R K RAMASAMY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is seeking for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondent relating to the order passed in Na. Ka. No.D.175/98 dated 06.07.1998 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to refund the amount of Rs.1,03,000/- collected towards fine in respect of the three vehicles bearing registration Nos.TN-38-0833, TN-41-C-3276 and TN-39-C-8181 and for the cost of minerals and seignior age fee with interest.

(2.) THE facts of the case go as follows : THE petitioner was granted lease to quarry sand from the land in S.F. No.1 in Mayanur village, Kulithalai taluk, Karur District, measuring an extent of 25.00.0 hectares. On 13.11.1997, the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Trichirappalli issued transport permits to the petitioner for the purpose of transporting sand with effect from 13.11.1997 to 28.11.1997. THE total transport permits issued were 1500. On the basis of the bulk transport permits issued by the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Transport permits for carrying sand to one trailor and two lorries bearing registration numbers TN-38-0833, TN-41-C-3276 and TN-39-C-8181 were issued. Pursuant to the permits issued to the trailer and as per the endorsement made in the transport permits, the said trailer started its departure at 10.40 am on 28.11.1997 and it could reach Coimbatore on 29.11.1997 at 11.00 am. In respect of the lorry bearing registration number TN-41-C-3276, the permit was issued at 08.30 pm on 28.11.1997 and as per the endorsement made in the transport permit, the said lorry could reach Coimbatore at 08.00 am on 29.11.1997. Similarly, on 28.11.1997 the despatch slip in respect of lorry bearing registration number TN 39-C-8181 was issued for departure from quarry site at 09.45 pm on 28.11.1997 and therefore, the lorry could reach Coimbatore at 09.30 am on 29.11.1997. When the vehicles were proceeding towards Coimbatore, they were detained by the officials of the respondent in spite of the fact that the vehicles carried necessary permits for transportation of the mineral. On adjudication, the respondents officials imposed a fine of Rs.61,800/-. Rs.20,600/-, and Rs.20,600/- in respect of the three vehicles and on such payment, the vehicles were released. THE fine amounts represent the cost of mineral and seigniorage fee as well.

(3.) THIS is not the only ground on which the petitioner is non suited in the writ petition. As seen from the order impugned in the writ petition, there are number of factual disputes as to the tampering of transport permits and repeated transportation of sand under one and the same despatch slip. As per the appendix attached to the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, the bulk permits and the facsimile despatch slips would be issued by the respondent authorities, and the particulars in the slips have to be filled up by the lessees only. So many details as to the name of the mineral, quantity thereof, mode of transport, validity period, time at which the vehicle left the quarry and the approximate time at which the vehicle may reach the place of destination, are all to be filled by the petitioner himself. Thus the despatch slip is emanated from the petitioner himself. The issue relating to the particulars of the despatch slip cannot be decided by the Court, as the same are disputed facts. In a writ petition, the correctness of the decision making process alone can be adjudicated and not the decision itself.