BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 06/01/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P(MD)No.101 of 2026 P.Anitha Raja Bai ... Petitioner Vs

1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.

2.The Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents to consider petitioners representation dated 14.11.2025 and direct the first respondent to grant quarrying lease for petitioner property in Sy.No.483/2 in Mecode Village, Thiruvattar (Kalkulam) for the balance quantity of 99,229 Cu.m rough stone quarry as permitted by the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority and to direct the second respondent to issue transport permit to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Arun Raja Seelan, Advocate For Respondents : Mrs.K.Malathi, Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.11.2025 and to direct the first respondent to grant a quarrying lease in respect of the petitioner's property in Survey No.483/2, Mecode Village, Thiruvattar (Kalkulam) for the balance quantity of 99,229 Cu.m of rough stone quarrying as permitted by the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority and to direct the second respondent to issue the necessary transport permit to the petitioner.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that intially the lease was granted to the petitioner for a period of five years to carry out rough stone and jelly quarry operations in Survey No.483/2 in Mecode Village, Kalkulam Taluk (Now Thiruvattar Taluk). The State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, by order dated 05.01.2016, issued an environmental clearance certificate permitting the petitioner to carryout rough stone quarry operations in the property. As per the certificate, the approved quantity for quarrying rough stone is 1,41,950 Cu.m for the period of five years. In the meantime, the first respondent had issued a susspension notice, due to which there was a temporary ban on quarry operations. Thereafter, the first respondent revoked the suspension notice and permitted the petitioner to quarry 42,721 Cu.m of rough stone for a period of 18 month and 19 days. The said period has now expired. Based on the environmental clearance certificate, a balance quantity of 99,229 Cu.m of rough stone remains available for quarrying for the period of 38 months. Therefore, the petitioner submitted representation to the respondents on 14.11.2025 seeking permission to utilize the remaining non-operative period and to conduct quarry operations for the permitted balance quantity of 99,229 Cu.m of rough stone quarry for a period of 38 months. However, the said representation has not been considered till date. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondents had already granted an extention for a period of 18 months and therefore, there is no question of granting any further extension.

4.Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, it is evident that the extention already granted for a period of 18 months was only to compensate for the losses incurred due to the stopage of quarry operations at the instance of the respondent. Therefore, the said period cannot be considered as an extention granted to the petitioner after expiry of the lease period of five years. Since based on the Environmental Clearance Certificate, a balance quantity of 99,229 Cu.m of rough stone reamins available for quarrying, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.11.2025 and pass a