Prohibited distances for building approvals near quarry sites must be observed as per statutory regulations and confirmed by court precedents.

ORDER :

Challenging the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent and also consequential direction to the respondents 2 to 3 not to grant DTCP approval for house site plots in favour of the respondents 7 to 10 or any other person within the prohibited distance from the petitioners quarry and crushing machineries situated at Karamadai Village, Mettupalayam Taluk, Coimbatore District.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased the property in Survey No.456/3C1, to an extent of 1.17.0 Hectares situated at Karamadai village, Mettupalayam Taluk, Coimbatore District, through a registered sale deed dated 09.04.2003 on the file of Mettupalayam Sub-Registrar Office. The petitioner obtained a license from the Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mines in proceedings Na.Ka.1716/Kanimam/2020 dated 20.10.2022 for a period from 20.10.2022 to 19.10.2027 to run stones and gravel quarry lease. It is stated that as per Rule No.36(1)(a)&(C) of Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rule 1959, the respondents 1 to 6 are restricted from granting any building permission, layout plans falling within 300 meters from any stone crushing units or quarrying operations to anyone, as this 300 meters area is called as “prohibited distance”. It is pertinent to note that this “prohibited distance” was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.13564 of 1998 by order dated 01.02.2007, wherein it has been specifically held that no building permission, layout or whatsoever, shall be granted to anyone within the radius of 300 meters from stone quarrying site. While such being so, one Muthuramalingam along with respondents 7 to 10 are trying to get the house site approval from respondents 2 to 3. When the petitioner came to know about the same, the petitioner gave a representation on 17.06.2024 to the respondents 2 to 6, requesting them not to issue any house site approval to the said Muthuramalingam or any other person in around the petitioner's quarry and crushers unit. Thereafter, the petitioner also sent a legal notice objecting the issuance of house site approval to the respondents 2 to 6 on 30.05.2023 by way of registered post. The same was acknowledged by the official respondents and even the respondent authority without any proper enquiry, trying to give house site approval within the prohibited distance from the petitioner's quarry and crushers unit. However, the aforesaid representation was pending without considering the objection made by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent is trying to issue the house site layout within prohibited distance from the petitioner's quarry. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.29772 of 2024, seeking to direct the respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition not to issue the house site approval to any other person in and around the petitioner's quarry and crushing machineries within the prohibited distance from the quarry and crushing unit. The said writ petition was allowed. Further, the petitioner also filed another writ petition in W.P.No.32930 of 2024, praying that the respondents 1 and 3 in the aforesaid writ petition not to register the unapproved house site plots to any other person in and around the petitioner's quarry and crushing machineries within the prohibited distance from the quarry and crushers units and the said writ petition was also allowed. While so, the respondents 7 to 10 obtained DTCP approval from the 2nd respondent vide CBEREG/GW51T4VL/2024/2024/TCP dated 09.08.2024 within the “prohibited distance” from the petitioner quarry and crushing units. Hence,