A.D. SUKAVANESHWAR REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY, THIRU. A.N. DYANESWARAN Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SIVAGANGA DISTRICT, SIVAGANGA AND THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINING, SIVAGANGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Though the matter was listed for considering the question of issuing directions, keeping in view of the order proposed to be passed, on consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE petitioner was granted quarry lease as per the lease deed dated 23.11.01. Subsequently as the lease having been cancelled, the present writ petition has been filed. In the order of cancellation, it has been indicated 1)that putting up of boundary stones has not been done, 2)that the petitioner has raised a bund for a width of 6 meters only instead of raising it to the width of 10 meters and 3)that the distance between the quarry and the river is less than 50 meters. So far as the first two remarks are concerned, the petitioner submitted that the boundary stones may be placed after fresh demarcation for which the petitioner may not have any role and that may be done by the Survey Department . In respect of the second remark, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to raise the height of the bund to the required width as per the directions of the respondent and that so far as the 3rd remarks is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted as per the certificate of the Tahsildar, the distance is more than 60 metres and not less than 50 metres as alleged by the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that several opportunities have been provided to the petitioner and the petitioner did not attend any personal hearing and therefore it is not now open to the petitioner to raise this question at this stage.

(3.) WITH the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of alongwith the connected WMPs. No costs.