Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 28362
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Dhandapani, J
R.CHANDRASEKARAN – Appellant
Versus
The District collector – Respondent
WP No. 8235 of 2026|W.M.P.Nos.8923, 8925 & 8928 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Selvaraj
For the Respondents: U. Baranidharan
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.
Headnote:The petitioners challenged a quarrying license granted to the seventh respondent under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, citing risks to residents, children, and agriculture. The petitioners sought to file an appeal before the District Collector under Rule 36-C of the said Rules, arguing that residential houses were located within 300 metres of the site. The primary issue was whether the District Collector could independently consider an appeal against a quarrying license that was granted based on an Environmental Clearance issued by the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority. The court reasoned that without challenging the Environmental Clearance before the National Green Tribunal under Section 16(h) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, the District Collector lacks the jurisdiction to independently consider the appeal on those grounds. the present Writ Petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the National Green Tribunal in a manner known to law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the grant of a quarrying license based on local residential and agricultural objections. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. determination of the appropriate legal forum for appealing mining licenses linked to environmental clearances. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. the national green tribunal is the exclusive forum for challenging environmental clearances upon which mining licenses depend. (Para 5 , 6) |
##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 )
##PAGE2##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 2nd
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 7th 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 )
##PAGE3##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
____
