1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.P.(MD).No.8409 of 2011 R.Velusamy : Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 3.The Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Madurai Region, No.4, Hakkim Ajmalkhan Road, Chinna Chokkikulam, Madurai-2. 4.Velusamy : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to issue licence to the fourth respondent to put up a stone quarry crusher in Survey No.375, Reddiyappatti Village, Oddanchattiram Taluk, Dindigul District, by considering the petitioner's objections dated 09.05.2011 and 22.06.2011 respectively. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondents 1to3 : Mr.R.Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader ORDER [Order of the Court was made BY P.JYOTHIMANI, J] Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. The petitioner is stated to be a resident of Reddiyapatti Village, Oddanchattiram Taluk, Dindigul District. His grievance is that the fourth respondent has applied for grant of licence to put up a stone quarry crusher in Survey No.375, Reddiyappatti Village, Oddanchattiram Taluk, Dindigul District, which https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 is stated to be within the prohibited distance of the residential area including the petitioner's house. It is his submission that his house is situated within 250 metres from the place where the licence is sought for in respect of the quarrying site. 3. As per Rule 36(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, there are various restrictions imposed regarding the grant of licence for putting up crushing units. 4. In such view of the matter, we are of the view that it is only proper for the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner before granting licence to the fourth respondent, of course, in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and any other rule that may be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. It is also seen that the second respondent, in his communication dated 14.06.2011, addressed to the petitioner, has also stated that while considering the application of the fourth respondent, the objections, which are raised by the petitioner, may also be taken into consideration. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of with a direction against the first and second respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 09.05.2011 and 22.06.2011 for grant of licence as well as for grant of consent respectively, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (C.O.) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 3.The Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Madurai Region, No.4, Hakkim Ajmalkhan Road, Chinna Chokkikulam, Madurai-2. +1cc to The Special Government Pleader Sr.No.25378 SML akm/10.08.11 /2p-5c/ Order made in W.P.(MD).No.8409 of 2011 Dated:- 29.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/