Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5.The question that falls for consideration is whether the petitioners deserve to be deleted from the array of accused. I can take judicial notice of the fact that mining scam in Madurai District was exposed in the year 2011. What was only whispered till then became a subject matter of open discussion. The predatory activities of the persons associated with what is known as PRP group came under intense scrutiny. Punitive action was launched but one is yet to see its logical conclusion. The persons associated with the said PRP group are https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis figuring as accused in this case also. It is interesting to note that Shri.P.R.Palanisamy who is shown as A4 was not implicated in the FIR in the first instance. Only following a nudging from this Court, he came to be arrayed as an accused. The information lodged by the Village Administrative Officer does not even mention the name of P.R.Palanisamy. Section 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 casts a duty on the officer employed in connection with the affairs of a village to make report in respect of certain crimes committed within his territorial limit when he has information of the same. Section 40 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is as follows :

(iii) the words" officer employed in connection with the affairs of the village" means a member of the panchayat of the village and includes the headman and every officer or other person appointed to perform any function connected with the administration of the village.” Though the new Code was enacted in the year 1973, Section 40(1) (a) to (e) speak only of IPC offences. Section 40(1)(f) is worded somewhat broadly. It is impossible to believe that irregularities which admittedly had been committed were not within the knowledge of the village officials. Section 40 of Cr.Pc has to be interpreted in such a way as to fasten appropriate liability on the village officials under whose jurisdiction blatant activities of illegal mining have been going on. As far as Madurai is concerned, the predatory mining activities were going on for quite some time. But only in the year 2011, after there was a public outcry, the administration at last woke up. It took a further three years for FIR to be lodged in this case. Of course, a large number of cases were registered against the PRP group and the case on hand is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis one among them.

6.The defence put forth by the petitioners is that they had sold away the lands in question on 10.07.2008 (Document No.3496 of 2008) in favour of P.R.Palanichamy, the managing partner of PRP Exports. It is obvious that the first petitioner did not follow the statutory procedure before making the alienation. The first petitioner is definitely liable to be prosecuted if selling lease granted lands without getting prior permission from the department constitutes an offence under law. The first petitioner also will have to independently face the assessment proceedings initiated by the District Collector. The only issue before me is whether for the illicit mining and the other illegal activities that were detected when the inspection took place on 27.01.2011, the petitioners herein deserve to be prosecuted. It is beyond dispute that the first petitioner herein had sold the lease granted lands as well as the other lands measuring an extent of 7 acres and 21.5 cents in favour of the fourth accused on 10.07.2008 under a registered sale deed bearing Document No.3496/2008. His specific contention is that he stopped the quarrying activities on 15.06.2007 itself and that he sent the surrender Form-C on 20.07.2007. Unfortunately, there is no material in support of the said assertion. It is required that the surrender https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis application should be sent through registered post. The petitioners have not enclosed any postal receipt. They have also not enclosed any acknowledgment given by the department. That is why I have specifically observed that the petitioners will have to be dealt with for breach of procedure. While the sale appears to be in breach of license conditions, that the sale took place is beyond dispute. The purchaser, namely, P.R.Palanisamy, the managing partner of PRP exports had also effected mutation in the revenue records (Patta No.2651). Patta in respect of the lands has been standing in the name of the 4th accused since August, 2008.

7.There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the petitioners were associated with the offending acts. The primary document on which the prosecution relies is the license issued in the name of the first petitioner. In the FIR, the occurrence period is mentioned as from 14.11.2008 to 09.10.2012. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District had sent a communication to the District Collector, Madurai vide letter bearing Na.Ka.No.48712/C1/M.Ma/2013 dated 03.09.2013 that it has been revealed that the lease granted area was not under the control of the first petitioner after 10.07.2008. This communication and the response from the mining department have https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis been enclosed in the typed set of papers filed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and therefore, this Court would be justified in looking into the same. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai sent such a communication after enquiring into the petition given by the first petitioner on 16.08.2013. The Superintendent of Police had noted that since the quarry license continued to be in the name of the original licensees, permits had been taken by PRP group under the name of the original licensees. This observation found in the communication of the Superintendent of Police furnishes a complete answer to the contention advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that transport permit issued in the year 2010 stood in the name of the first petitioner herein. What is surprising is that even though the Superintendent of Police had sent such a communication on 03.09.2013 severely indicting PRP group, in the information lodged by the VAO on 31.01.2015, P.R.Palanisamy had been conveniently left out.