C RAMASAMY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the facts leading to all the writ petitions are one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) For better appreciation, facts involved in one of the writ petitions i.e. W.P.No.8711 of 2015, are stated below:

(3.) Therefore, it is the grievance of the petitioners that, as per the despatch slip, the departure time was 13.00 hrs. from the mines and the expected time of reaching the destination was 21.00 hrs. on 04.01.2015. It is further submitted that the said trucks had to move only at a low speed, as they are multi-axled truck and laden with 25 tons of limestone. Moreover, the said trucks were forced to be driven slowly due to heavy traffic on the road and school closing time while passing through Trichy town. It is further submitted that on the way to destination place, their vehicles' tyre got punctured, therefore, it had to be stopped and that it is being multi-axled vehicle, it needed to be repaired with an expert, therefore, an expert for vulcanising the tyre from Trichy was called for and thereafter, the same was got it repaired and thus, it resulted for delay of 2 = hrs. With these submissions, he further contended that the impugned proceedings passed by the respondent levying a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- merely on the ground of 2 = hrs. delay under Section 21 of the mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (in short "Act"), is highly arbitrary, illegal and without any jurisdiction, particularly, when there is no violation of any provision.