Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 58234
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Dhandapani, J
K.Murugan – Appellant
Versus
The State rep. By The Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals Department, Cuddalore – Respondent
W.P.No.34151 of 2025 | W.M.P.No.38300 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Thirumoorthy
For the Respondents: Mr.E.Vijay Anand Additional Government Pleader
Failure to exhaust available remedies limits judicial intervention under constitutional writ jurisdictions.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged the cancellation of their license for Brick Klin operation by the respondents. The court found that the petitioner had an effective remedy available through an appeal to the District Collector under section 36-C of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The court ruled that the writ petition was unsustainable as the requisite appeal was not filed. Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty granted to appeal within one week.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges cancellation of brick klin license. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. respondents accept notice; court reviews materials. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 3. petitioner has an effective remedy on appeal. (Para 5) |
ORDER
Challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent cancelling the license given to the petitioner for doing Brick Klin, the present writ petition is filed.
2. Mr.E.Vijay Anand, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the consent expressed by the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
3. The petitioner was permitted to do Brick Klin activity in a patta land. Since the petitioner was involved in large scale of excavation of brick earth, a Public Interest Litigation was filed before this Court by one Sivaraman in W.P.No.17055 of 2025. In the said writ petition, the respondents-authority have stated that the petitioner was indulging in quarrying brick earth and action for levy of penalty as per Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules , 1959. This Court, vide order, dated 25.08.2025, closed the said writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out the remedy against the action of levy of penalty against him. Pending the said writ petition, on 22.08.2025, the 1st respondent had cancelled the permission granted to the petitioner for doing brick klin on the ground that the petitioner was involved in quarrying brick earth at a larger scale. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.
5. As against the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner has an effective remedy on appeal before the District Collector u/s 36-C of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules , 1959. Without doing so, filing the present writ petition is per se unsustainable. Hence, this Court is not interfere with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent and this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
