JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.4190/MM9/2015 dated 29.01.2016 passed by the first respondent upholding the orders passed by the second and third respondents in Na.Ka.No.21/Kanimam/2013 dated 15.04.2015 and Se.Mu.Ka.No.A3/1734/2014 dated 30.07.2014 respectively and quash the same.

1. The penalty levied for expanding the quarrying operations in an unleased area and for illegal transportation of gravel/earth passed by the first respondent in proceedings dated 29.01.2016, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. On 23.08.2013, the petitioner obtained a lease for taking 2000 lorry load gravel/sand from Samudiram Lake Area, Tiruvannamalai in S.No.3/1C1. The petitioner has been permitted to take gravel/sand from the leased area of 4.90.5 hectares out of 147.71.5 hectares by the proceedings of the second respondent. The lease period was granted from 23.08.2013 to 22.07.2014 for a period of 11 months.

3. The petitioner states that he went to the leased out area along with lorries and manpower for taking gravel/sand. But to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, some members of the locality threatened the workers accompanied the petitioner. There was an illegal extraction of sand from the Samudiram Lake by 10 lorries with registration numbers and JCB and Hitachi Excavators without registration numbers. The petitioner further states that the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resources Organisation also was threatened by the Gang and one Mr.V.Venkatesan-fourth respondent stating that the lease granted to the petitioner must be cancelled. Under these circumstances, the second respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 10.01.2014. The petitioner submitted his detailed explanations on 20.01.2014 and thereafter on 24.01.2014, the second respondent cancelled the lease permit in his proceedings dated 25.03.2014. The third respondent summoned the petitioner to appear before him on 04.04.2014 at 10.00 A.M. The petitioner appeared and further given detailed representation. The third respondent passed an order on 30.07.2014 and fixed the liability as Rs.61,49,941.50. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred the First Appeal under Section 36C(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 before the second respondent. The District Collector also rejected the appeal on 15.04.2015. The petitioner further preferred Second Appeal under Section 36C(2) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 before the first respondent-Commissioner. The Commissioner has not taken any action on the Second Appeal filed by the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner filed WP No.31653 of 2015 before this Court and this Court directed the first respondent to dispose of the Second Appeal. The petitioner and his counsel appeared before the first respondent and submitted their written arguments. However, the first respondent passed the impugned order in proceedings dated 29.01.2016, confirming the orders passed by the second and third respondents.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that the impugned orders were passed by the Authorities in a mechanical manner without considering the case of the petitioner. The grounds raised in the writ petition reveal that the Public Works Department Officials went to the lease spot i.e., Samudiram Lake and found that some unauthorised persons, who are not belongs to the appellant to gravel/earth by 10 lorries, JCB and Hitachi Excavators. In spite of that the respondents have not taken any action against those persons, but cancelled the lease granted in favour of the petitioner.

5. At the outset, it is contended by the petitioner that when some illegal persons had taken gravel/sand in an illegal manner for which the petitioner cannot be blamed.

6. The respondents filed coun