IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.11.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.No.21291 of 2006 and M.P.No.2 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 Duraisamy. ... Petitioner vs. The Revenue Divisional officer, Dharapuram, Erode District. ... Respondent Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the entire records of the respondent in his Proceedings Na.Ka.No.6915/2003/A, dated 12.9.2003 and quash the same consequently directing the respondent to release the bullock cart seized by the respondent on 12.9.2003 to the petitioner. For petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For respondent : Mr.V.Manoharan, Government Advocate O R D E R The Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in his Proceedings Na.Ka.No.6915/2003/A, dated 12.9.2003 and quash the same, consequently direct the respondent to release the bullock cart seized by the respondent on 12.9.2003 to the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is the owner of the bullock-cart and claims to be an agriculturist in Mayilrangam Village, Erode District. On 12.9.2003, while the petitioner was taking sand on the bullock cart for agricultural and personal use, the sand loaded cart was seized by the respondent and handed over to the Revenue Inspector stating that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner engaged in illegal mining of sand. Petitioner states that he made representation on the same day for release of bullock cart stating that the sand was taken for own use and he did not violate the provisions of law. However, the respondent without proper enquiry and without giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity, passed the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.6915/2003/A dated 12.9.2003 holding that the petitioner was engaged in illegal sand quarry and in terms of Rule 36(A)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 1959 imposed fine of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.50/- towards value of sand and Rs.5/- towards seigniorage totally Rs.25,055/-. He also imposed a condition that if the petitioner pays the said amount, the bullock cart will be released. The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 12.9.2003. 3. It is contended that the rules does not provide seizure of bullock cart if it is used for transporting of sand for own use which includes agricultural purpose. It is further pleaded that no notice was issued calling for explanation as to why the bullock cart should not be seized and the provision of law by which the fine and other charges is to be imposed. The whole proceedings of the respondent was conducted in haste on the very same day. Therefore, the action of the authorities ending in the impugned proceedings is arbitrary and capricious. On this premise, the writ petition has been filed. 4. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit narrating the fact that lead to the seizure of bullock cart. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner orally admitted that he is taking sand in bullock cart for commercial purpose. In para 3 of the counter it is stated as follows:- "On enquiry, the petitioner has got no valid permit or bill or any other documents for quarrying sand from the river. He has admitted that the sand was taken for commercial purpose. He has orally admitted that he will take the sand in bullock cart, store in a particular place and when the sand becomes a lorry load or a tractor load he will sell the sand to illicit lorries and tractors at Vellakoil, Muthur, etc. At the time of checking the bullock cart, he has orally admitted that he has been illicitly quarrying the sand without valid permit for the commercial purpose and the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram has seized the bullock cart under proper mahazar." Respondent has not shown the provision of law or the rule that has been violated by the petitioner either in the order or in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ counter-affidavit. The rule relied upon in the impugned order relates to levy of fine and other charges payable. 5. In this case, the respondent, as contended by the writ petitioner, has proceeded on the premise that the sand loaded bullock cart is used for illegal quarrying of sand from river. This is not supported by any statement or record. The respondent has not even produced the copy of mahazar which is referred to in the impugned order. Further, immediately after drawing of the mahazar without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order levying fine and other charges has been passed. On the face of the records, there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was not put on notice to explain as to why he was carrying sand. The respondent has not shown what provision of law or rule has been breached by the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner has orally admitted that he is engaged in illicit quarry of sand without permit. The authorities concerned should have recorded the proceedings as in the case of mahazar. They cannot now state that the petitioner orally admitted the violation and therefore, fine and other charges is imposed. This will amount to arbitrary exercise of power without following the due process of law. The authorities are bound to act fairly, particularly, when they are dealing with poor agriculturist and daily wage earners, who may not know what is recorded and what they are admitting. The impugned proceedings, therefore, clearly establishes a case of arbitrariness. The petitioner has not been given a reasonable opportunity to rebut the allegation of illegal quarry. The impugned order has been passed on an haste on the very same day, immediately after drawing the mahazar. This will be opposed to principles of natural justice and fair play. 6. In view of the above, the impugned proceedings is liable to set aside and accordingly set aside. If the bullock cart is still in the custody of respondent or any other officer of the Revenue Department, it has to be released forthwith. The Writ Petition is ordered as above. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions are closed. ts Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Revenue Divisional officer, Dharapuram, Erode District. + 1 cc to Mr. c. Prakasam, Advocate SR.60542 + 1 cc to the Government Pleader High Court Mdaras. W.P.No.21291 of 2006 KA(CO) EU 24.11.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/