IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:23.10.2025 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI R.Muthuvel ... Petitioner Vs

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The District Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkal District.

3.The State Level Environmental -

Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Rep by its Chairman, 3^rd Floor, Panagal Malaigai, No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned demand notice passed by the 2^nd Respondent vide Na.Ka.No.483- 7/Kanimam/2025, dated 25.07.2025, pertaining to the lease granted in favour of the petitioner, to quarry rough stone in S.F.No.6 (Part 1) over an extent of 1.00.0 Hec in Government land situated in Anaikattipalayam Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District, quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Vignesh For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate General Assisted by Mr.Stalin Abimanyu, Additional Government Pleader for RR-1 to 3

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the demand notice issued by the 2^nd Respondent dated 25.07.2025 pertaining to the lease granted in favour of quarry rough stone in the subject property.

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was granted rough stone/quarrying lease in respect of the Government Land measuring an extent of 1.00.0 Hectares, comprised in S.F.No.6 (Part 1), situated in Anaikattipalayam Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District, vide proceedings dated 03.04.2008 and the lease agreement dated 16.04.2008 was executed in favour of the petitioner and after the execution of the lease agreement the petitioner commenced the quarry operations upon payment of necessary seigniorage fee.

The petitioner, on 16.11.2015 had applied for Environmental Clearance Certificate and the same was granted on 11.07.2016 which was prior to the expiry of lease on 10.01.2017. Inspite of the petitioner obtaining the environment clearance certificate before the expiry of lease, without properly appreciating the same, the 2^nd respondent had issued the present demand notice demanding 51,39,000/- towards the alleged quarry operations which represents 100% penalty. It is the submission of the learned counsel that similar issue where environmental clearance certificate obtained prior to 10.01.2017 was considered by this Court in W.P. No.15471 of 2020, wherein this Court held that where persons, who have been granted quarry licence and who have obtained environmental clearance prior to 10.01.2017, they shall not be visited with any penalty. In the present case, the petitioner having obtained environmental clearance certificate prior to 10.01.2017, the said decision would be squarely applicable to the case of the petitioner.

3. Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents fairly concede to the said submissions and submits that the petitioner having obtained the necessary environmental clearance certificate prior to 10.01.2017, no penalty can be levied on the petitioner.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. It is the fair submission of the learned counsel on either side that persons, who have been granted quarry lease and who have obtained environmental clearance certificate prior to 10.01.2017, they shall not be levied with any penalty, as has been held by this Court in W.P.No.15471 of 2020. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the said order is quoted hereunder :-

“7. Be that as it may. The fact remains that the petitioner was in possession of EC on 1.07.2016. It should not be lost sight of that the decision in Deepak Kumar's case was rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 2012, but only after much delay, proceedings were