2018 Supreme(Mad) 3969
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. MANIKUMAR, SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, JJ.
S. Saravanan - Petitioner
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Industries (MMC.1), Rep by its Principal Secretary, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P.No. 12826 of 2017 & W.M.P.Nos. 13684 & 13685 of 2017
Decided on : 14-11-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:P. Vijendran, Advocate.
For the Respondents: E. Manoharan, Addl Government Pleader.
The absence of a legally protected right for the Panchayat to claim exclusive rights to desilt the tanks and take away savudu/soil, and the requirement for amendments in the relevant rules before such claims could be made.
Headnote:
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act - Desilting of Tanks - Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 - Rule 12(2) and Rule 12(2-A) - The judgment discusses the desilting of tanks in a village and the implementation of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. It refers to the Government Order dated 11.04.2017, the District Collector's decision, and the relevant rules for quarrying silt, savudu, and gravel from the beds of tanks under the control of Public Works Department and Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department. The court analyzes the procedures for obtaining permission to desilt lakes and the amendments made to the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The judgment highlights the absence of a legally protected right for the Panchayat to claim exclusive rights to desilt the tanks and take away savudu/soil, and dismisses the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a public interest litigation for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Government order dated 11.04.2017 passed by the District Collector, Nagapattinam, regarding the desilting of tanks in a village and the implementation of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. The petitioner contended that the desilting work should be carried out under the Act to generate employment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Panchayat did not have a legally protected right to claim exclusive rights to desilt the tanks and take away savudu/soil. It emphasized that the writ petition cannot claim any right on behalf of the Panchayat until amendments are made in the relevant rules. As a result, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the desilting of tanks, the implementation of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, and the claim of exclusive rights by the Panchayat to desilt the tanks and take away savudu/soil.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the absence of a legally protected right for the Panchayat to claim exclusive rights to desilt the tanks and take away savudu/soil, as well as the lack of evidence to support the Panchayat's claim. It emphasized the need for amendments in the relevant rules before such claims could be made.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
1. The instant public interest litigation has been filed for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Government order dated 11.04.2017 passed by the District Collector, Nagapattinam in Na.Ka.No.735/Mineral/2015 in respect of Sl.No.60 and 61 in the said Government order being Chinna Eri in Survey No.242/1 measuring to an extent of 21.20.5 and Periya Eri in Survey No.374/1 measuring to an extent of 15.15.05 Hectares situated in Prathabaramapuram Panchayat, Kilvelur Taluk, Nagapattinam District and to implement the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005.
2. The petitioner submits that the village Prathabaramapuram Panchayat, Kilvelur Taluk is surrounded by lot of Water bodies and the entire village depends on Agriculture for livelihood. He states that in the year 2011, the Panchayat was facing heavy economic burden and the Panchayat President Mr.R.E.Swaminathan decided to desilt the five tanks namely (i) Kazhuvakkulam (S.No.281/1), (ii) Kattukulam (S.No.314/1), (iii) Uppukulam (S.No.298/1A), (iv) Sitheri (S.No.242/1 and (v) Santhiravathi and sell the soil which is obtained on desilting for generating funds to the panchayat. Proposal was sent. Since there was no action on the proposal, writ petition No.10051/2011 was filed in this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 20.09.2011 wherein it was observed as under:-
“3. Heard the parties and perused the records. The grievances of the petitioner is that as per the Panchayat resolution. The tanks are sought to be de-silted and the byproduct namely desilted sand sought to be utilized. As per the recommendation made by the second respondent on the resolution dated 06.01.2011 no permission has been obtained under Mines and Mineral Concession Rules 1959 from the first respondent.
4. Without going into the merits of the case, this court directs the first respondent to take appropriate decision with regard to the opinion expressed by the second respondent through his letter dated 09.03.2010 and dispose of the same on its own merits and in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order.”
3. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed another writ petition in W.P.No.40307 of 2016 for a direction to the Special Officer-Cum-Block Development Officer, Village Panchayat, Panchayat Union Office, Keezhaiyur, Pradhabaramapuram Panchayat, Kilvelur (Taluk), Nagapattinam District to implement the resolution for desilting the tanks and taking soil. The said writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 17.11.2016 by this Court has observed as under:-
“1. The petitioner submits that the representation dated 31.10.2016 has been submitted in view of Resolution No.24 dated 15.08.2016 passed by the Grama Sabha, Prathabaramapuram Panchayat, Keezhaiyur Taluk, requiring desilting of the lake as set out in the resolution. It is the say of the petitioner that instead of getting this work done through private contractors, in order to generate employment, the same may be carried out under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. The Panchayat, at present, is being administered by the Special Officer.
2. We are of the view that the prayer would depend on the feasibility of what the petitioner states and it is for the concerned authority to examined the same and thus, the representation of the petitioner referred to aforesaid be examined for its feasibility.
3. Writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. No costs.”
4. It is further contended that instead of implementing the order of the High Court, the contract of desilting has been given to the private parties without following the procedure prescribed in the Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency Act, 1998 in respect of Chinna Eri and Periya Eri. The petitioner therefore filed this present writ petition that instead of the private parties desilting the tanks and taking the soil. The villagers cannot be permitted to desilting the tanks and tak