M RAMALINGAM Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. A. Arumugam, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondent.

(2.) IT is stated by the petitioner that according to the notification of the Collector, dated 09. 09. 1998, an extent of 5 hectares in Vinnamangalam Village was auctioned on 30. 10. 1998. In the said auction, the petitioner was declared as the highest bidder. On 08. 12. 1998, the petitioner's bid was confirmed by the District Collector in Proceedings No. 843/mines/98. However, the petitioner was not granted the quarrying permit. Therefore, the petitioner had filed the writ petition in W. P. No. 843 of 1999, praying for a direction to the respondent to issue the quarrying permit, based on the confirmation of the auction in favour the petitioner. The said writ petition had been allowed in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) IT has been further submitted by the petitioner that a notice was issued, on 08. 09. 2001, alleging that an inspection was made by the Assistant Director of Mines and that he had found several trucks of sand had been loaded using one permit. The said show cause notice, dated 08. 09. 2001, was vague as it did not disclose as to when the inspection had been made and the other particulars required by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had been called upon to attend an enquiry, on 17. 03. 2003. Even though the petitioner had pointed out that he had to attend an enquiry on the same day at Chennai, the respondent had not granted time to the petitioner to attend the enquiry on a different date. However, without complying with the request of the petitioner, the respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 07. 04. 2003, in Roc. No. A3/4921/99, demanding payment of Rs. 25,000/- as penalty, Rs. 15,80,800/- as cost of sand and Rs. 3,35,920/- as seignior age fee.