R K RAMASWAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed against the common judgment passed in a series of writ petitions filed against the petitioner and others. The 5th respondent in these writ petitions is the appellant. The appellant was given lease in the year 1996 for quarrying sand. The appellant contended that lease was for 25 hectares but there is an allegation to the effect that original lease was for 10 hectares and later it was interpolated and made as 25 hectares. The appellant started quarrying operation in 1996. Some of the local residents raised objections against quarrying of sand and the District collector, Musiri suggested that in view of the objections of the local residents the area for qarrying be shifed to 25 hectares at plot B and a fresh lease could be executed in favour of the appellant. It is alleged that the appellant filed writ petition before the High Court and obtained interim orders and on the strength of the interim orders passed by the High Court, he started the mining operation even before any lease was granted in his favour in respect of the plot B and it is also alleged by the respondents-writ petitioners that the appellant obtained various other interim orders from the High Court for lorry permits for transporting the sand and this continued till 25-3-1999.

(2.) The petitioner in the writ petitions alleged that because of the large scale mining there was serious threat to ecology and environment and the water level of that area had gone down and several irrigation schemes failed because of the loss of water due to extensive excavation carried out by the petitioner. In the writ petition it is also alleged that the quarrying operation was without a proper lease and the appellant herein had no valid lease and the lease itself was not registered in accordance with the provisions of the act and Rules. The High Court elaborately considered the matter and finally in paragraph 77 the following direction was given :" For the above reasons, the decision making process as reflected from the note file as well as the impugned notification being arbitrary, it is demonstrable non-application of mind and callous indifference to Rule 39, we are of the considered view that the grant in favour of the 5th respondent deserves to be quashed and a further direction has to be issued to the 2nd respondent to estimate the loss caused to the State Government by the illegal quarrying of sand by the said respondent, assess the damage and estimate the loss caused to the public exchequer after issue of notice, pass orders and recover the same from the said respondent or initiate appropriate action without delay. "

(3.) Aggrieved by the above directions, the present appeals are filed.