Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (1.44 seconds)

Poonamallee Circle vs R-1 The Secretary To Government on 19 September, 2013

50. This Court takes it for granted that neither the State or the Central Government, would contend that if any authority, who is the empowered to inspect, search and strictly enforce the mining and the environmental laws, to preserve and conserve the natural resources, failed to do so, causing huge loss to the Government, they should be allowed to go scot-free. Offences under the Mining laws are offences against the State and unless a specialised agency conducts a thorough investigation, as to whether, who are all the persons involved in the illegal activities, persons, who are shielding the offenders, the network and the illegalities and irregularities are bound to continue. It is the duty of the Constitutional Court to ensure that minerals should not be illegally exported. If such heaps of sand are to be stored at two different villages, either the person in possession and enjoyment of the properties, where the sand is stocked should have quarried the mineral from some place or places or transported sand from one district to another. It should be borne in mind that after 2003, the State has taken over the quarrying activity. Therefore, the State and the District Administration, particularly, the Collectors of Tiruvallur and Kancheepuram, Public Works Department and others, are bound to explain, as to why, they have not taken action, so far. What prevented them from enforcing the penal laws. While considering the issue, as to whether, any independent external agency, has to conduct an impartial and fair investigation, this Court has taken cognizance of the conduct of the Collector, Kancheepuram District, set out supra, the conduct of the Commercial Tax Officer, in not producing the returns submitted by the 5th respondent, the public accountability of the District Collectors of Kancheepuram and Tiruvallur Districts, Public Works Department and other officials, under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, in particular, to the enforcement of the Tamilnadu Prevention of illegal mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealers Rules, 2011, the Hon'ble Division Bench judment in M.Palanisamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2012 (4) CTC 1, the mandate of the Constitutional Court, to enforce the above mining and environmental laws and to protect the revenue of the Government, deems it fit, to order for an investigation, by an external agency.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

M/S.M.R.M.Ramaiya Enterprises ... vs The District Collector on 29 November, 2017

In M.Palanisamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2012 (4) CTC 1, the Honourable First Bench of this Court, tracing the history of the legislation and recording the prevalent illegal mining and transportation in the State, upheld the validity of Section 38-C, when the petition was filed by a licencee/lessee who had purchased sand from PWD observed as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 3 - R Mahadevan - Full Document

K.Radha vs State Rep. By Its Secretary on 30 July, 2024

19. Having regard to the admitted facts and the ratio laid down by this Court, it is crystal clear and evident that there is no proof that the subject matter land has been acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, no patta was filed and that name was also transferred in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/19 W.P.No.30061 of 2017 revenue records in favour of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - J S Prasad - Full Document

Ravi Sam vs Government Of Tamilnadu on 28 October, 2021

15. The learned Senior Counsel in support of his contention, relied upon the judgments in the case of M.Palanisamy and others Vs. State of Page 32 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.3640 of 2001 Tamilnadu rep. by its Secretary to Government and others reported in 2020 SCC Online Mad 2476 and in the case of K.Saraswathi and another Vs. State of Tamilnadu rep. by its Secretary to Government and others reported in 2020 SCC Online Mad 2475.

Ravi Sam vs Government Of Tamilnadu on 28 October, 2021

15. The learned Senior Counsel in support of his contention, relied upon the judgments in the case of M.Palanisamy and others Vs. State of Tamilnadu rep. by its Secretary to Government and others reported in 2020 SCC Online Mad 2476 and in the case of K.Saraswathi and another Vs. State of Tamilnadu rep. by its Secretary to Government and others reported in 2020 SCC Online Mad 2475.

R.G.N.S.Enterprises vs The Commissioner on 11 October, 2013

26. By the introduction of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealers Rules, 2011, there is a statutory bar for transportation of sand to other States, across the border of the State of Tamil Nadu. A Division Bench of this Court, in a batch of Writ Petitions in M.Palanisamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2012 (4) CTC 1, has also upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealers Rules, 2011.
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next