STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT FORT ST GEORGE CHENNAI Vs. COMMISSIONER GEOLOGY AND MINING GUINDY CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has preferred these appeals against the orders dated 22.7.2011 and 21.9.2011 passed in W.P. Nos.23700 of 2010 and 26358 of 2010 respectively.

(2.) IN W.P. No.23700 of 2010, the petitioner sought a direction to the District Collector, Kancheepuram to grant him permission to carry on quarrying operations in respect of the Stone Quarry No.2 situated in Survey No.25/2B over an extent of 2.50.0 hectares in Thirusoolam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District for a period of 18 months, for which the quarrying was suspended.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner in W.P. No.23700 of 2010 that during the currency of the lease, false complaints were levelled against him of causing nuisance while carrying out the quarrying operations. The petitioner preferred a complaint before the authorities concerned for granting police protection and carried on the quarrying operations under police protection. As his further prayer for police protection was not addressed, he preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No.22025 of 2005 and this Court by order dated 7.7.2005, directed the District Collector to take appropriate action on the petitioner's complaint. In view of the complaint preferred by the petitioner, proceedings were initiated under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code at the instance of the police. The Revenue Divisional Officer by his proceedings dated 16.9.2005 confirmed the petitioner's possession and recommended for appropriate action against the culprits and pursuant to this order, the petitioner gave a representation to the authorities concerned to take necessary action enabling him to carry on the quarrying operations. Since no action was taken, he filed W.P. No.32391 of 2005 seeking police protection, but it was dismissed. As against the same, he preferred W.A. No.2330 of 2005, wherein the Division Bench by order dated 3.1.2006 permitted the petitioner to run the quarry under police protection, pending disposal of Crl. R.C. No.1274 of 2005 filed by third party against the order of the R.D.O. The petitioner resumed quarrying pursuant to the order of the Division Bench under police protection. In the meanwhile, the above criminal revision was allowed by this Court on the ground of procedural irregularities committed by the R.D.O. and consequently, the quarrying was stopped.