The main legal point established in the judgment is that the first appellant did not predetermine the issue against the petitioners, and the request for an interim injunction against quarry operations was against statutory principles.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 22.04.2022 in W.P(MD)Nos.6295 to 6297 and 6299 to 6308 of 2022 and allow these Writ Appeals.)

Common Judgment:

S.S. Sundar, J.

1. The State has preferred all the above 13 Writ Appeals, challenging the common order of learned Single Judge dated 22.04.2022 in W.P(MD)Nos.6295 to 6297 and 6299 to 6308 of 2022, disposing of the writ petitions filed by the respondent in the respective appeals with certain directions.

2. Since the issue involved in these writ appeals are one and the same and the writ appeals arise out of a common order, they are taken up together for disposal.

3. Heard Mr.N.Satheeshkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr.B.Saravanan, learned counsel for the respondent in the respective writ appeals. By consent of both sides, these appeals are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of these Writ Appeals, are as follows:-

4.1 Pursuant to a direction of this Court in a Public Interest Litigation in W.P.(MD) No.16194 of 2020, by order dated 18.11.2020, show cause notices were issued to the respondent in these writ appeals / writ petitioners based on the survey alleged to have been conducted by the appellants.

4.2 The writ petitioners challenged the individual show cause notices only on the ground that the first appellant has predetermined the issue and an adverse order is likely to be passed against the writ petitioners.

4.3 Learned Single Judge of this Court, while disposing of the writ petitions by a common order dated 22.04.2022, held that there is no basis for conclusion that the first appellant has predetermined the issue against the writ petitioners. However, learned Single Judge, disposed of the writ petitions in the following lines:-

“7. ... In order to protect the interest of the petitioners, in case, any adverse orders are passed against them, the first respondent shall keep the adverse order, if any, in abeyance for a period of one month from the date of final order to enable the petitioners to challenge the same, if so advised, in the manner known to them under law.”

4.4 Challenging that portion of the order, by which, a direction was issued to the first respondent to keep the adverse order, if any, in abeyance for a period of one month from the date of final order to enable the petitioners to challenge the order, that may be passed in pursuant to the show cause notices in the manner known to law, the above Writ Appeals are filed.

4.5 Another ground on which the appeals have been filed is that the writ petitioners who are found to have indulged in illegal quarry operations should be injuncted from operating quarry in the licensed area as the writ petitioners violated the terms and conditions of the licence. In other words, it is contended that the writ petitioners are not supposed to continue their quarry operations either for violation of terms and conditions of licence or for operating quarry in utter disregard to the provisions contained in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the respective writ appeals have no objection to delete that portion of the order, which requires the first appellant to keep the adverse orders, if any, that may be passed, in abeyance for one month so as to enable them to challenge the same. However, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the request of learned Additional Government Pleader to give interim direction or interim order, directing the writ petitioners not to operate quarries even in licensed area is against its statute or principles of natural justice.

6. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa