Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
K.Vasan – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.P.No. 10442 of 2022 And W.M.P.Nos. 10143 & 10146 of 2022
Decided on : 04-01-2023
Writ Petition - Quarry License Suspension - Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 - Rule 36-C - G.O.(Ms)No. 295, Industries (MMC-1) Department dated 03.11.2021 - [S.F.Nos. 121/1E2, 121/1F, 121/2, 122/2A3, 122/2B1, 193/1A3B, 193/1A3B, 193/1A4] - The court discussed the petitioner's application for quarrying rough stone and gravel, the permissions obtained, objections raised by the public, and the subsequent suspension of the quarry license by the District Collector. The court analyzed the joint inspection reports, the impact on the surrounding ecosystem, and the legal provisions under Rule 36-C and G.O.(Ms)No. 295, Industries (MMC-1) Department dated 03.11.2021, and concluded that the relief sought by the Writ Petitioner cannot be granted.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought permission to quarry rough stone and gravel in specific land areas. After obtaining necessary permissions, objections were raised by the public, leading to the temporary suspension of the quarry license by the District Collector.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the joint inspection reports indicated the potential detrimental impact of quarrying on the surrounding ecosystem, including wildlife and human-wildlife conflict. The court also noted the legal provisions under Rule 36-C and G.O.(Ms)No. 295, Industries (MMC-1) Department dated 03.11.2021, and concluded that the relief sought by the Writ Petitioner cannot be granted.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's right to quarry, objections raised by the public, the impact on the surrounding ecosystem, and the legality of the suspension of the quarry license.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the potential detrimental impact of quarrying on the surrounding ecosystem, the existence of an alternate remedy under Rule 36-C, and the legal provisions prohibiting quarrying within a certain distance from a Reserve Forest Area.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and a cost of Rs.25,000/- was imposed to be paid to the District Mineral Foundation Trust, Kancheepuram District, Government of Tamil Nadu.
ORDER :
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the third respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.53/Q3/2020 dated 08.04.2022 in respect of the rough stone and gravel quarry in S.F.No. 121/1E2, 121/1F, 121/2, 122/2A3, 122/2B1, 193/1A3B and 193/1A3B and 193/1A4 in the land of an extent of 2.01.00 hectares in No. 77, Mampudur Village, Uthiramerur Taluk and quash the same.
The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari seeking records relating to the order of the third respondent/the District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram in Na.Ka.No.53/Q3/2020 dated 08.04.2022 in respect of the rough stone and gravel quarry in S.F.No. 121/1E2, 121/1F, 121/2, 122/2A3, 122/2B1, 193/1A3B and 193/1A3B and 193/1A4 in land measuring 2.01.00 hectares in Mampudur Village, Uthiramerur Taluk and to quash the same.
2. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the fourth respondent V.Murali, had been impleaded by an order dated 29.06.2022 in WMP No. 15325 of 2022.
3. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, K.Vasan, the owner of the aforesaid lands at Mampudur Village, Uthiramerur Taluk, had stated that the lands contained deposits of minor minerals such as Rough Stone and Gravel which were capable of being quarried in a scientific manner. He applied for no objection from the Tahsildar, Uthiramerur. After inspection of the site and local enquiry, the Tahsildar also granted no objection by proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 1164/2020/A1 dated 13.08.2020. Thereafter, the Personal Assistant (General) to the District Collector, Kancheepuram, by proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 2017/2020/A-1 dated 04.09.2020 also granted no objection for grant of stone quarry license.
4. The petitioner then applied for environmental clearance before the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, Tamil Nadu. The said authority also granted Environmental Clearance by proceedings in Lr.No. SEIAA-TN/F.No. 8127/EC No. 4515/2020 dated 20.02.2021 for a period of five years. Thereafter, the second respondent, the Deputy Director of Geology and Mining in Kancheepuram, granted license to quarry rough stone and gravel by proceedings No. Na.Ka.No.53/Q3/2020 dated 26.02.2021 for a period of 10 years. The second respondent also executed an agreement for a period of 10 years from 26.02.2021 to 25.02.2031 for quarrying and carrying away of mining minerals from the ryotwari lands wherein the minerals belonged to the Government. The petitioner was also granted transport permit for transportation of the minerals to be excavated from the quarry.
5. It was further stated in the affidavit that suo moto proceedings were then initiated by the National Green Tribunal (South zone) in O.A.No. 170 of 2021 with respect to mineral activities in Kancheepuram District on the basis of a report in Times of India dated 13.07.2021. The National Green Tribunal appointed a Joint Inspection Committee and passed final orders in O.A.No. 170 of 2021 dated 26.10.2021. With respect to the permissions granted to the petitioner, the National Green Tribunal disposed the Original Application with a direction that the authorities shall conduct periodical inspection and ensure that there is no excessive mining or illegal transportation carried out and Rules and Regulations were duly implemented.
6. It was further stated that the fourth respondent, who had been subsequently impleaded as a party to the Writ Petition had earlier filed W.P.No. 795 of 2022 seeking a direction against the third respondent, District Collector, Kancheepuram District, to consider his representation dated 28.12.2021 and stop the petitioner from forming/erecting crusher or M sand unit in the aforesaid lands on the allegation that the petitioner had encroached the lake and mountain reserve forest. That Writ Petition was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the said Writ Petitioner V.Murali to approach
The court emphasized the importance of considering the potential impact of quarrying on the surrounding ecosystem and wildlife, as well as the existence of an alternate remedy under Rule 36-C. The de....
The court established that prior judicial findings and inspections must be respected, and any new claims of violations require proper notice and participation of the affected parties.
Point of law: Undisputed evidence to show that as per revenue records the existence of buildings and house sites, whereas in the case on hand, no revenue records have been produced to show that there....
Quarry permit without EC illegal if in ESZ; no violation if outside and no extraction started; direct consideration for clearance.
SEIAA must independently verify SEAC recommendations and provide personal hearing before rejecting EC in existing quarry clusters.
The court reinforced the prohibition of mining within one kilometer of wildlife sanctuaries, emphasizing adherence to environmental protection laws.
Quarry permit without EC, pollution consents invalid near wildlife sanctuary ESZ; SEIAA must verify site before clearance.
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
