A. MARY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DINDIGUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the notification issued by first respondent calling for tenders for granting rough stone quarry lease in respect of the land in Survey No. 302/2, Mallanampatti Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

(2.) The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been carrying on agricultural operation in her 4 acres and 86 cents land in Survey Nos. 282/1, 290/1A3, 290/1A2, 290/1A6, 307/1 and 315/1, situated at Mallanpatti Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District. There are residential houses located adjacent to her land. In the year 2011, the District Administration granted quarry lease in Survey No. 302/2, which is adjacent to her agricultural land, for a period of five years. However, utilizing the said lease, illegal quarrying had been undertaken destroying the adjacent lands and posing threat to the safety of the adjoining lands and habitation. Therefore, the said property was not subjected to quarrying from 2016 to till date. On coming to know about the proposal of the District Administration to lease out the land in Survey No. 302/2 again for quarrying, on 17/2/2020 the 4th respondent Panchayat passed a resolution requesting the District Administration not to grant any quarrying lease within the Panchayat. Based on the same, the Block Development Officer had sent a report dated 28/7/2020 recommending that granting quarrying lease is not feasible and would be against the public interest.

(3.) The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would further submit that as per Rule 36(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, stone quarrying activity is prohibited within 300 metres from any inhabited sites. The proposed quarry site is located within 300 metres of residential houses. Without giving importance to the public interest and local body resolution, the 1st respondent was very keen in granting quarrying lease in respect of the land in Survey No. 302/2. Hence, the petitioner herein had filed W.P. (MD). No. 11527 of 2020 seeking to forbear the respondents from granting rough stone quarry lease in respect of Survey No. 302/2. This Court, by order dated 14/9/2020, allowed the said writ petition by directing the 1st respondent to accord an opportunity of personal hearing before taking any decision in the matter of granting rough stone quarry lease in respect of the land in Survey No. 302/2 and then, to furnish a copy of the decision that would be taken after hearing the petitioner. However, without according personal hearing to the petitioner and in violation of the order dated 14/9/2020, the 1st respondent issued impugned gazette notification dated 20/1/2020. Challenging the said notification, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition. He would further submit that when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court, by order dated 11/2/2021, directed that the tender process may go on, however, no final order shall be passed insofar as the petition mentioned survey number.