Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
J.NISHA BANU, J.
Paumpon Mahalir Mandram – Petitioner
Vs.
The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil and others – Respondent
W.P (MD) No.2501 of 2016 and WMP (MD).Nos.8519 of 2016
Decided On : 12-06-2017
Mandamus - Refund of Deposit Amount - Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 - S.425/2, Kottaram Village, Agesteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District - Summary: The petitioner participated in a tender to quarry gravels, deposited Rs.14 Lakhs, and became the successful bidder. However, due to non-availability of environmental clearance, he was not permitted to quarry. The court directed the petitioner to apply for environmental clearance and upon receipt, appropriate orders would be passed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner participated in a tender to quarry gravels, deposited Rs.14 Lakhs, and became the successful bidder. However, due to non-availability of environmental clearance, he was not permitted to quarry. The petitioner sought a refund of the amount paid.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the petitioner to apply for environmental clearance and upon receipt, appropriate orders would be passed.
Issues: Refund of deposit amount, non-availability of environmental clearance for quarrying.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner should apply for environmental clearance and upon receipt, appropriate orders would be passed.
Final Decision: The court directed the petitioner to submit an application for environmental clearance within two weeks, and upon receipt, appropriate orders would be passed. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs.
This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to refund the deposit amount of Rs.14,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner along with interest within a time frame fixed by this Court by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 20.02.2015.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent herein called for tender to quarry gravels in S.No.425/2 over an extent of 4.57.5 hectares in Kottaram Village, Agesteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. As per the terms and conditions of the notification, he has paid Rs.14 Lakhs for participating in the auction and thereafter, as directed by the respondents, the petitioner made an additional deposit amount of Rs.1,23,500/-. The petitioner became successful bidder, as he has quoted Rs.14,00,000/-. The purpose of tender was to remove the gravels from the Public Works Department tank located in S.No.425/2 at Kottaram Village, Agesteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. Only after considering the feasibility for quarrying gravels upto the depth of 2 meter from the surface level by leaving safety distance as per the assessment made by the respondents and considering the recoverable resources of gravel which was calculated as Rs.45,448/- cubic meter, permission was granted to the petitioner. The Commissioner of Geological of Mining, Chennai by communication dated 19.11.2012 also granted approval of the said mining plan.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents, after considering the amount quoted by the petitioner, directed the petitioner to deposit the balance amount of Rs.12,35,000/- to the credit of the respondent account, after deducting the Earnest Money Deposit and additional deposit which was already paid by the petitioner and the said amount was paid on 04.06.2013. When the petitioner sought permission for quarrying, it was replied that due to availability of water in the tank, he was not permitted for quarrying. Though the petitioner has paid the entire amount of Rs.14,00,000/-, he has not been permitted to quarry and therefore, he requested the respondents to refund the amount as early as 20.02.2015. Despite the same, no effective steps have been taken by the respondents to refund of the amount paid by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief stated supra.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent wherein in paragraph Nos.4 and 5, it has been averred as follows:-
'4. It is submitted that since the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi in its order in I.A.No.12-13/2011 in SLP (C)No.19628/19629/2009 dated 27.02.2012 in the matter of Depak Kumar etc., Vs. State of Hariyana and others has categorically stated that the leases of Minor Mineral including their renewal even for an area of less than 5 Hectares, be granted by the States / Union Territories only after getting environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, the successful bidder/writ petitioner was directed to submit Mining Plan by the 1st Respondent in his letter Rc.No.315/G85M/2013 dated 30.05.2013. The highest bidder submitted the Mining Plan in his letter dated 20.08.2013 and the 2nd Respondent has approved the Mining Plan and sent the approved Mining Plan to the writ petitioner in his Letter No.315/G&M/2013 dated 26.08.2013. Based on this approved Mining Plan, the writ petitioner should sent application to the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Chennai for environmental clearance. The Environmental clearance has not been obtained by the writ petitioner till date. Only on its receipt he could commence the quarrying.
5. It is submitted that in these circumstances, the writ petitioner presented one petition dated 20.02.2015 requesting to refund the entire bid amount of Rs. 14 Lakhs (Fourteen Lakhs) since he is unable to conduct the quarry for the past two years. His request was scrutinised with reference to rules. There is no
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
