M/s. Siva Blue Metals vs The District Collector and A. Ashish Kumar

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—With the consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Heard both sides.

On 15.11.2010, the petitioner applied for lease for quarrying and transportation of rough stone/jelly/gravel over an extent of 16.98.5 hectares of

patta land in S.F. No. 729/2 (0.90.0 hectares), 730/1 (0.48.0 hectares), 739/2 (8.70.0 hectares) and 741/1 (6.90.5 hectares) in

Padmanabhamangalam Village, Srivaigundam Taluki, Thoothukudi District, for a period of five years under Rule 19(1) and 22 of Tamil Nadu

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Earlier, the lease was granted for the aforesaid lands for the period from 11.01.2006 to 10.01.2011. On

15.11.2010, by the proceeding dated 24.01.2011, the first respondent granted lease for five years i.e. from 24.01.2011 to 23.01.2016, pursuant

to the application referred to above.

Based on certain complaints, the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Thoothukudi inspected the leasehold areas on 13.08.2011 along

with other officials. The inspection was done as instructed by the first respondent. The inspection team found various irregularities. As far as this

case is concerned, we are not concerned with other irregularities except the one alleging that the petitioner quarried excess mineral and transported

the same.

According to the respondent, the quantity permitted to the petitioner was 2,61,131 cubic meter. But, the petitioner quarried 3,39,480 cubic

meter. According to the respondents, 78,349 cubic meter (27685 units) mineral was excessively quarried and transported. According to the

respondent, for the aforesaid violation, the lessee is liable for action under Rule 36(5)(b) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.

Hence, a show cause notice dated 24.09.2011 was issued by the first respondent in this regard, directing the petitioner to submit explanation

within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the show cause notice. The allegation contained in the show cause notice is that the petitioner

excessively quarried 78,349 cubic meter minerals and transported the same.

The petitioner/lessee filed W.P. (MD) No. 11496 of 2011, questioning the aforesaid show cause notice. The writ petition was dismissed by this

Court on 08.02.2012 and the lessee was directed to give explanation within four weeks. However, the lessee filed W.A. No. 255 of 2012. The

Writ Appeal was also dismissed on 12.06.2012, directing the petitioner herein to give explanation to the show cause notice within 15 days.

Accordingly, the petitioner sent explanation on 27.06.2012. After considering the explanation, the first respondent passed the impugned order

dated 02.04.2013, cancelling the lease granted to the petitioner, by his proceedings dated 24.01.2011. The first respondent did not agree with the

explanation submitted by the petitioner and the first respondent came to the conclusion that the allegation made in the charge memo that the

petitioner illegally quarried and transported the excess quantity of 78,349 cubic meters mineral was established.

The order dated 02.04.2013, cancelling the lease also states that the petitioner could prefer an appeal under Rule 36(C) of Tamil Nadu Minor

Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the same before the Director of Geology and Mining, Guindy,

Chennai. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, questioning the aforesaid order dated 02.04.2013, cancelling the lease, without filing statutory

appeal provided under the Rules.

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that it is well settled that if the first respondent passed the

impugned order in violation of principles of natural justice, this Court can entertain the writ petition, though there is availability of alternative

remedy.

The learned senior counsel has heavily relied on para 8 and also two lines in para 9 of the impugned order. According to him, while the

allegation made in the show cause notice dated 24.09.2011 that the petitioner quarried 78,349 cubic meters mineral excessively, para 8 of the

impugned order states that the petitioner also quarried 3044 units excessively. According to him, the same influenced the first respondent to pass

the impugned order, cancelling the lease, while no show cause notice was issued. According to him, no notice was issued relating to the alleged

excess quarrying of 3044 units of rough stone and no explanation was obtained. Hence, the conclusion of the first respondent that there was an

excessive quarrying of 3044 units, besides the excessive quarrying of 27,685 units is illegal. In view of the conclusion arrived at by the first

respondent that the petitioner excessively quarried 3044 units, the first respondent came to an erroneous conclusion in para 9 of the impugned

order that the petitioner is a habitual offender of minor mineral rules and lease conditions.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is the only reason for preferring the writ petition without resorting to the appeal remedy.

Since the first respondent relied on certain materials without hearing the petitioner, this writ petition is filed questioning the same.

The learned Additional Advocate General, though initially has vehemently contended that the petitioner was given opportunity and that the

petitioner shall avail the appeal remedy available to him under the rules, has fairly submitted that the impugned order can be set aside and the

matter can be remanded back to the first respondent to issue show cause notice relating to the excessive quarrying of 3044 units of mineral that is

mentioned in para 8 of the impugned order and after obtaining the explanation, the first respondent could pass an appropriate order. It is submitted

that the show cause notice dated 24.09.2011 and the explanation dated 27.06.2012 as well as the future show cause notice and explanation

would be considered cumulatively and appropriate decision could be taken by the first respondent.

At this juncture, the learned senior counsel has submitted that the first respondent shall furnish the documents that are relied on by the first

respondent. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is in requirement of only one document viz., the proceedings of the

Collector, Tuticorin in Rc. No. G.M. 1/452/2010 dated 24.01.2011 along with the note files. He ha submitted that the said document was

required by the petitioner under Right to Information Act. The copies are not furnished. It is also stated by the learned senior counsel that the

proceeding dated 24.01.2011 is referred to in the impugned order dated 02.04.2013. At this juncture, the learned Additional Advocate General

has fairly stated that the proceedings in Rc. No. G.M. 1/452/2010 dated 24.01.2011 of the first respondent along with the note files will be

furnished to the petitioner. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that some time frame may also be fixed by this Court for

issuance of show cause notice and submission of reply and passing of final orders.

In these circumstances, the following directions are issued:-

(i) The impugned order dated 02.04.2013 in Rc. No. G.M. 1/291/2011 dated 02.04.2013 passed by the first respondent is quashed and the

matter is remanded to the first respondent, to pass a fresh order.

(ii) Before passing fresh orders, the first respondent shall issue show cause notice relating to the alleged excess quarrying of 3044 unit that is

mentioned in para 8 of the impugned orders, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(iii) The first respondent shall furnish the proceedings of the first respondent in Rc. No. G.M. 1/452/2010 dated 24.01.2011 along with the note

files.

(iv) The petitioner shall submit explanation to the show cause notice within two weeks after the receipt of the same.

(v) Thereafter, the first respondent shall provide personal hearing within a period of two weeks thereafter relating to both the matters i.e. the

allegation relating to the excessive quarrying of 27685 units and 3044 units.

(vi) The petitioner shall co-operate and appear for the personal hearing without fail, since the allegations are made by the respondents that the

petitioner failed to avail the opportunity in the last occasion, when personal hearing was granted.

(vii) The first respondent shall pass an order within a period of two weeks thereafter.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.