SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37849

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Dhandapani, J
Hindustan Stone Crusher – Appellant
Versus
District Collector – Respondent
W.P.No. 14584 of 2026



Advocates:
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S,Senthil
For Respondent(s): Mr.Stalin Abimanyu Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R5

Rule 36(1-A)(c) TNMMCR 1959 restricts layouts/building plans within 300m of quarries, not stone crusher units.

Headnote:First Paragraph: Under Rule 36(1-A)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, no new layout or building plans within 300m of a quarry may be approved without prior clearance from the Director of Geology and Mining. Petitioner, holding quarry lease in S.No.35/3, sought to restrain approvals for crusher unit in adjacent lands within 300m, citing representations. Court found Rule applies only to layouts and inhabited sites, not industrial crusher units, which fall under Pollution Control Board purview. Second Paragraph: Whether respondents could approve crusher unit near existing quarry without violating distance rules. Court held Rule 36(1-A)(c) covers only layouts/building plans for inhabited sites like village or house sites per revenue records or approved plans, excluding crushing units as industrial setups. Third Paragraph: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks restraint on nearby crusher approvals (Para 1 , 2)
2. rule 36 limits layouts, not crushers (Para 3 , 4)
3. crusher not inhabited site; petition dismissed (Para 5 , 6)

7.Deepa ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 to 5 not to accord any permission or approval to the respondents 6 and 7 or any other person for any development activity, including crusher unit to be erected in S.Nos.125/2B, 125/3, 125/1, 127/1, 127/2, 122/1B, 122/4, 121/2F, 121/6B, 121/6A, 121/2B and 121/2E within 300 meters from the petitioner’s quarry in S.No.35/3 of Eripudhur Village, Valapady Taluk, Salem District, by considering the petitioner’s representations dated 05.12.2025 and 12.01.2026.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S,Senthil For Respondent(s): Mr.Stalin Abimanyu Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R5

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 5 not to accord any permission or approval to the respondents 6 and 7 or any other person for any development activity including crusher unit to be erected in S.Nos.125/2B, 125/3, 125/1, 127/1, 127/2, 122/1B, 122/4, 121/2F, 121/6B, 121/6A, 121/2B and 121/2E within 300 meters from the petitioner’s quarry in S.No.35/3 of Eripudhur Village, Valapady Taluk, Salem District, by considering the petitioner’s representations dated 05.12.2025 and 12.01.2026.

2. The petitioner is a partnership Firm and the Firm participated in e-auction floated by the Department of Geology and Mining for grant of quarry lease for rough stone in a Government Poramboke land in S.F.No.35/3 (Part), situated at Eripudhur Village, Valapady Taluk, Salem District. The petitioner came to know that on 04.11.2025, the respondents 6 and 7 jointly purchased the land comprised in Survey Nos.125/2B, 125/3, 125/1, 127/1, 127/2, 122/1B, 122/4, 121/2F, 121/6B, 121/6A, 121/2B, 121/2E and other lands in other survey numbers vide Sale Deed dated 04.11.2025 registered as Document No.6295/2025 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Ayothiyapatti, which lies within 300 meters of the petitioner’s leasehold area. Hence, the petitioner has sent a representation dated 05.12.2025 to the respondents 1 to 5 requesting them not to accord any approval or permission for such activities in the lands situated within 500 meters from the petitioner’s quarry in S.No.35/3(Part). Since the same was not acted upon, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has produced a written instructions from the Assistant Director of Department of Geology and Mining, Salem District and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

“ v. In this regard, it is submitted that Rule 36(1-A)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, stipulated that no new layout, building plans falling within 300m from any quarry should be given approval by any agency unless prior clearance of the Director of Geology and Mining is obtained.

vi. Rule 36(1-A)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, mentioned about layout and building plans only not the establishment of stone crusher unit. No provision has been mentioned under the said Rule with regard to establishing stone crusher unit within the prohibited distance of 300m from the quarry.

vii. Further, explanation given under the said Rule read as “(iii) inhabited site shall mean a village site or town site or a house site as referred to in the revenue records or a house site or layout approved by a local body or town or country or metropolitan planning authority, where the said body or authority is created under a statute and empowered to approve such an area as a house site or layout area”. According to the explanation of the said Rule, layout sh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top