M. SENTHIL KUMAR Vs. THEDISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has prayed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the order passed by the first respondent, dated 11.10.2014. By the said impugned order, the lease granted in favour of the petitioner by the first respondent to quarry gravel sands from his patta land in S.F.No. 31/1(p), Molapalayam village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District, was cancelled.

(2.) THE petitioner is the owner of the said land measuring about 4 hectares and he filed an application before the first respondent for grant of lease to quarry gravel sand in the said lands. Permission was granted to the petitioner and the State Level Environment Impact Assessing Authority considered the petitioner's application and granted environmental clearance. A lease deed was executed for a period of three years by virtue of which, the petitioner was entitled to quarry gravel sands in the said land from 07.03.2013 to 06.03.2016. The second respondent appears to have sent a report, dated 24.09.2014, alleging that the petitioner has been carrying on mining operations beyond the portion of the land for which permission was granted. Based on such report, a show cause notice dated 30.09.2014, was issued as to why the action should not be taken against the petitioner for violation of the conditions of lease. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 08.10.2014, stating that he has not violated the conditions of lease and on the western side of the land, the petitioner had dug the earth only to form a road to reach the land to transport the material to be quarried and there is no quarrying done beyond the area, which has been leased. On receipt of the reply, the respondent passed the impugned order cancelling the lease and recommending action to be taken to recover penalty under Section 36A of the Tamil Nadu Mine and Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The said order of cancellation of lease and the recommendation to take action for recovery of penalty is challenged in this Writ Petition.

(3.) THE learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents based on written instructions given by the respondents submitted that during the currency of the lease period, the subject quarry was inspected by the second respondent on 24.09.2014, accompanied by the officials of the mines department and during the inspection, it was found that the petitioner has exceeded the leasehold boundary on the western side and an extent of illegal gravel quarrying has been done in four places having a maximum distance of 265mts., and minimum distance of 78mts., with an average height of 5.5mts., to 12mts., and average width of 10.5mts., to 12mts., in the slope of the excavated area. Therefore, it is submitted that the illicitly quarrying the gravel is 21623 Qmts., or 3603 lorry loads (in 2 units) and the same is against the conditions of lease. It is further submitted that the petitioner was present in the leasehold area at the time of inspection and also while taking measurement and he has given statement before the Inspecting Officers by accepting the offence committed by him. In this regard, a proposal was sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, for taking penal action against the petitioner by letter dated 30.09.2014. Further, before passing final order, the petitioner was given an opportunity by the first respondent to put forth his explanation and personal hearing was also conducted on 08.10.2014, in which the petitioner participated and gave statement accepting the offence committed by him. In the light of the above facts, the District Collector cancelled the lease. The learned counsel further submitted that as against the impugned order the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy of filing an appeal under Rule 36C(2) of the Rules and without exhausting the same, the petitioner cannot approach this Court by filing a writ petition. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.Mariadoss Vs The District Collector & Ors., in W.P.Nos. 1015 of 2011 etc., batch, dated 26.03.2014.