A fair spot enquiry is necessary before imposing penalties for alleged illegal mining.

The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The writ petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company and is engaged in manufacturing of M-sand. As such, the petitioner has purchased patta lands comprised in S.F.Nos.471/1, 472/2 and 473 totally measuring an extent of 12.5.0 hectares in Kaliyal Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District by virtue of registered sale deed dated 11.04.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner has applied for quarry lease in respect of the said lands in and by application dated 04.08.2009 and the same was duly processed in accordance with law and the clearance from all the concerned Departments, including the approval of Hill Area Conservation Authority was given. Thereafter, the second respondent, viz., District Collector, through his proceedings in Roc.No.67/G&M/2008, dated 11.06.2010, has granted the petitioner the mining lease in respect of patta lands in S.F.Nos.471/2, 473 for an initial period of three years with the right to extend the same for a further period of two years, subject to the availability of the minerals. The petitioner, who has got the mining lease, successfully carried on the quarry operations for the initial period of three years. When the initial period of three years was about to expire by 18.06.2013, the petitioner made an application dated 07.03.2013 to the second respondent / District Collector seeking to extend the lease for the full term of lease, i.e., for the further period of two years in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease agreement.

2. The petitioner additionally added that once the petitioner has submitted the application for the continuation of lease before the second respondent, the entire problem has been raised and with the sole intention to reject the claim for continuation of lease, the second respondent issued two proceedings in Na.Ka.No.245/G&M/2013, dated 17.04.2013 of one as a show cause notice to the petitioner to cancel the lease and the other one directing the third respondent, viz., The Revenue Divisional Officer to impose penalty on the petitioner on an allegation of illegal mining. A careful reading of the above proceedings and a bare look on the reference column, would show that the above proceedings were clearly issued by creating anti-dated documents as if on 12.12.2012 itself, the second respondent has directed the Tahsildar to conduct an inspection at the quarry of the petitioner and consequently a report has been received from the Tahsildar stating that illegal mining has been carried on in the quarry of the petitioner. A look on the reference column would apparently show that the report of the Tahsildar said to have been received on 08.04.2013 was intentionally shown to have been prepared as early as on 22.01.2013 i.e., prior to the date of application for execution of lease dated 07.03.2013. Though the respondents cleverly fabricated the documents by giving anti-dates, when the documents demanded by the petitioner were furnished, the factum of fabrication of the documents came into light evidently and apparently as well. The proceedings of the first respondent dated 17.04.2013 itself would read that the first respondent through his proceedings dated 12.12.2012, directed the Tahsildar to conduct an inspection and to submit a report as to whether any illegal mining is carried on. While the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 22.01.2013 signed on 05.04.2013, states that as per the order of the first respondent dated 12.12.2012, a team was constituted under the leadership of Firka Surveyor and an inspection was conducted and the date of inspection report of Firka Surveyor is shown to have been signed on 10.12.2012. The claim of an inspection on 10.12.2012, on the basis of a direction issued on 12.12.2012 itself would speak for the truth that no such inspection was conducted and there was no illegal mining as stated by the second respondent.

3. The petitioner further submits that after having institu