Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

212.The learned counsel for the petitioners then put forth a further argument in one voice that the impugned notice suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. I hold that the principles of natural justice cannot be extended for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.32563/2019, etc. Batch complying with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India have been extracted above. It is clear that any order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on every person. The date, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that Environment Clearance is a pre-requisite for grant of extension of lease even for mining of lands of less than 5 hectares is the date when the petitioners were bound to get Environment Clearance. They do not require any further notice. The date, on which, Common Cause (referred supra), was pronounced and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that if mining activities are continued without obtaining Environment Clearance, then 100% compensation is leviable, then from that date onwards, the liability of the petitioners had arisen and they need not be put on any further notice. The law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all Courts of the country. Further, issuing a show cause notice would only be an empty formality. The petitioners if at all they want to reply to any show cause notice, can only question the rationals of the Supreme Court Judgment. They cannot do so. They are bound by the judgment.

“42. Submission of environment clearance for the grant of quarry lease for minor minerals including granite :-
“(i) The approved mining plan shall be forwarded to the applicant for obtaining environment clearance from the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority or the Ministry of Environment and Forests, as the case may be.
(ii) On submission of approved mining plan and environment clearance from the said authorities, the Government or the District Collector, as the case may be, shall grant the quarry lease.
(iii) Where quarrying operations for minor minerals including granites have been undertaken before the commencement of these rules without environment clearance, such holder of minor mineral including granite leases shall submit the environment clearance, such holder of minor mineral including granite leases shall submit the environment clearance within one hundred and eighty days from the date of commencement of these rules.

63. In this context, it is but necessary to look at the reason for the learned Judge, C.V.Karthikeyan, J., to pass an order holding that the impugned orders are sustainable. The relevant portion of the order is quoted hereunder :-

“212.The learned counsel for the petitioners then put forth a further argument in one voice that the impugned notice suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. I hold that the principles of natural justice cannot be extended for complying with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India have https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.32563/2019, etc. Batch been extracted above. It is clear that any order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on every person. The date, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that Environment Clearance is a pre-requisite for grant of extension of lease even for mining of lands of less than 5 hectares is the date when the petitioners were bound to get Environment Clearance. They do not require any further notice. The date, on which, Common Cause (referred supra), was pronounced and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that if mining activities are continued without obtaining Environment Clearance, then 100% compensation is leviable, then from that date onwards, the liability of the petitioners had arisen and they need not be put on any further notice. The law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all Courts of the country. Further, issuing a show cause notice would only be an empty formality. The petitioners if at all they want to reply to any show cause notice, can only question the rationals of the Supreme Court Judgment. They cannot do so. They are bound by the judgment.” (Emphasis Supplied)