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.

(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.