Back
1997 Supreme(Mad) 816
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM
R.K. Ramasamy - Appellant
Versus
State of T.N. and Others - Respondents
Writ Petn. No. 10823 of 1997
Decided On : 08 August 1997
The District Collector has the jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice for alleged excess quarrying under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.
Headnote:
MINES AND MINERALS - QUARRY LEASE - EXCESS QUARRYING - SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - JURISDICTION - PENALTY - VALIDITY - MINES AND MINERALS (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 1957 - TAMIL NADU MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1959.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the show cause notice issued by the District Collector alleging excess quarrying and imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,34,00,000/-. Petitioner contended that the authorities lacked jurisdiction, there was no mechanism to ascertain the alleged excess quarry, and the notice was issued with mala fide intention.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the District Collector had the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The Court also found that there was a mechanism provided in the Rules to ascertain the alleged excess quarry. The Court rejected the contention that the notice was issued with mala fide intention.
Issues: 1. Whether the District Collector had the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice? 2. Whether there was a mechanism to ascertain the alleged excess quarry? 3. Whether the notice was issued with mala fide intention?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the District Collector had the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice under Section 15(g) and (o) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, which empowers the State Government to make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases and for purposes connected therewith, including the fixing and collection of rent, royalty, fees, dead rent, fines, or other charges. 2. The Court found that Rule 36-A (3) and (5) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 provided a mechanism to ascertain the alleged excess quarry. Rule 36-A (3) empowers the District Collector to recover the mineral raised without lawful authority or its price, along with area assessment, seigniorage fee, or tax for the period of unauthorized occupation. 3. The Court rejected the contention that the notice was issued with mala fide intention, noting that the petitioner had not provided any evidence to support this claim.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to submit an explanation within 15 days. The Court also directed the District Collector to inspect the quarry site, ascertain the actual violation, and consider the petitioner's explanation before taking any final decision.
By consent of all the parties the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Aggrieved against the order of show-cause notice dated 15-7-97 passed by the second respondent, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the said notice.
2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder :-
According to him, by G.O. 2(D) 71 Industries (M.C-2) Department dated 22-3-96 the first respondent has granted sand quarry lease in respect of 25-00-0 Hectares in Survey S.F.No. 1 of Mayanur village, Kulithalai Taluk. The said lease is for a period of 5 years and necessary lease agreement has been executed and duly registered. The lease amount fixed for the first year is Rs. 1,00,000/- and the same has been paid on 3-4-96. It is also contended that regarding issuance of transport permit, using machinery and also for further direction, the petitioner has approached this Court on earlier occasion. It is further contended that he has also initiated contempt proceedings against the respondents particularly against the second respondent. Because of which the second respondent has sent a notice dated 15-7-97 alleging that the petitioner had quarried more than the permitted depth in the said quarry and directing him to show cause why an amount of Rs. 2,34,00,000/- should not be levied and collected. According to him, the impugned notice issued by the second respondent is due to mala fide intention. It is also contended that none of the respondents have any power to quantify the alleged excess quarry than the permitted depth. There is no procedure in the Rules. In those circumstance, the action of the respondents is without jurisdiction. Since the respondents have no jurisdiction and the impugned notice has been sent by the second respondent with mala fide intention, according to the petitioner, there is no need to submit any explanation. Hence he has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.
3. By Order dated 23-7-97 this Court has ordered notice of motion to the respondents. In pursuance of the notice, respondents entered appearance through their counsel.
4. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General for respondents.
5. Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy has raised the following submissions :-
(i) The respondents have no power or jurisdiction to pass the impugned notice. In other words, according to him, there is no provision either in the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 or in the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 to proceed against the petitioner on the basis of the impugned notice.
(ii) There is no mechanism to ascertain the alleged excess quarry and the consequential amount in the Rules.
(iii) In any event, inasmuch as the second respondent has pre-concluded everything in the impugned notice, it is not a valid show-cause notice, hence the same cannot be sustained. In support of the above 3 contentions, he has relied on the following decisions :-
(1) 1986 AIR(Calcutta) 1.(2) 1988 AIR(Kearala) 220.
(3) 1993 Writ Law Reporter 63.
(4) 1976 AIR(SC) 54, 1976 (32) FLR 193, 1976 (1) SCC 112, 1976 (2) SCR 222, 1975 UJ 913.
(5) (1997) 2 Mad Law Weekly 4 : 1997 AIR(SC) 1390, 1997 (2) JT 463, 1997 (2) Supreme 149, 1997 (2) Scale 50, 1997 (4) SCC 430, 1997 (1) UJ 483).
(6) 1997 AIR(SC) 10, 1996 (6) AD(SC) 548, 1996 (3) CCC 322, 1997 (1) HLR 445, 1996 (6) Supreme 489, 1996 (5) SCC 467, 1996 (2) UJ 551.
(7) (1997) 89 Excise Law Times 28.
(8) 1991 Writ Law Reporter 59.
6. On the other hand, learned Advocate General after taking me through Section 15(g) and (o) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act as well as Rule 36-A (3) and (5) of the Rules submitted that the respondents are competent to verify and quantify if there is any excess quarrying or violation of the lease conditions. He further submitted that in view of the above specific conditions, the impugned order of th
