Challenges to quarrying licenses based on Environmental Clearances must be adjudicated by the National Green Tribunal, as the District Collector cannot independently review the license without the underlying Environmental Clearance being challenged in the appropriate forum.

##PAGE1##

WP No. 8235 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

WP No. 8235 of 2026

W.M.P.Nos.8923, 8925 & 8928 of 2026

1. R.Chandrasekaran

2. P.Sivasamy

3. R. Rasammal

4. M.Komarasamy

5. P.Thangaraj

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The District collector

Office of the District collector,

Erode district, Erode

2. The Deputy Director of Geology and Mining

Erode District, Erode

3. The District Environmental Engineer

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,

Perundurai, Erode District

4. The Revenue Divisional officer

Gobichettipalayam,

Erode District

5. The Tahsildar

Nambiyur Taluk,

Erode District.

6. Anjanur Village Panchayat

Rep by its Executive officer

Anjanur Villaage,

Erode District

7. M. Thangavelu

..Respondent(s)

__________

Page1 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 02:46:29 pm )

WP No. 8235 of 2026

Prayer:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ Order or

Direction in the nature of Writ, calling for the records relating to the order of the

2nd respondent dated 08.02.2023 in Rc.No.1360 / Mines / 2020 and quash the

same.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Selvaraj

For Respondent(s): Mr.U.Baranidharan

Special Government Pleader For R1 to R6

ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the order of the 2^nd

respondent dated 08.02.2023 in Rc.No.1360 / Mines / 2020.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners own

lands in survey No.46/1A, 43/2, 43/3, 43/4, 43/5, 46/1B, 53/2 and 19/2 of

Panangattupalayam Village. The seventh respondent, who owns land in Survey

No.45/2, of the same village, applied for the grant of a quarrying licence. In

response, the petitioners submitted a representation to the official respondents

on 22.09.2021, requesting them not to grant the license. They contended that

quarrying would endanger the lives of residents, and school going children and

adversely affect agricultural operations. Despite the villager’s objection, the

official respondents granted quarrying licence to the 7^th respondent via an order

dated 08.02.2023. Challenging this order, the present Writ Petition has been

filed.

__________

Page2 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 02:46:29 pm )

WP No. 8235 of 2026

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that this Court

may permit the petitioners to file an appeal before the District Collector / first

respondent under Rule 36-C of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession

Rules, 1959 and prays for appropriate orders.

4.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents

1 to 6 submits that the quarrying license was granted to the seventh respondent

in accordance with the Environmental Clearance issued by the State Level

Environmental Impact Assessment Authority. He contends that if the petitioners

are aggrieved, their remedy lies in filing an appeal under Section 16 (h) of the

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. He further submits that a similar issue was

considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.8612 of 2025

which by order dated 08.08.2025, directed the aggrieved parties to approach the

National Green Tribunal. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of this Writ

Petition.

5.Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials

available on record.

6.The grievance expressed by the petitioners is that the official

respondents granted the quarrying license to the seventh respondent despite

objections and evidence that residential houses are situated within 300 metres of

____