SIVA BLUE METALS, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER R. ANANDA MAHESWARAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein, who is the Managing Partner of Siva Blue Metals, Tuticorin, has come up with the present writ petitions seeking to issue writs of certiorari to call for the records of the 2nd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Tuticorin, relating to Notice Ref.AA2-6199-2011, dated 14.09.2011, and that of the first respondent pertaining to show-cause notice Ref. No.GM.1/291/2011, dated 24.09.2011, and to quash the same.

(2.) BY virtue of the show cause, dated 14.09.2011, of the RDO/R2, the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation as to why he should not be directed to pay Rs.2,21,48,000.00, Rs.20,76,375.00 and Rs.25,000.00 towards cost of the mineral quarried more than the permitted limit, seigniorage fee and penalty respectively; while, by way of the show cause notice, dated 24.09.2011, issued by the District Collector/R1, the petitioner was required to submit his explanation on the alleged violations of Rule-36(5)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), liable for action under Section 36 (5)(h) of the Rules which may result in cancellation of the lease. Both the writ petitions, challenging the aforementioned show cause notices issued against the Quarrying Unit of the petitioner's Blue Metals Agency, have been heard together and they are disposed of by this Common Order.

(3.) PER contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, by referring to the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit, at the first instance, submitted that both the writ petitions are totally misconceived and liable to be dismissed as the same being premature, of course, with a direction to the petitioner to submit their explanation to the show cause notices. According to him, for the show cause notice on the alleged violation of Rule-36(5b) which allegation may, if found to have been established, warrants cancellation of licence under Rule 36 (5h) of the Rules, the petitioner can very well submit his explanation refuting the allegations and in the event of such explanation being satisfactory, there are also prospects of the authorities dropping any further proceedings by accepting the case of the petitioner. But, no such genuine attempt was ever made by the petitioner, instead, he has rushed to this Court with the present petitions as if everything was concluded against him by the authorities. As regards premeditation and pre-conceived notion alleged against the authorities, he pointed out that there was a complaint by one C.Anbalagan of Perur at Srivaikundam, Tuticorin, making certain allegations against the petitioner of using highly powerful explosives to blast the rocks and also encroaching upon government poramboke lands classified as Odai Poramboke for quarrying activities. On receipt of such complaint, under the instructions of R- 1/District Collector, the 3rd respondent/Assistant Director (G & M) along with Firka Surveyors of Arumugamangalam and other firkas in the vicinity, inspected the leasehold area as well as the government poramboke lands said to have been encroached upon by the petitioner. It is specifically pointed out that, during the course of inspection, the Manager of the petitioner-agency was very well present there and his statement was also recorded. On thorough examination, while dismissing the allegation of encroachment made in the complaint as baseless, the inspecting team unearthed the irregularities after examining the records and found over-quarrying of rough stones, non-payment of seigniorage fee for the said excess quantity, etc. If the inspecting team or the authorities had in fact acted with any motive, they could have concluded otherwise against the petitioner regarding encroachment of poramboke lands, but, the other allegation made in the complaint being that the petitioner was using dangerous explosives, the authorities had to verify the entire registers and examine the operation area which ended in finding out the alleged violation of Rule-36 (5b) of the Rules. Further, the calculation made regarding the cost of the excess mineral quarried and seigniorage fee was based on records and such calculation was reflected only to enable the petitioner to submit his explanation suitably as otherwise, he may not be able to correctly discern the consequences of the allegation. Therefore, absolutely there is no point or logic in stating that pre-conceived notion can be deduced from assignment of figures towards the three heads mentioned in the show cause notice. Further, if the petitioner is in need of the reports, dated 13.08.2011, of the Panchayat Land Surveyor, VAO and the Assistant Director (G & M), copies of the same would be furnished to him. At any rate, what is challenged here being show cause notices, the writ petitions are not maintainable in the light of the settled legal position that ordinarily, a writ petition impugning a show cause notice is premature and not maintainable. In this regard, he referred to a judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and another vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006 12 SCC 23), much stressing on the following observation:-