V.SOMANATHAN Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner holds an item of property measuring 43.36 Ares within the limits of Palamel Village. Based on informa- tion that the petitioner is removing ordinary sand from his property unauthorisedly, the Sub Inspector of Police concerned inspected the property of the petitioner, and having found that the petitioner has removed ordinary earth from his property unauthorisedly, he pre- pared Ext.P1 mahazar and informed the matter to the second re- spondent, the competent authority under the Minor Mineral Conces- sion Rules (the Rules), 2015. On receiving information from the Sub Inspector of Police, the second respondent deputed the Assistant Geologist attached to his office to conduct an inspection of the property and accordingly, the said officer has inspected the prop- erty of the petitioner on 07.11.2017, and having found that the pe- titioner has removed ordinary sand from his property unauthor- isedly, the said officer has prepared Ext.P4 mahazar. Thereupon, on the basis of Ext.P4 mahazar, the second respondent has issued notice to the petitioner on 05.12.2017, informing him that he has removed 1260 metric ton ordinary earth from his property, and call- ing upon him to show cause why royalty and other statutory dues in respect of the same shall not be recovered from him. In re- sponse to the said notice, the petitioner has sent a reply on 14.12.2017. The petitioner was, thereupon, given an opportunity of hearing on 27.12.2017. In the course of the hearing, the petitioner disputed the recitals in the mahazars prepared, and required the second respondent to conduct another inspection in the property. Accordingly, the second respondent inspected the property of the petitioner on 06.02.2018 in presence of the Village Officer con- cerned. Ext.P5 is the mahazar prepared by the second respondent in this connection on 06.02.2018. Thereupon, the second respond- ent issued Ext.P7 order-cum-demand notice under Rule 108 of the Rules directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.75,600/- towards royalty and other statutory dues in respect of the ordinary earth re- moved by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged Ext.P7 or- der-cum-demand notice before the Appellate Authority in terms of Rule 98(1)(a) of the Rules. The contention raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was that he has not removed ordin- ary earth at all from his property and that he has only uprooted the stumps of the rubber trees stood in the property. Having regard to the materials on record, the Appellate Authority rejected the said contention and affirmed Ext.P7 order-cum-demand notice. Ext.P8 is the order issued by the Appellate Authority in this regard. The peti- tioner challenged Ext.P8 order before the Government in terms of Rule 98(1)(b) of the Rules and the Government affirmed Ext.P8 or- der. Ext.P10 is the order issued by the Government in this regard. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P7, P8 and P10 orders and hence this writ petition.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Au- thorities, viz, that the petitioner has not removed ordinary earth from the property and that he has only uprooted the stumps of the rubber trees stood in the property. It was also contended by the learned counsel that no materials, whatsoever, were available be- fore the second respondent to hold that the petitioner has removed ordinary earth from his property. It was argued that no reliance can be placed on the mahazars prepared by the officials since there are no independent witnesses in any of the mahazars.