K.N. SHANMUGARAMASAMY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the records of the first respondent comprised in and by his proceedings RC Na.Ka.No.37611/2012/X.1 dated 31.10.2013 and quash the same consequently direct the respondents 1 to3 not to grant lease to the 4th respondent to quarry stone in S.F.No.172/13 and 172/14 in Thuyampurnthurai Village Erode District.) 1. Material on record discloses that earlier, the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus in W.P.No.30570 of 2012 directing the respondents 1 to 3 therein, to consider the representation dated 14.09.2012 and not to grant lease to Mr.T.Subramani, the 4th respondent therein, for conducting quarrying operation in S.F.No.172/13 and 172/14 in Thuyampurnthurai Village Erode District. The writ petition has been disposed of on 16.11.2012, directing the District Collector, Erode District, Erode to consider the representation of the petitioners, as well as to provide an opportunity to the 4th respondent therein, to avoid allegations of violation of principles of natural justice and to dispose the same, on merits and in accordance with law, expeditiously.

(2.) PURSUANT to the directions, stated supra, after considering the statements of 13 petitioners and Mr.T.Subramani, the 4th respondent, reports of the authorities and documents, vide order in R.C.No.37611/2013/X -1 dated 31.10.2013, the District Collector, Erode, has rejected the objections of the petitioners to grant of lease. The District Collector, Erode has given various reasons for arriving at his conclusion that the objections and request made by the petitioners in their representation dated 14.09.2012, are not acceptable. Though, while rejecting the representation dated 14.09.2012, the District Collector, Erode District in his order has also made it clear that an alternative appeal remedy is available under rule 36 -C(2) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, and an appeal can be made, to the Commissioner, Geology and Mining Department, Chennai, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, the present writ petition has been filed assailing the order on various grounds, without filing an appeal.

(3.) IN response to the same, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal remedy, provided for, under Rule 36 -C, is only with reference to the penalty to be imposed against any person under Rule 36 and that in the abovesaid circumstances, the petitioners are constrained to prefer this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court, deems it fit to extract the relevant portion of the supporting affidavit to this petition.