D RAJA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner challenges the order of the respondent in imposing penalty on the petitioner as per Rules 36A(1) and (3) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.

(2.) EVEN though as against the order of the respondent, an appeal lies to the Commissioner of Geology and Mining under Rule 36C of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the impugned order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice and on the basis of the materials collected behind the back of the petitioner and that after the period of agreement was over, there is no material to show that the petitioner has illegally mined or has been caught red-handed.

(3.) PURSUANT to the order, the respondent issued notice stating about the inspection to be conducted on 1.3.2003. The petitioner was present and it was found that there was no pit in the area and no measurement was taken. It is stated that the lease-hold area given to the petitioner was 6 kms away from Thellur and Vinnamangalam site and the entire allegations were made based on the complaint of a former MLA who subsequently withdrew the complaint and in the complaint given by another person Vadivelu, there was no mention about the petitioner and certain allegation was also made against the MLA of Arni who with the intention of releasing the lorry seized at Thellur issued a letter and there was no complaint of illegal mining.