Senthil Kumar S/o.Veerappan vs The District Collector District Collectorate, Namakkal

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 16536

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.Jayachandran, Shahim Ahmed, JJ
Senthil Kumar S/o.Veerappan – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector District Collectorate, Namakkal – Respondent
WP No. 16454 of 2024

Important Points

A writ petition is premature if no action has been taken on the underlying application for a quarry license, and cause of action arises only upon rejection of objections.

Subject

Administrative Law - Writ Jurisdiction

Act Referred

Mines and Minerals Act: S.36(1-A)

Headnote

Statute Analysis: The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus against granting quarry license. Facts of the Case: The petitioner raised objections based on the proximity of their residence to the proposed quarry site, citing representation dates of 19.07.2023, 02.02.2024, and 26.04.2024.

Findings of Court:
The court found the writ petition premature since the application for license had not been processed.

Issues: The key issue was whether the petitioner's objections had been considered.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the cause of action would only arise upon the authorities' decision regarding the petitioner's objections and residence proximity.

Result: The writ petition stands dismissed.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Varshini .V. for Mr. I Abrar Md Abdullah
For the Respondents: Mr. M.Vijayaragavan, for R4 Ms.V.Rani , Spl.G.P., for R1 to R3

Table of Content
1. writ petition for mandamus on quarry license objections (Para 1 , 2)
2. premature petition; application not processed (Para 3 , 4)
3. cause of action dependent on authority's response (Para 5 , 6)
4. writ petition dismissed (Para 7)

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.)

The writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to restrain the respondents 1 and 2 from granting quarry licence to the 4^th respondent in Survey No.375/2 situated at Akalampatti Village, Thiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District.

2. According to the writ petitioner, apprehending that the respondents 1 and 2 likely to grant quarry licence to the private respondent, had given a representation on 19.07.2023, 02.02.2024 and 26.04.2024 objecting for considering the application for grant of quarry licence on the ground that the residence of the writ petitioner is situated within 300 meters from the proposed quarry site.

3. After notice, the private respondent, namely 4^th respondent, has entered appearance.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that the writ petition is premature. The application made by the fourth respondent yet to be processed. Further more, she also contended that the petitioner is not residing in the land, which is alleged to be 300 meters from the proposed quarry site.

5. As far as the first contention regarding premature writ petition, we are fully in agreement with the counsel appearing for the private respondent. The cause of action for the petitioner will arise only if her objection is considered and overruled, or if not at all considered, and any licence granted in violation of Section 36(1-A) of the Mines and Minerals Act.

6. Second ground of defence is purely based on facts. It is open to the authorities, while considering the application for grant of quarry licence, survey the land proposed for quarrying and the land of the writ petitioner, whether it is purely agricultural land or any dwelling units are available there.

7. With this observation, writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.