JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the respondent's show cause notice bearing Na.Ka.A1/7334/2012 dated 22.01.2013 pertaining to the stone quarry bearing S.F.No.374/1A2 over an extent of 1.42.0 Hectares in Thondamanthurai (East) Village, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District and quash the same.)

Since the issues involved in all these writ petitions are one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order.

2. The lis on hand, are instituted questioning the legal validity of the show cause notices issued to the petitioners, who all are miners. All possess valid lease and miners, who are possessing valid license for mining operations.

3. In view of the fact that these show cause notices are under challenge, this Court thought fit not to venture into an adjudication of actual disputes, which all are to be done with reference to the documents in original and evidences to be placed by the respective parties. Thus, it is suffice if the scope of the show cause notices and the challenges made therein, are to be considered. The impugned show cause notices reveal that the petitioners had extended their mining operations excessively and quarried over and above the permitted limits and thereby committed an act of illegality, irregularity or otherwise based on facts to facts. Thus, the Authorities issued show cause notices by imposing penalty under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as well as the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules').

4. The learned Senior Counsel as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners mainly contended that the Authorities have no jurisdiction to issue show cause notice by invoking Rule 36(A) of the Rules as Section 21 of the Act contemplates 'Penalties' and as per the procedures laid down in the Act, the Authorities, on identification of illegality or otherwise, necessarily has to lodge an complaint before the jurisdictional Court for prosecution, by following the Criminal Procedure Code. Thus, the procedure adopted by issuing a show cause notice contravenes the spirit of Section 21 of the Act and thus, the show cause notices are liable to be set aside.

5. The learned Senior Counsel is of an opinion that once the authorities thought fit to invoke Penalty provisions then, the procedures contemplated under Section 21 of the Act alone must be followed and the Authorities cannot invoke Section 21 of the Act and simultaneously Rule 36 A of the Rules, which is improper and therefore, the notices are liable to be setaside.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.V.Sanjeevi pointed out that the show cause notices does not speak about the inspection report and the manner in which the assessments are made regarding the excess mining operation. In the absence of those details, the petitioners will not be in a position to submit their explanation defending their case. Thus, on that ground also, the notices are liable to be setaside.

7. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners by stating that the application of Section 21 of the Act and Rule 36(A) of the Rules are based on different circumstances and therefore, there is no impediment for the Competent Authorities for invoking Rule 36 (A) of the Rules. The State, by exercising the powers conferred under Section 15 of the Act framed the Rules and such Rules are in force and based on the facts and circumstances of each case, the Authorities competent are empowered to invoke the Rules for the purpose of imposing Penalty by following the procedures as contemplated under the Rules. This being the position, there is no infirmity as such, in respect of the show cause notices issued and it is left