POABS GRANITE PRODUCTS PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU; DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF COLLECTORATE; REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER; TAHSILDAR, VILAVANCODE TALUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are as follows:-

(2.) The petitioner additionally added that once the petitioner has submitted the application for the continuation of lease before the second respondent, the entire problem has been raised and with the sole intention to reject the claim for continuation of lease, the second respondent issued two proceedings in Na.Ka.No.245/G&M/2013, dated 17.04.2013 of one as a show cause notice to the petitioner to cancel the lease and the other one directing the third respondent, viz., The Revenue Divisional Officer to impose penalty on the petitioner on an allegation of illegal mining. A careful reading of the above proceedings and a bare look on the reference column, would show that the above proceedings were clearly issued by creating anti-dated documents as if on 12.12.2012 itself, the second respondent has directed the Tahsildar to conduct an inspection at the quarry of the petitioner and consequently a report has been received from the Tahsildar stating that illegal mining has been carried on in the quarry of the petitioner. A look on the reference column would apparently show that the report of the Tahsildar said to have been received on 08.04.2013 was intentionally shown to have been prepared as early as on 22.01.2013 i.e., prior to the date of application for execution of lease dated 07.03.2013. Though the respondents cleverly fabricated the documents by giving anti-dates, when the documents demanded by the petitioner were furnished, the factum of fabrication of the documents came into light evidently and apparently as well. The proceedings of the first respondent dated 17.04.2013 itself would read that the first respondent through his proceedings dated 12.12.2012, directed the Tahsildar to conduct an inspection and to submit a report as to whether any illegal mining is carried on. While the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 22.01.2013 signed on 05.04.2013, states that as per the order of the first respondent dated 12.12.2012, a team was constituted under the leadership of Firka Surveyor and an inspection was conducted and the date of inspection report of Firka Surveyor is shown to have been signed on 10.12.2012. The claim of an inspection on 10.12.2012, on the basis of a direction issued on 12.12.2012 itself would speak for the truth that no such inspection was conducted and there was no illegal mining as stated by the second respondent.

(3.) The petitioner further submits that after having instituted the above proceedings, the second respondent, by his order dated 14.06.2013, rejected the claim for continuation of the lease. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.9847 of 2013 and the same was dismissed. Against the dismissal order, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD)No.1017 of 2013 and the Division Bench of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, by its order dated 23.10.2013 made open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority with the direction to the appellate authority to consider the same without being influenced by the observations made in the order of the learned Single Judge. The petitioner has also preferred an appeal and the same is now pending before the Commissioner / Director, Geology and Mining, Chennai.