S.M. ARUNAGIRI Vs. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, R.C. DIVISION, TRICHIRAPALLI DIVISION, TRICHIRAPALLI,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER prays for issue of a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents from recommending or granting permission to quarry sand within the prohibited distance of 500 metres as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 in Survey Nos.3/13, 4/1, 4/2 and 222 of an extent of 2.63 hectares and in S.No.3/13, 4/1, 4/2 to an extent of 2.46.5 hectares in Sirugamani Village, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District pursuant to the recommendation letters of the 1st and 2nd respondents dated 19.10.2001 and 22.2.2001 respectively in favour of the 4th and 5th defendants.

(2.) HEARD both parties. By consent, the main writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner contends that he is a licensee under the Tamil Nadu Mines and Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 for quarrying sand in Survey No.1 in the right bank of river Cauvery of Pettavaithalai Village, Trichy District and the 3rd respondent executed the lease deed in favour of the petitioner for a period of three years. He further submits that the 2nd respondent had recommended the quarrying of the sand in patta land of the 4th respondent and to issue/grant/permit for quarrying sand in the said land. According to the petitioner, the said permission which is sought to be given to the 4th and 5th respondents is in violation of the Rules. The 2nd respondent had earlier rejected the request of one S.K. Vadivelu dated 27.5.1999 for permission to quarry sand in his patta land in his proceedings dated 13.8.1999 on the ground that the patta lands are within the prohibited distance of 200 metres from the river bank. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the present attempt on the part of the Government to give permission to the 4th and 5th respondents was inconsistent with the stand taken earlier at the instance of one S.K. Vadivelu and is also contrary to the Rules. The recommendation orders of the 1st and 2nd respondents permitting the 4th and 5th respondents to quarry the sand in the patta land on the river bank and within the prohibited distance of 500 metres is contrary to the Rules. The further recommendation to cut the coconut trees before operating the sand quarry itself, shows that there is no sand in the permitted land and the entire action of the respondents is malafide and detrimental to public interest. If the respondents 4 and 5 are permitted to quarry in the patta land after removing the coconut trees and the sand near the right bank of Cauvery within the prohibited distance, irrigation will be affected and on rainy season, the drainage water will also enter into the river and also cause damage to the river bank. It is further stated that the quarrying operators invest several lakhs of money for quarrying operations and by giving permit to the patta land holders, the Government does not get any revenue.

(3.) MR . K.M. Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the very observations contained in the recommendations of the Executive Engineer and Chief Engineer, clearly show that the proposed quarrying operation was just on the bank of the river and not away from the prohibited distance. The further condition which is laid is that all the standing coconut trees should be removed. The said condition is violative of the provisions of the (Tamil Nadu) River Conservancy Act, Act 6 of 1984. The very condition laid thereon would disclose that the proposed operation would be detrimental to the banks of the river. The permission now sought to be granted is in violation of the provisions of the Rules and hence cannot be permitted. Learned Senior Counsel would also contend that even though he was the holder of another lease, he has every right to object to the grant of any fresh licence, which is in violation of the Rules. The lease given to him does not violate any of the Rules.