IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.11.2025

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

M.Lilly ... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector,

Tiruvallur District,

Tiruvallur. ... Respondent

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the connected the records of the District Collector, Tiruvallur, the respondent herein relating to his proceedings R.C.No.492/2011/G & M-2 dated 22.11.2023 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to refund to the petitioner the proportionate license fee in terms of the unquarried period from 19.10.2015 to

23.11.2015 and the Security Deposit with a simple interest of 24 interest.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Selvaraju

for M/s.P.Kannan Kumar

For Respondents : Mr.Stalin Abimanyu

Additional Government Pleader

*****

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent relating to his proceedings R.C.No.492/2011/G & M-2 dated 22.11.2023 and quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondent to refund to the petitioner the proportionate license fee in terms of the unquarried period from 19.10.2015 to

23.11.2015 and the Security Deposit with a simple interest of 24 interest. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she made an application seeking quarrying permission to remove 4732 lorry loads of savudu earth from S.No.593 (Part) WRD tank of Perungavur Village, Ponneri Taluk in Tiruvallur District. Based on the recommendations of the statutory authorities, the respondent vide proceedings dated 29.09.2015 granted permission to the petitioner in terms of Rule 12 of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (in short ‘the Rules’) for removal of savudu earth from the said tank for a period of 55 days from 30.09.2015 to 23.11.2015 and directed the petitioner to remit seigniorage fee of Rs.5,67,840/- and Rs.56,784/- towards Security Deposit. Immediately, the petitioner had executed a lease deed with the respondent on 29.09.2015. However, the petitioner could not commence the quarrying operation immediately from 30.09.2025 itself, since the approach road to the quarrying site located inside the tank bed could not be formed immediately in the tank bed because of rain in the last week of September, 2015. Thereafter, the petitioner was able to quarry only for 5 days upto 18.10.2015 after forming approach road at her own cost. All of a sudden, the Assistant Director (Mines), Tiruvallur who came to the quarrying site on 19.10.2025 and orally stopped the petitioner's quarrying operations without any order in writing and when asked for its reason, the said authority told that the respondent told to stop the quarrying presumably due to the complaint petitions of one Gobi and one Saranraj, who has also filed a PIL before this Court objecting any quarrying within Perungavur lake bed. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representations dated 27.10.2015, 29.10.2015 and 19.11.2015 before the respondent seeking permission to restart her quarrying operations. However, no order was passed, thereby the petitioner approached this Court by way of W.P.No.15723 of 2016 to restart and complete her quarrying operations in the permitted area. This Court, by its order, dated 23.06.2016, dismissed the said writ petition, against which, the petitioner has filed W.A.No.367 of 2017 before this Division Bench of this Court and the same was also dismissed, against which, she approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No.16554 of 2018 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the same, granting permission to the petitioner to make a representation before the respondent authority for refund of the proportionate license fee with claim for interest enclosing the said letters and proof of service, within a period of two weeks from the date of the order and upon receipt of the representation, the respondent was directed to consider the same within a