ADAIKKALAMERI Vs. DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY GUINDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitions are filed praying for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of respondents 1 and 2 quash the order passed by the first respondent dated 15.03.2000, 27.03.2000, 27.03.2000 vide proceedings Rc. No.281/MM5/98, 283/MM5/98, 282/MM5/98 upholding the orders of the second respondent - all dated 12.12.1997 vide proceedings in ROC No.2412, 2411, 2424/M/97 levying the total penalty of Rs.3,00,396/-, Rs.2,92,048/- and Rs.4,01,228/- respectively and consequently direct the second respondent, who levied the penalty to refund the said amount with 12% interest per annum from 12.12.1997 till the date of actual payment to the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts of the case, as stated by the petitioners, is that the petitioners are transport operators and each petitioner owns a lorry bearing registration numbers TN55 B 4878, TNP 8190 and TN 59 D 5455 respectively. THE first two lorries were hired by one Baskaran and the third one was hired by one Durai Divyanathan, who were quarry lease holders for transportation of granite blocks of various dimensions from Pudukottai to Tuticorin under the cover of transport permits issued by the Assistant Director of Mines, Pudukottai and also the Form XX issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Pudukottai for transportation of granite blocks to Tuticorin port. While the vehicles were driven by the respective drivers of the petitioners' lorries, at Othakadai near Madurai, the third respondent Assistant Director of Mines, Madurai District intercepted the lorries and verified the documents and seized the vehicles on the premise that there are discrepancies in the measurement of dimensions of the granite blocks transported in that vehicle and even the variety of the granites is also in variance, and the documents issued by the Mines Department and the Commercial Taxes Department were contrary to each other and on that basis, the second respondent, the District Collector issued notices to the petitioners and thereupon passed a final order imposing penalties in a sum of Rs.3,00,396/-, Rs.2,92,048/- and Rs.4,01,228/- respectively, and the petitioners were threatened that unless the amounts are paid, the lorries would not be released and the lorries had been stationed before the third respondent for more than 15 days. THE petitioners, in order to get the vehicles released, paid the amounts and got the lorries as well as the goods released from the respondents and unloaded the granites at the place of the lessees. As the orders passed by the second respondent, the District Collector, in the opinion of the petitioners, were not in accordance with law, they carried the matter on appeal to the first respondent, the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, who, by his orders impugned in these writ petitions, confirmed the orders of the District Collector. THE correctness of the said orders is now put in issue in this writ petition.