The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper proof of involvement in illicit quarrying before imposing penal liability. The judgment also emphasizes the violation of natural justice principles and the availability of alternative remedies as grounds for maintaining writ petitions.

Common Order:

In all these cases, by the respective orders, the District Collector directed the petitioners concerned to remit amounts levied towards the silica sand and granite blocks allegedly quarried from lease hold as well as non-leasehold areas with further direction that the non-compliance of the said direction would attract the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act to realise the above said amounts. Out of these writ petitions, W.P. (MD) Nos.7324 and 7325 of 2006 are relating to granite quarry at Madurai District, while W.P.No.26650 of 2005 relates to silica sand quarry at Gummidipoondi area.

2. The impugned orders proceeded on the basis that while the writ petitioner in W.P.No.26650 of 2005 was granted lease to quarry silica sand over an extent of 28. 5 hectares in respect of survey Nos.84/2, 85 and 88 (patta lands) in Elavur village, Gummidipoondi taluk for a period of 20 years viz., 6. 1997 to 6. 2017, during the course of inspection it was found that the lessee indulged in illicit mining of silica sand in survey Nos.77/1A, 77/2, 77/3 and 77/4 of Elavur village, for which permission was not granted. In respect of the said writ petitioner, the total amount levied was Rs.17,98,300/-. In respect of petitioners in W.P.(MD) No.7324 of 2006, they are said to have made illicit quarrying of granite blocks measuring 720 cbm in S.F.No.525/6 of Thiruvathavur village, Melur taluk. Further, they alleged to have done illicit quarrying to an extent of 0.06.0 hectares to the depth of 6 metres in the above S.F.number in an unauthorized manner. It is based on that, a sum of Rs.2,84,04,000/-has been directed to be paid immediately.

3. Likewise, the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.7325 of 2006 is alleged to have done illicit quarrying of granite blocks measuring 500 cbm in S.F.No.529/1 in Thiruvathavur village, Melur taluk and the said quarrying was done to the depth of 3 metres and he has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,97,25,000/-.

4. The writ petitioners in their respective affidavits have stated that they have strictly followed the terms of the agreements by which lease was granted and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.26650 of 2005 would state that he has studied upto VIII Standard only and he is not well versed in English. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.26650 of 2005 that the officials have visited every week and after inspection of stock and quarrying operations, necessary permission was given for transporting quarried mineral and therefore, there is no illegality. As far as the reply to the show-cause notice issued by the District Collector dated 24. 2005, it is the case of the writ petitioner in W.P.No.26650 of 2005 that at that time he was undergoing treatment, however, he has sent a reply through his representative to the District Collector explaining the actual reason. It is also his case that the reports of the officials were created without enquiry and behind his back. The second respondent in the said writ petition, viz., the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining is said to have obtained his signature giving an undertaking that the show-cause notice would be withdrawn and that was typed in English and believing the words of the second respondent, without knowing the contents of the letter, the petitioner has put his signature and all the reports have been prepared behind the back of the petitioner.

4(a). It is also his case that no notice of inspection was served on the petitioner by the officer when they have allegedly inspected. It is stated that during the entire period of six years and two months, he could quarry and transport 31950 Mts. or 2662 lorry loads with valid permits issued by the respondents, whereas false allegations have been made as if the petitioner has removed 1,50,157 Mts or 12540 lorry loads of silica sand. It is also stated that in similar circumstances, this Court has already held that levyi