ARUN KUMAR RAI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR DHARMAPURI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner - Arun Kumar Rai was given lease and license to quarry granite in Ryotwari lands belonging to him in S.Nos.510/1 and 511/1 in Agalakottai Village, Denkanikottai Taluk, Dharmapuri District for a period of 10 years i.e. from 25.02.1998 to 24.02.2008. Pursuant to the quarrying license granted to the petitioner, he commenced quarrying from June 1998 onwards. But, the said quarried materials could not be marketable, as they were all defective. THErefore, the petitioner said to have dumped the quarried stones near the quarry site, that is, inside the petitioner's land, but neither removed nor transported the quarried granite. Whileso, he was issued with a show cause notice dated 31.07.2001 by the Assistant Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Dharmapuri, alleging that he had quarried excess granite without obtaining permission and therefore, he was called upon to show cause within 15 days, as to why the penalty should not be levied on him for the alleged violation mentioned in the show cause notice. THE petitioner, on receipt of the show cause notice, submitted his explanation denying all the allegations and explained in detail that the terms of the lease and license agreement dated 25.02.1998 and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959, do no stipulate anywhere that granite upto a particular quantity alone could be carried and therefore, the show cause notice was thus vague and failed to convey any meaning. After submission of the explanation, he was called upon to appear for enquiry and accordingly, he appeared in person for enquiry before the enquiry officer on 27.08.2001 and brought to the notice of the enquiry officer that all the stones quarried were defective and not sale worthy and therefore, they were not taken out of the quarry site, but were dumped in the quarry land itself, which is adjacent to the quarry spot. Since the whole quarry land and the surrounding area are owned by the petitioner, the stones lying around the quarrying spot would carry enough testimony to the show cause notice, that he did no transport anything in the absence of a valid license, much less, the allegations of excess quarrying seems to be vague, for the simple reason that even in the lease deed executed granting permission for the petitioner to quarry granite in Ryotwari lands of the petitioner in S.No.510/1 and 511/1, there is no mention as to the limits within which the quarrying work was permitted. Though all these aspects were recorded by the enquiry officer, no order was passed to take action against him. But, after six months, the petitioner was served with an order dated 03.04.2002 passed by the 1st respondent, levying a penalty of Rs.2,69,19,296/- on the assumption that about 284.8 cubic meters of black granite had been removed and transported from the quarry without permission.

(2.) MR.K.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the show cause notice dated 31.07.2001 issued by the Assistant Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Dharmapuri, alleging that he had quarried excess granite without obtaining permission, is absolutely unsustainable in law, since the petitioner was granted permission through lease deed for a period of 10 years, that is, from 25.02.1998 to 24.02.2008. Further, it was argued that the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959, do no stipulate anywhere that granite upto a particular quantity alone could be quarried. Therefore, when there is no such limit prescribed in the lease, it is not open to the respondent to allege that the petitioner has quarried excessive quantity. Secondly, it was contended that it is not known from where the 1st respondent has got the figure that the petitioner had quarried 284.8 CBM black granite and subsequently, they were removed out. When the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent does not mention either the dates of removal or the period of removal, it is not open to the 3rd respondent to confirm the order, that was not put on notice to the petitioner, so as to give befitting reply to the respondent. Thirdly, it was contended that when the 1st respondent, ignoring the vital fact, passed the impugned order levying a penalty of Rs.2,69,19,296/- on a wrong assumption that the petitioner had quarried 284.8 CBM black granite and transported the same from quarry land, an appeal was preferred before the 2nd respondent with a delay of 5 days. The 2nd respondent, without considering the merits of the case, wrongly dismissed the appeal on the ground that there is no power under the Tamil Nadu Minerals Concession Rules, 1959, to condone the delay in filing the appeal. As against that, when the second appeal was filed, the second Appellate Authority has also wrongly, on erroneous assumption, dismissed the second appeal, confirming the order passed by the 1st respondent, accepting the vague allegation, as a result, he has been put to great prejudice and irreparable loss. Under this background, again it was argued that no penalty can be levied on a ground not explicitly stated in the show cause notice, as it would otherwise amount to flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. Adding further, it was argued that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to meet the allegation that he had transported 284.8 CBM of black granite from the quarry land without due permission.

(3.) IN reply, Mr.P.Subramaniam, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that during the currency of the said lease, that is, from 25.02.1998 to 24.02.2008, the Surveyors and the Assistant Geologist of the respondent department, said to have inspected the subject area on 08.07.2001 and found evidences for quarrying black granite to the volume of 284.8 CBM in the leased out area. But, the quantity quarried by the petitioner in the leased out area was not available at the quarry site during the time of inspection by the Surveyors and the Assistant Geologist on 08.07.2001. The Surveyors and the Assistant Geologist, who conducted the discrete enquiry, reported this fact that no dressed black granite were available at the quarry site on the day of inspection, even though to a volume of 284.8 CBM black granite were quarried. The report further revealed the fact that the petitioner had transported all the black granite from the petitioner quarry site without permission. When the petitioner had not obtained any transport permission for transporting the granite, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 31.07.2001 calling upon him to submit his explanation as to why the penalty should not be levied for transportation of 284.8 CBM of black granite without obtaining valid transport permit in the leased out area. Though the explanation was given by the petitioner, neither his explanation nor his statement before the enquiry officer gave any satisfactory reply, as a result, the 1st respondent, in his proceedings dated 03.04.2002, imposed a penalty of Rs.2,69,19,296/- Subsequent to the said order, when the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the respondents 2 and 3, the same were also dismissed by the respondents 2 and 3. Therefore, no infirmity can be found against the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent