practice, the petitioner stored waste materials outside the lease granted areas and in the adjoining Government poromboke lands and in the adjoining patta lands. In view of the above mentioned statutory restriction and stipulation and in view of maximum utilization of the lease granted area for the purpose of quarrying, the petitioner stored temporarily waste, overburden, rejects and non-saleable materials in the respective adjoining Government poromboke lands or in the adjoining patta lands. The said storage will be for a limited period i.e., till the materials are transported from the subject areas with the valid transport permits issued by the second respondent or till the debris is used for refilling the quarried pits as per the statutory requirement. The said temporary storage of the materials in the respective adjoining Government poromboke lands or in the patta lands of the petitioner's lease granted areas is a trade practice prevailing throughout Tamil Nadu and is never objected by either the Mining Department or by the Revenue Department. The petitioner further submits that facts being the above, former District Collector of Madurai District Mr.U.Sahayam, is said to have submitted an exparte report dated 19.05.2012 alleging that illegal quarrying and removal of granite took place in the Madurai District. The said report admittedly is not only imaginary but also based on presumptions and assumptions. Based on the said exparte report, the present District Collector of Madurai District, by proceedings dated 01.08.2012, constituted 18 investigating teams consisting of subordinate officers and Village Administrative Officers as if the first respondent delegated power to the second respondent to constitute such fact finding teams. Based on the alleged reports of the said 18 investigating teams, the second respondent issued show cause notice pertaining to the above mentioned lease granted quarries of the petitioner alleging that as per the said exparte reports, the petitioner is alleged to have indulged in illegal quarrying and removal of thousands of cubic meters of granite. The said notices were issued with foreclosed mind, pre-judging and pre-concluding that the petitioner indulged in the alleged illegal quarrying and transportation of granite. Aggrieved by the said pre-judged notices, the petitioner moved writ petitions before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. The said writ petitions were heard finally and orders are reserved.

5. The petitioner further submits that apart from the said notices of the second respondent which are the subject matters of batch of writ petitions, the first respondent, based on the recommendations of the second respondent and on the alleged exparte reports alleging that the petitioner indulged in illegal quarrying and removal of granite, had issued orders suspending quarry operations in some of the above mentioned petitioner's lease granted patta land quarries. Aggrieved by the said G.O.'s of the first respondent, the petitioner moved writ petitions before this Court and Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. The said writ petitions were entertained and interim stay of operation of the respective G.O's of the first respondent was granted and the said batch of writ petitions are pending. Apart from the above mentioned notices of the second respondent and the first respondent's orders of the suspension of quarry operations, the first respondent also issued show cause notices / letters to the petitioner in respect of some of the lease granted patta lands of the petitioner alleging that no quarry operations were carried on continuously for a period of two years and as such, asking the petitioner to show cause why the respective lease shall not be declared deemed as lapsed under Section 4-A(4) of the Act. The allegation in the said notices is that in some of the quarries, only earth was being removed and no evidence of quarrying was seen, but materials are stored and transport permits were obtained and in some of the quarries not even earth was removed but transport permits were obtained etc. Aggrieved by the said notices, the petitioner moved writ petitions before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. The said batch of writ petitions were heard and orders reserved. The petitioner further stated that all the above mentioned show cause notices of the second respondent, orders of the first respondent suspending quarry operations and notices of the first respondent directing the petitioner to show cause why respective leases shall not be declared deemed as lapsed are directly connected with the alleged illegal quarrying and removal of granite both from the lease granted patta land as well as from the adjoining Government poromboke lands of the respective lease granted patta lands of the petitioner.

6. The petitioner additionally added that facts being the above, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner and it seems on the advice and instructions of the first respondent, the second respondent issued another public notice which appeared in "Daily Dinamani Daily" of Madurai Edition dated 21.04.2013 stating that the materials lying in the adjacent or nearby Government lands of the lease granted areas will be put up for public auction. The quarry operations / public were put on notice stating that if anyone is having claim over the said materials, the same may be made within 15 days from the date of the said public notice.

7. The petitioner additionally added that as stated earlier, the petitioner stored temporary waste, overburden, rejects and non saleable materials in the above mentioned Government poromboke lands or patta lands of the petitioner's respective lease granted areas. Hence, the petitioner by letter dated 02.05.2013 claimed ownership in respect of the materials lying in the adjacent or nearby poromboke lands or patta lands of the petitioner's lease granted areas. By the said letter, the petitioner denied the other allegations contained in the said public notice. On receipt of the said letter of the petitioner dated 02.05.2013, by letter dated 08.05.2013, the second respondent directed the petitioner to produce relevant records in proof of the said claim knowing fully well that all the documents and records including computer hard disks were seized by the police pursuant to the orders of the Division Bench. The second respondent also is fully aware of the writ petitions filed against the show cause notices of the second respondent and suspension orders and deemed lapses, notices of the first respondent which are based on the alleged exparte reports of illegal quarrying and removal of granite. The respondents also are fully aware of the undertaking given by the Special Government Pleader of Madurai Bench not to do anything further pursuant to the show cause notices, deemed lapses notices etc., pending disposal of the respective writ petitions. In spite of the said undertaking and in spite of the fact that the status quo of the said materials shall be maintained till the writ petitions are disposed, the second respondent decided to deal with the subject materials contrary to the said undertaking. Hence, the petitioner issued contempt notice dated 15.05.2013 through his counsel. As stated earlier, waste, overburden, rejected and non saleable materials quarried from the respective lease granted patta lands of the petitioner are stored / kept temporarily in the above mentioned adjoining Government poromboke lands. Hence, the maintenance of status quo regarding the said materials is just and necessary so as to prove the ownership of the subject materials and to prove innocence of the petitioner about the alleged illegal quarrying and transportation of granites both from the lease granted patta lands of the petitioner as well as from the respective adjoining Government poromboke lands.

8. The petitioner additionally submitted that apart from the above, the most significant aspect and mandatory requirement to maintain status quo is to prove and establish that the percentage of recovery in the subject area is only less than 20% and not 90% as claimed by the second respondent. In fact as per the technical report of the Anna University Experts, the recovery percentage in the subject area is 12% to 15%. Whereas all these years, the second respondent himself was issuing similar notices admitting the percentage of recovery as 20%. Based on the said false and baseless statement of 90% recovery, all the above mentioned show cause notices, suspension orders and deemed lapse notice etc., were issued. No documentary evidence was furnished to prove that the petitioner indulged in any illegal quarrying or illegal transportation and that the percentage of recovery is 90% and not 20% in the subject area. The said non saleable materials lying both in the quarrying area and in the adjacent Government poromboke lands or in the adjoining patta lands shall be kept intact and is just and necessary. Knowing fully well that the percentage of recovery in the subject area is less than 20%, the first respondent blindly followed the alleged recovery percentage at 90% as claimed by the second respondent, totally without non application of mind and on the said basis, orders have been passed by the first respondent suspending quarry operations. The petitioner further submits that based on the said exparte report of the former District Collector Mr.U.Sahayam and based on the alleged reports of the fact finding inspection teams and on the instructions and advice of the first respondent, the second respondent and the police, started harassing the quarry owners and quarrying workman and also started arresting whoever entered the subject areas, thereby making the subject area as a war zone and as a prohibited area for public entry. In view of the said facts and from August 2012 till date, no one is able to enter into the subject areas except the persons authorized or permitted by the second respondent and the police. In view of heavy movement of vehicles of the said 18 investigating teams, media persons both print media and TV media, the entire area now looks like a common area without any boundaries as evidenced by the media coverage of the subject areas.

9. The petitioner additionally submits that apart from the above mentioned show cause notices of the second respondent, suspension orders of the first respondent and the show cause notices of the second respondent, the Police have registered hundreds of FIRs for the said alleged violations / offences and for all the said matters, the material evidences for the petitioner to prove the innocence are the said materials lying in the respective lands. Hence, it is just and necessary to maintain status quo regarding the stock of non saleable materials, debris, waste and rejects kept at the adjoining Government lands of the subject quarries of the petitioner. If the said materials are allowed to be dealt with by the respondents, the petitioner will be left with no evidence to prove their innocence and to substantiate the claim and ownership of the said materials. In view of the said factual aspects and ground realities, the respondents do not have any jurisdiction to deal with the legally quarried mineral, pending investigation and when the matters are subjudice. Apart from the same, all the relevant records, account books and documents etc., of the petitioner's business have been seized by the Police as per the orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench. Unless the status quo regarding the subject materials is maintained, the petitioner may not be in a position to substantiate the entries contained in the said records pertaining to the production and removal of minerals from the subject lease granted areas of the petitioner. The action of the respondents are totally without jurisdiction, perse illegal, against law and against Principles of Natural Justice. Hence, the above writ petition has been filed.

10. The respondents have filed counter affidavit which are on the same lines and resisted the writ petition. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for writ of mandamus or for a direction forbearing the respondents, agent, officers and men etc., in any way dealing with waste, overburden, rejects and non-saleable granite block etc., stored or lying in the Government vacant lands in respect of which the petitioner got surface rights or in the vacant lands of the Government which are situated either in the adjoining or nearby lease granted patta lands of the petitioner measuring 11.42 acres in Survey Nos.788/3 etc., situated in A.Vellalapatti Village etc., The respondent further submits that the writ petition is not maintainable either in law or facts and liable to be dismissed in limine. The writ petition is malicious and ill motivated and has been filed with an oblique motive,

(i) To prevent the Government from taking further course of action against illegal mining as per the provision under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, (ACT No.67 of 1957), the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999.

(ii) To defeat the lawful claim for the State Revenue.

The respondent further submits that the writ petitioner was not permitted either to take away any waste overburden, rejects and saleable etc., granite blocks from the lease hold area without the due permission obtained from the concerned authorities or authorized or permitted to store any waste overburden, rejects and saleable etc., granite blocks in the Government poromboke land other than the lease granted area. Any transport of Mineral without the permit of the Geology and Mining Department is an offence under the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. There is no legal right accrued on the writ petitioner to take away the minerals without the permission of the concerned authorities and to store the same anywhere either in the vacant patta lands of the petitioner or in the vacant patta lands in respect of which the petitioner got surface rights or in the vacant lands of the Government which are situated either in the adjoining or nearby lease granted patta lands of the petitioner as alleged by the writ petitioner. A duty is cast upon the respondents to prevent the illegal quarry activities under the provision of law and the claim of the writ petitioner is not legally sustainable. The relief of Mandamus claimed by the writ petitioner is against the provision of law and is not at all maintainable and therefore, liable to be dismissed in limini.

11. The respondent further submits that the writ petitioners had referred certain Survey Numbers in the prayer of their writ petitions. All those survey numbers referred by the writ petitioner in their prayer are lease granted areas of the writ petitioner firm to carry out granite quarry. The respondent further submits that the petitioner as partnership firms have obtained 56 granite quarries (P.R.P. Exports-30 Granite quarries, P.R.P. Granites - 19 Granite quarries, K.Murugesan - 5 Granite quarries, P.Senthilkumar - 2) in Madurai District. The leases were granted subject to the condition imposed in the respective Government orders. The condition No.VII of the Government orders for grant of lease is that the waste granite generated during quarrying operation shall be dumped in the lease hold area only. The quarry operation would be permitted only after the lessee executes an agreement in the form in appendix - IV. Rule 22 of the TNMMCR 1959 Rules binding him to accept the conditions and stipulations set out under the Rules. As per the terms and conditions of the lease, the lessee shall quarry stone only from the lease hold area and shall obtain permit for the transport of stone, jelly etc., from the Assistant Director / Deputy Director of Geology and Mining. For any breach of the Rules or the conditions of the lease, the lease shall be liable to be cancelled apart from the penalty with imprisonment for a term up to one year or with fine up to Rupees five thousand.

12. The respondent further submits that in Madurai District the Geological formation of granite bodies are massive in some extent without major sheer structure and tectonic disturbances. There are 175 granite leases granted over 43 Revenue Villages in Madurai District. The petitioner is having 56 leases. Several complaints have been received by the Government on the illegal granite quarry operations in Madurai District. On the directions of the Government the then District Collector conducted an inspection in the Granite quarries at Melur Taluk and submitted a preliminary report to the Government on large scale of violations and illegal quarrying by the lessees, causing a loss of several thousands of Crores to the Government. Based on the report, the Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Chennai had deputed a team of officers to carry out a comprehensive, systematic and scientific survey of granite quarries functioning in Madurai District. The respondent further submits that as per Section 24(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 for the purpose of ascertaining the position of the working, actual or prospective, of any mine or abandoned mine or for any other purpose connected with the Act or the rules made thereunder, any person authorized by the (Central Government or a State Government) in this behalf, by general order, may

(a) enter and inspect any mine;

(b) survey and take measurements in any such mine;

(c) weigh, measure or take measurements of the stocks of minerals lying at any mine;

(d) examine any document, book, register, or record in the possession or power of any person having the control of, or connected with, any mine and place, marks of identification thereon, and take extracts from or make copies of such document, book, register or record.

(e) order the production of any such document, book, register, as is referred to in Clause(d); and

(f) examine any person having the control of, or connected with any mine.

Accordingly, a comprehensive scientific and systematic survey was carried out by the officers authorized under Section 24(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 with modern sophisticated survey instrument viz., the "Digital Total Station" to find out the area and the volume of material quarried in the lease hold and in the none-lease hold area and to find out the various violations. The respondent further submits that the inspection report reveals that the petitioner's firm and their other partnership firms have indulged in illegal mining activities in the adjacent Government poromboke lands and in few cases in the non-leased patta lands apart from lease hold area and have illegally transported and stored the mineral contrary to the provisions of Section 4(1) and 4(1A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 and have committed other penal offences. The respondent further submits that the types of violations noticed during the inspection of the special teams among the 88 surveyed quarries are as follows:-

(i) Number of waterbodies destroyed .. 34
(ii) Illicit quarrying in patta and poromboke lands .. 55
(iii) Illicit quarrying in non leased patta lands .. 10
(iv) Violations of conditions of lease .. 65 In this regard so far 86 F.I.R. have been registered in connection with the illegal quarry operations on the granite quarries and for other connected offences. The investigations are almost completed in most of those cases. Further the special teams for inspection in their Evaluation report held that, the petitioner and their other partnership firms have not carried out the mining operation in a skillful, scientific and systematic manner keeping in view the conservation of minerals and preservation of environment and ecology of the area and thereby violated the provision under Rule 19-A(17) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessional Rules, 1959.
"(i) The petitioners have not provided the safety distance prescribed to the adjacent patta and Government poromboke lands, water bodies, foot path etc., and thereby violated the provision under Section 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessional Rules, 1959.
(ii) The petitioners have not erected the boundary marks around the area shown in the plan annexed to the lease agreement thereby violated the provision under Rule 36(4)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessional Rules, 1959.
(iii) The petitioners have not kept the correct accounts showing the quantity and other particulars of all minerals obtained and dispatched from the quarry thereby violated the provision under Section 36(5)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessional Rules, 1959.
(iv) The petitioners have not carried out the mining operation in accordance with the approved mining plan / scheme of mining and such condition as prescribed thereby violated the provision under Rule 19(1) of the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999.
(v) The petitioners have not carried out the mining operation in such a manner so as to ensure systematic development and conservation of granite deposits and protection of environment thereby violated the provision under Rule 20 of the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999.
(vi) The petitioners have not submitted the details such as number of days the quarry worked, the details of production of the granite blocks, stocks, pit mouth value of the granite blocks, export details, domestic sale waste generated etc., in the half yearly return in Form-F for every half year ending 30th September and 31st March before the 15th of the following month for the proceeding half year period and the annual return in Form-G before 1st July of each year for the preceding year to the District Collector thereby violated the provision under Rule 41 of the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999."

13. The respondent further submits that as per Rule 12 of the Granite Conservation and Development Rules 1999, no lease shall be granted or renewed by the State Government unless there is a mining plan duly approved by the State Government or any person authorized in this behalf by that Government for the development of the granite deposit in the area concerned. No person shall commence mining operations for granite in any area except in accordance with a mining plan as per Rule 16 of the said Rule.

14. The respondent further submits that as per the mining plan, the saleable blocks and the rejected blocks shall be kept at the place marked in their mining plan within their lease hold area. Similarly the waste materials shall be dumped in the place earmarked for the same within the lease hold area. As per clause 1 of Appendix-IV of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, the mining waste shall be dumped in the lease hold area as specified in each mining plan. The mineral must be taken away from the lease hold area only with the permission of the Deputy Director / Assistant Director of Geology and Mining and subject to payment of seigniorage fee.As per Rule 31(1) of Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 the over burden, waste stock and non-saleable granites generated during mining operation for granite shall be stored separately in properly formed dumps on the ground earmarked in the lease hold area. In the Government order for allotment of lease it is specifically mentioned that, the waste Granite generated during quarrying operation shall be dumped in the lease hold area only. The lessees who have agreed upon the Special Conditions imposed in the Government allotment orders have also executed an agreement to comply with the same. As per Rule 36(5)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959 the permit holder or the lessee of the quarry shall maintain an account showing the quantity and other particulars of the minerals obtained and dispatched from the quarry. Further as per Rule 36(5)(b) the quarrying permit holder or the lessee shall remove or allow removal and transportation of any mineral from the area where quarrying is permitted only after obtaining bulk transport permit and facsimiled despatch slip. The permit holder in turn should issue facsimiled despatch slips indicating the vehicle number, the quantity of the mineral allowed to be transported by the vehicle by using that despatch slips and the time of issue of the despatch slips. Apart from the same, the Owner or Manager of every granite quarry shall submit a half yearly return on the granite quarried in form F and Annual return in form G under Rule 41(a) and 41(b) of the Granite Conservation and Development Rules 1999 to the State Government or the person authorized by the Government.

15. The respondent further submits that the Special team constituted for inspection of the granite quarries in Madurai District as per Section 24(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act in their report stated that the petitioner firm and their other partnership firms have indulged in illegal mining activities in the adjacent Government poromboke lands and in few cases in the non leased patta lands apart from lease hold area and have illegally transported and stored the mineral contrary to the provisions of Section 4(1) and 4(1A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and have committed other penal offences. Whenever any person raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, the District Collector or the District Forest Officer, as the case may be, may recover from such person the mineral so raised or where such mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person, area assessment, seigniorage fee or tax, as the case may be for the period during which the land was occupied by such person without any lawful authority as per Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957.

16. The respondent further submits that several multi-coloured granite blocks were found kept unauthorized in the Government poromboke lands and patta lands during the inspection by the Special Team. The allegation of the writ petitioners that they are waste, overburden rejects and non saleable granite blocks are not correct. The granite blocks found in the non lease hold areas in Government poromboke lands are saleable granite blocks. The respondent further submits that the pattathars where the granite blocks were found are neither lessees nor permit holders. Those pattathars are not authorized either to quarry granite or to store the quarried granite blocks in their patta lands. Whenever any person raises, transports or causes to be raised or transported, without any lawful authority, any material from any land, and for that purpose, uses any tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing, such mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing shall be liable to be seized as provided under Section 21(4) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and accordingly the above said unauthorized granite blocks have been seized by the competent authority. The respondent further submits that no person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or store any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder and it is an offence under Section 4-1A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The offender is liable to be punished with imprisonment upto two years or with fine as per Section 21 of the Act. Therefore, complaints have been filed against the offenders and for the confiscation of the properties before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Melur. The respondent further submits that with regard to the unauthorized granite blocks found in the Government poromboke lands, further legal action under Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 was contemplated and a proclamation was made in the daily newspaper calling upon the claim if any for those granite blocks. The respondent further submits that subsequent to the publication of proclamation dated 21.04.2013 the petitioners made a generalized claim for those granite blocks recovered and seized from the Government poromboke lands on 02.05.2013. In reply to the petitioner representation dated 02.05.2013, the District Administration instructed the petitioner to submit the following particulars with relevant documents vide Letter Roc.No.Mines/250/2013, dated 08.05.2013.

(i) The Government order and the lease agreement with regard to the relevant quarry from where the Granite material have been mined out and claimed to have been transported to the Government lands with specific survey field number.

(ii) The distance between the relevant leasehold area to the respective Government land with survey number where the Granite materials have been dumped.

(iii) The pit mouth register maintained by the petitioner concern for each quarry site as required under Rule 36(5)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.

(iv) The Half-yearly and Annual returns in Form F and Form G regarding each quarry as required in Rule 41(a) and 41(b) of the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999.

(v) The approved mining plan of your respective quarry with the details showing the place for dumping of waste material.

(vi) The permission obtained from the concerned authority for removal and transportation of mineral from the quarrying area and transport permits obtained for shifting of the Granite Block / waste material to the respective Government lands with specific survey number mentioned in your representation which is required under Rule 36(5)(b) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959.

(vii) From which date the Granite stones were stored in the respective Government lands and under what authority furnish details thereof.

(viii) The details of permission obtained from the concerned jurisdictional Tahsildar for entering into the Government land for storing the material in the respective Government lands, if any.

17. The respondent further submits that instead of furnishing the above particulars the writ petitioners have issued notice for contempt through their counsel on 15.05.2013 as if the proceedings initiated by the District Administration were subject matters of the writ petitions and called upon the District Collector, not to deal with the subject material which are stored in the adjoining or nearby lands and that they would otherwise prosecute the District Collector with contempt proceedings. The said contempt notice did not refer to any writ petition or its orders. Without referring the particular writ petition or its order, they referred the writ petitions pending before the Hon'ble Court and orders reserved. The writ petitions pending before this Court and reserved for orders at Madurai Bench of Madras High Court are entirely different from the issue involved in this writ petition and the petitioner cannot maintain a contempt application. However, the petitioner had issued the contempt notice to intimidate the District administration from taking further course of action on the authorized stones recovered from the Government poromboke lands. Now the present writ petitions are filed to obstruct the further course of action initiated by the District Administration to dispose the unauthorized stones recovered from the Government poromboke lands. The respondent further submits that the writ petitioners have not submitted their reply for the letter dated 08.05.2013. The writ petitioners are avoiding the reply to avoid the criminal prosecutions. No person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or store any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder and it is an offence under Section 4-1A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The offender is liable to be punished with imprisonment upto two years or with fine as per Section 21 of the Act. The respondent further submits that the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions for a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents, their agents, subordinates, officers and men etc., in any way dealing with waste, overburden, rejects and non-saleable granite blocks etc., stored / lying either in the adjoining or nearby patta lands or in the adjoining or nearby Government poromboke lands of the lease granted areas of the petitioners. By way of an amendment application, they sought for the relief of writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents, their agents, subordinates, officers and men etc., in any way dealing with waste, overburden, rejects and non-saleable granite blocks etc., stored/lying either in the vacant patta lands of the petition or in the vacant patta lands in respect of which the petitioner got surface rights or in the vacant lands of the Government which are situated either in the adjoining or nearby lease granted patta lands of the petitioners.

18. The respondent further submits that by way of the amendment application, the writ petitioners have claimed that they got surface rights to store the granite blocks and also filed an additional typed set of papers in support of their amendment application. The writ petitioners have referred to G.O.No.460, Revenue Department, dated 04.06.1998 and the permission letters dated 30.09.2004 issued by the Public Works Department in favour of one Mr.K.Sandhesh and one Mr.Rajmohan. The respondent further submits that the lease amount, Localcess, Localcess surcharge amount were fixed vide G.O.Ms.No.460, Revenue Department, dated 04.06.1998. The writ petitioners have not produced any document in support of their case to prove that they ever obtained any lease as per G.O.Ms.No.460, Revenue Department, dated 04.06.1998. The respondent further submits that with regard to the permission letters dated 30.09.2004 issued by the Public Works Department in favour of one Mr.K.Sandhesh and one Mr.Rajmohan, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resources Organization, Periyar Main Canal Division, Melur, Madurai District had clarified that no such permission was granted in favour of the writ petitioners. M/s.PRP Granites and M/s.PRP Exprts, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.20166 and 20167 of 2013 for storing any granite or granite waste materials in the Public Works Department lands at Madurai District. However, certain leases have been granted in favour of few individuals of keeping their machineries tools and plants in Survey No.100/1, Veepankudikulam in Keelavalavu Village, Survey No.233/2 and 235 Erichikulam in E.Malampatti Village and these temporary lease agreements have also been cancelled vide letter No.tg/tm/m/nfh.18/2012, dated 31.07.2012 for violation of agreement conditions. The respondent further added that the contention of the petitioner that he is conducting quarry operations by strictly complying with the condition of the lease and that there is no violation whatsoever is not correct. The inspection report reveals that the petitioner's firm and their other partnership firms have indulged in illegal mining activities in the adjacent Government poromboke lands and in few cases in the non leased patta lands apart from lease hold area and have illegally transported and stored the mineral contrary to the provisions of Section 4(1) and 4(1A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and have committed other penal offences. 48 FIRs have been registered against the petitioners and their other partnership firms Among the cases, 21 have been registered for illicit quarry operations and 9 FIRs have been registered for cheating and land grabbing and the Explosives Act and 15 cases under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Further the special teams for inspection in their Evaluation report held that, the petitioner and their other partnership firms have not carried out the mining operation in a skillful, scientific and systematic manner keeping in view the conservation of minerals and preservation of environment and ecology of the area and thereby violated the provision under Rule 19-A(17) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessional Rules, 1959.

"(i) The petitioners have not provided the safety distance prescribed to the adjacent patta and Government poromboke lands, water bodies, foot path etc., and thereby violated the provision under Section 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessional Rules, 1959.
(ii) The petitioners have not erected the boundary marks around the area shown in the plan annexed to the lease agreement thereby violated the provision under Rule 36(4)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessional Rules, 1959.
(iii) The petitioners have not kept the correct accounts showing the quantity and other particulars of all minerals obtained and dispatched from the quarry thereby violated the provision under Section 36(5)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessional Rules, 1959.
(iv) The petitioners have not carried out the mining operation in accordance with the approved mining plan / scheme of mining and such condition as prescribed thereby violated the provision under Rule 19(1) of the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999.
(v) The petitioners have not carried out the mining operation in such a manner so as to ensure systematic development and conservation of granite deposits and protection of environment thereby violated the provision under Rule 20 of the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999.
(vi) The petitioners have not submitted the details such as number of days the quarry worked, the details of production of the granite blocks, stocks, pit mouth value of the granite blocks, export details, domestic sale waste generated etc., in the half yearly return in Form-F for every half year ending 30th September and 31st March before the 15th of the following month for the proceeding half year period and the annual return in Form-G before 1st July of each year for the preceding year to the District Collector thereby violated the provision under Rule 41 of the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999."

19. The respondent further submits that in order to regulate the mining leases and to curb the illegal mining activities, power has been delegated to the State Government to make rules in respect of minor minerals vide Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Accordingly, the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 have been framed. The Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 has been enacted under the powers conferred under Section 18 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The main object under Section 18 of the Act is for the conservation and systematic development of minerals and for the protection of environment by preventing or controlling any pollution which may be caused by prospecting or mining operations. The respondent further submits that the mining plan is a prerequisite for grant of quarry lease and the quarry operations have to be made only in accordance with the mining plan. The scheme of mining has to be submitted for every five years and the writ petitioner has not submitted their scheme of mining and conducted quarry operations without approved scheme of mining. If the mining operations are not carried out in accordance with the mining plan or without approved scheme of mining the State Government may suspend the mining operations as per Sub Rule (2) of Rule 19 of the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999. The writ petitioner does not have the approved scheme of mining and they have also carried out mining operations which are not in accordance with the mining plan and therefore, the Government had passed orders for suspending the mining operations of the petitioner and other granite quarry operators. 77 Granite quarry operations have been suspended by the Government so far and as against the order of suspension the quarry operators have filed writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.637 of 2013 etc., and the same are pending.

20. The respondent further submits that as per the mining plan the saleable blocks and the rejected blocks shall be kept at the entrance of the mine and the dumping of the waste materials shall be made on the other side of the lease hold area. As per Clause 1 of Appendix-IV of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 the mining waste shall be deposited only in the lease hold area. The mineral must be taken away from the lease hold area only with the permission of the Assistant Director / Deputy Director of Geology and Mining subject to payment of seigniorage fee. As per Rule 31(1) of Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 the over burden, waste stock and non-saleable granites generated during mining operation for granite shall be stored separately in properly formed dumps on the ground earmarked in the lease hold area. In the Government order for allotment of lease it is specifically mentioned that, the waste Granite generated during quarrying operation shall be dumped in the lease hold area only. The lessees who have agreed upon the Special Conditions imposed in the Government allotment orders have also executed an agreement to comply with the same. As per Rule 36(5)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959 the permit holder or the lessee of the quarry shall maintain an account showing the quantity and other particulars of the minerals obtained and dispatched from the quarry. Further as per Rule 36(5)(b) the quarrying permit holder or the lessee shall remove or allow removal and transportation of any mineral from the area where quarrying is permitted only after obtaining bulk transport permit and facsimiled despatch slip. The permit holder in turn should issue facsimiled despatch slips indicating the vehicle number, the quantity of the mineral allowed to be transported by the vehicle by using that despatch slips and the time of issue of the despatch slips. Therefore, the petitioner's contention, based on Rule 22 of the Granite Conservation and Development Rule 1999, is baseless. Rule 22 does not permit the lessee or permit holder to take away the mineral from the lease hold area. It only specifies to keep the surface and quarry floor clear without any debris. The respondent further submits that the petitioners are not authorized to store the waste over burden, rejects and non-saleable materials in other than the lease hold areas. Any transport of mineral from the lease hold area without the payment of seigniorage fee is an offence. The Granite blocks recovered from the patta lands and Government poromboke lands are not waste over burden, rejects and non-saleable materials as claimed by the writ petitioner. All those blocks are saleable and the fact remains that several granite blocks have been quarried unauthorizedly from the Government poromboke lands, water bodies and non lease hold areas. The Government is having the powers to recover the cost of the mineral under Section 21(5) of the Mines and Mineral Development and Regulation Act 1959 and steps have been taken to recover the costs of those minerals. The respondent further submits that as per Section 24(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 for the purpose of ascertaining the position of the working, actual or prospective of any mine or abandoned mine or for any other purpose connected with the Act or the Rules made thereunder, any person authorized by the Central Government or a State Government may enter and inspect any mine, survey and take measurements in any such mine, weigh, measure or take measurements of the stocks of minerals lying at any mine, examine any document, book, register, or record in the possession or power of any person having the control of or connected with, any mine and place, marks of identification thereon, and take extracts from or make copies of such document, book, register or record. Subsequent to the preliminary report, a comprehensive scientific and systematic survey was also carried out by the officers authorized under Section 24(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 with modern sophisticated survey instrument viz., the "Digital total station". The inspection report reveals that the petitioner firm and their other partnership firms have indulged in illegal mining activities in the adjacent Government poromboke lands and in few cases in the non-leased patta lands apart from lease hold area and have illegally transported and stored the mineral contrary to the provisions of Section 4(1) and 4(1A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and have committed other penal offences. 43 criminal cases have been registered against the petitioners firm and other partnership firms and among the same 15 cases are for illegal granite quarries.

21. The respondent further submits that if the mining operations are not carried out in accordance with the mining plan as referred to under Sub Rule (1), the State Government or any person authorized in this behalf by that Government may order suspension of all or any of the mining operations as per Rule 19(2) of the Granite Conservation and Development Rules 1999 and as per the provisions, the petitioner's quarry operation has been suspended. The respondent further submits that where the holder of a mining lease fails to undertake mining operations for a period of two years after the date of execution of the lease or, having commenced mining operation, has discontinued the same for a period of two years the lease shall lapse on the expiry of the period of two years from the date of execution of the lease or, as the case may be, discontinuance of the mining operations as per the provisions under Section 4-A(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The respondent further submits that the show cause notice issued for suspension of quarries has been done as per 19(2) of the Granite Conservation and Development Rules 1999 and the show cause under Section 4-A(4) of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act 1959 are not connected with the course of action initiated under Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act 1957. The respondent further submits that for the unauthorized granite block found in the Government poromboke lands, a proclamation was made in the daily news paper calling upon the claim if any for those granite blocks for further legal action under Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act. Pursuant to the publication of proclamation dated 21.04.2013, the petitioners made a generalized claim for those granite blocks on 02.05.2013. The District Administration instructed the petitioner to submit certain particulars with relevant documents to prove their ownership for those unauthorized granite block found in the Government poromboke lands vide letter dated 08.05.2013. Instead of furnishing the particulars, the writ petitioner has issued a notice for contempt through their counsel on 15.05.2013 to intimidate the District Administration from taking further course of action on the unauthorized stones recovered from the Government poromboke lands. Now the present writ petition has been filed to obstruct the further course of action initiated by the District Administration to dispose the unauthorized stones recovered from the Government poromboke lands. The respondent further submits that there is no wastage in the granite and even a small piece can be utilized for different saleable purposes. As stated in Rule 22(2) of the Granite Conservation and Development Rule, 1999, the non-saleable granite can also be used for manufacture of bricks as well as flooring or wall tiles by small scale industries sector. From the volume of granite quarried in the area, the transport permit obtained by the petitioner from the mines department and the stock available in the lease hold area, it is clearly seen that the recovery percentage is more than 90% in some cases. The special teams estimated the volume only from the cut face of the granite leaving the top soil, overburden, and weathered rocks. In some of the quarries there is no waste material stored in the lease hold area which itself shows that the recovery percentage is high. In some of the cases, their mining plan itself shows recovery percent is 60%. The various symposiums carried out by the Geological Survey of India, Tamil Nadu Mineral Limited and the State Geology Department has also established the recovery percentage is more than 60%. The Officer on Special Duty appointed by the Government of Tamil Nadu has also estimated the recovery percentage of color granite as 60% in the year 1991. The modern technology adopted by the petitioner like Diamond Wire Saw increases the recovery percentage and reduces the waste to the minimum. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner is not correct.

22. The respondent further submits that the Division Bench of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.A.(MD)Nos.906 and 907 of 2012, dated 15.02.2013 have held that the Department can take appropriate action under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder. The Division Bench had permitted the Department to proceed with the Departmental proceedings as well as to proceed with the criminal proceedings in accordance with law. The petitioners were permitted to take copy of the relevant documents at the time of seizure by the police. The respondent further submits that the writ petitioners have not obtained any permission for storing the minerals in the non lease hold areas. The granite blocks recovered from the Government poromboke lands and other non-lease hold areas are not waste or non-saleable as claimed by the writ petitioners. All those granite blocks are saleable.. Hence, the respondents entreat the Court to dismiss the above writ petition.

23. The highly competent senior counsel Mr.V.T.Gopalan, appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered partnership firm and owning several granite bearing patta lands in Madurai District. The petitioner applied for granite quarrying leases after observing all necessary requirements and thereafter, the first respondent granted granite quarry lease in favour of the petitioner, which is existing. The quarry operations are carried out after adhering to the terms and conditions of the lease and as such, the petitioner had not committed any irregularities and illegalities. Further, there is no specific rule regarding the storing of quarried minerals either marketable or non-marketable materials such as debris. As per the lease agreement, the quarried minerals shall be stored only within the lease granted area. With reference to Rule 22 of the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999, the petitioner stored waste materials outside the lease granted area and in the adjoining Government poromboke lands and also patta lands temporarily i.e. till the materials are transported.

24. The highly competent senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the former District Collector of Madurai had submitted an exparte report dated 19.05.2012 alleging that illegal quarrying and removal of granite took place in the District of Madurai. Supporting his report, there is no substantial documents. Based on the exparte report submitted by the former District Collector, the present District Collector of Madurai constituted 18 Investigation Teams comprising of Subordinates to the District Collector. As such, the Investigation Team cannot function independently and they will act to the direction of their superiors decision and to his satisfaction. On the basis of the exparte report, the second respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner indulged in illegal quarrying and removal of thousand of cubic meters of granite. These show cause notices are pre-determined. On the basis of the exparte report, the first respondent had suspended quarrying operations. Under the circumstances, the second respondent issued a public notice on the instruction of the first respondent to bring the quarry materials for public auction and also called the public to make claims if any one is having the right over the same. Besides, the second respondent proposed to take possession of the waste materials in the lease hold area of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition and interim stay was granted. After knowing the public notice, the petitioner submitted a letter and revealed that 38 items of quarry pertaining to the petitioner is under lease hold right. After receipt of the petitioner's letter dated 02.05.2013, the petitioner's entire documents, computer, hard disc and other materials were seized by the police. Now the petitioner is unable to prove their bona-fide and their leasehold rights before the respondents. Therefore, the public notice is not fit to be proceeded with any further since the petitioner has come forward to establish his lawful claim regarding quarrying minerals lying on the quarry area. Besides, the respondents have operated their administrative force with the co-operation of the Police personnel by harassing the quarry owners and their work force and also started arresting them. The Police Personnel have registered hundreds of criminal cases against the petitioner and their employees. These criminal cases are in a preliminary stage of investigation. Therefore, the petitioner and their employees cannot be treated as found guilty. Therefore, the public notice is a premature one.

25. The highly competent senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the quarry operation has been in existence for around 15 years on the strength of the lease granted by the respondents. Under the circumstances, the respondents' mal-administration of disturbing the petitioner's quarry operations and unlawfully taking the quarry materials and also bringing the same for public auction runs against the petitioner's legal rights. The Police personnel had seized the documents from the petitioner's premises which are pertaining to the quarry operations. The petitioner preferred an application to the concerned learned Magistrate to return the seized documents of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate has also directed the concerned Police Officer to furnish copies of the documents on 24.10.2013 but till date the concerned Police Officer has not furnished the said document. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is unable to establish his leasehold rights for continuing quarry operations and transporting the stored minerals. As such, there is lack of service on the side of the respondents and the concerned police personnel. Hence, the highly competent senior counsel entreats the Court to allow the writ petition.

26. The very competent Advocate General Mr.A.L.Somaiyaji appearing for the respondents submits that the writ petition filed before the Principal Bench is not maintainable since the impugned public notice dated 21.04.2013 has been issued by the second respondent, who is the District Collector of Madurai. The subject area of the quarrying area lies under his command. Therefore, the petitioner has wrongly chosen their forum for challenging the said public notice. The original jurisdiction is covered under Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. The Public Notice has been issued by the second respondent in disposing the unauthorized granite stone found on the Government poromboke lands of Madurai precincts. Therefore, the original cause of action is wholly within the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. On the same issue some of the writ petitions have been filed before the Madurai Bench which is a permanent Bench at Madurai. The writ petitions have been filed in order to prevent the respondents from taking further course of action against illegal mining and to defeat the lawful claim for the State Revenue. The petitioner's claim is an unlawful one. Further, the granite blocks are unauthorizedly stored in the Government poromboke land. Therefore, the impugned public notice had been issued to the public seeking any claim from any person. The petitioner has submitted a letter on 02.05.2013, wherein he had not submitted any documentary proof pertaining to quarry operation. The petitioner has not followed the lease agreement's terms and conditions as per the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules.

27. The very competent Advocate General appearing for the respondents further submits that several criminal cases have been levelled against the petitioner for operating illegal mining of minerals on the Government poromboke lands without lease and licence. The petitioner has stored the minerals on the Government lands without permission. Further, the public auction notice has been given to inform the public stating that several varieties of coloured granite lies on the Government poromboke lands and therefore, the respondents intend to initiate legal action. Further, the second respondent informed to the public that if any person claims rights over the said materials or any other objection that should be informed to the second respondent along with documentary proof. This notice is preliminary in nature and as such, it is not a final order. Therefore, the second respondent shall be permitted to proceed in his proceedings further since it is found fit for further operation. The former District Collector's report has been submitted on the basis of documentary proof and spot inspection with the Revenue Authorities as well as the Officers who are attached to Geology and Mines and then the former District Collector Mr.U.Sahayam has given a concrete report which is maintainable for further action. The very competent Advocate General further submits that the same petitioner and others have filed writ petitions on the same issues before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. For the same relief, on the same cause of action against the same respondents, the petitioner cannot choose this Hon'ble forum. Hence, the learned Advocate General entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition.

28. From the above discussion, this Court is of the view that:-

(i) The granite materials stored / lying on the quarrying area or adjacent area is not perishable materials. Therefore, if the respondents bring the materials to a public auction after conducting a comprehensive enquiry with the petitioner or any other claimant, then the interest of both parties will not be prejudiced. Now, the petitioner has come forward to establish their rights over the stored quarry materials. As such, if the public notice dated 21.04.2013 is quashed, the respondents/Government will not be put into irreparable loss or hardship. Prior to initiating any quarrying operations, the quarry site has been existing from time immemorial and now is being exploited as a virgin experience by the petitioner by duly constituting a necessary workforce.
(ii) The minerals entombed inside and on the surface of the earth are being exploited by the Government for the sole purpose of generating revenue and as such, the Government have auctioned sites to capable contractors and companies for the said purpose. Therefore, the Government is obtaining instant revenues without any investment or project work whatsoever. As such, no revenue loss is incurred by the Government in the instant case.
(iii) The storing of minerals does not involve any kind of storing problems such as depreciation, degradation or diminishing in valuation. Therefore, as the petitioner has failed to establish their claim over the said storing of minerals even after affording sufficient time for detailed enquiry, the respondents can bring the property to the public auction at any time or any number of times until the execution of their purpose. As such, even if this Court cancels the second respondent's public notice, the interest of the respondents will not be prejudiced.
(iv) Initially, the respondents had jointly granted lease and licence in favour of the petitioner after observing necessary legal formalities. The first respondent is attached to the Industries Department, which is under the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench of Madras High Court. The public notice dated 21.04.2013, which had been issued by the second respondent is based on a subsequent cause of action. Therefore, as per the original cause of action and also considering the place where the first respondent's office is situated, the writ petition is maintainable.
(v) The Police personnel have registered several criminal cases against the petitioner and their workforce for offences of illegally operating the quarry. This issue had not been decided so far by the competent Court. Before deciding the issue, the minerals which are stored shall not be put to auction. Therefore, the issuance of public notice by the second respondent is premature and unsustainable.
(vi) The former District Collector had submitted an exparte report which runs against the Principles of Natural Justice and also the fundamental rights of the petitioner. Ex-parte report can be set-aside at any time on merits, considering the ultimate factual position. Therefore, as the second respondent's public notice has been issued on the basis of exparte report by the former erstwhile District Collector of Madurai, the public auction notice dated 21.04.2013 is not fit to be proceeded with any further.

29. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the highly competent counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned notice of the second respondent and this Court's view mentioned above as (i) to (vi), this Court is inclined to allow the above writ petition. Consequently, this Court forbears the respondents, their agents, subordinates, officers and men etc., in any way dealing with waste, overburden, rejects and non-saleable granite blocks etc., stored / lying either in the vacant patta lands of the petitioner or in the vacant patta lands in respect of which the petitioner got surface rights or in the vacant lands of the Government which are situated either in the adjoining or nearby lease granted patta lands of the petitioner measuring 8.41 acres in Survey Nos.684/2A etc., situated in Navinipatti Village, Melur Taluk, 2067 acres, in Survey No.69/1 etc., 5.61 acres in Survey No.92/1 etc., 2.56 acres, in Survey No.113/1 etc., 5.00 acres in Survey No.30/1B etc., situated in Keelaiyur Village, 17.92 acres, in Survey No.71/4 etc., 6.15 acres, in Survey No.62/1 etc., 3.84 acres, in Survey No.63/1A etc., 5.34 acres in Survey No.298/3A1 etc., Keelavalavu Village, 7.16 acres, in Survey No.268/1 etc., situated in Keelavalavu and Saruguvalayapatti Villages, 7.20 acres in Survey No.221/1A1 etc., 6.89 acres in Survey No.321/1, etc., 2.54 acres in Survey No.214/2 etc., 6.83 acres, in Survey No.7/12 etc., 9.42 acres, in Survey No.225/3 etc., 3.64 acres, in Survey No.237/1 etc, situated in E.Malampatti Village, and all the five villages situated in Melur Taluk, Madurai District, 15.45 acres in Survey No.197/1A1(P) etc., situated in Poolampatti Village, 29.31 acres in Survey No.56/1 etc., situated in Sivalingam & Thirumohur Villages and 16.62 acres in Survey No.3/1 etc., situated in Karuppukkal Village and all the four Villages are situated in Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District till the completion of the investigation and adjudication and till the disposal of the matters.

30. In the result, the above writ petition is allowed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 


08/ 10 / 2014
(5/6)     
Index	   : Yes/No.
Internet : Yes/No.

r n s

To


1.The Secretary,
   Government of Tamil Nadu,
   Industries Department,
   Fort St. George,
   Chennani - 600 009.

2.The District Collector,
   Madurai District,
   Madurai.	



C.S.KARNAN, J.
r n s













Pre Delivery Order made in
W.P.No.20166 of 2013 &
M.P.No.1 of 2013





















       08/  10  /2014
(5/6)