R SONAI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR MADURAI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Writ Petition, petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka. No.1341 of 2006 (Mines) dated 31.10.2006 with respect to the petitioner's stone quarry comprised in S.F. No.86 (Part 1) and S.F. No.86 (Part 2) over an extent of 5.00.0 Hectares each in Karadipatti Village, Madurai south taluk and quash the same.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Petition as available in the pleadings are as follows.

(3.) THE learned Special Government Pleader submitted that on the ground of complaints received from the third respondent, the Assistant Geologist (Mines) and the Tahsildar conducted local inspection and submitted their reports. Petitioner was issued show cause notice, first respondent considered the explanation and conducted enquiry, in which the petitioner appeared and therefore principles of natural justice is fully complied with. THE learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that the entire S.F. No.86 and its parts including S.No.86 (Part I) of Karadipatti village is protected by the Archaeological Survey of India as per the AM & ASR Act, 1958 and Rules 1959 and that the Superintending Archaeologist has stated that this monument is under constant threat of quarrying operations and the petitioner cannot quarry upto 100 metres from the protected limits and upto 200 metres near or adjoining protected monuments. THE learned Special Government Pleader also submits that the first respondent is the competent authority to cancel the quarry lease in terms of Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, and relied on an unreported decision of this Court made in P.R. Kuppusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu and 2 others, W.P. No.1635 of 1997 dated 27.1.2003 wherein this Court granted direction in similar matter to take appropriate action to cancel the quarry lease to the District Collector, Sivaganga as quarrying was carried on in the said matter, which caused threat to the national monuments viz., Chithannavasal. Placing reliance on the said decision the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the first respondent followed the principle laid down in the said order and followed the principles of natural justice and therefore the impugned order is to be sustained.