1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated :24.06.2011 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice S.RAJESWARAN and The Honourable Mr.Justice G.M.AKBAR ALI Writ Appeal (MD) No.559 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 V.Velayutham ... Appellant/Petitioner -vs- 1.The Sub-Collector, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District. 2.The Tahsildar, Thoothukudi Taluk,Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 01.06.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.5771 of 2011. Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent dated 03.05.2011 in Na.Ka.No.M2/9898/2011 and quash the same. For Appellant : Mr.N.Dilip KUmar For Respondents : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, Government Advocate. JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.RAJESWARAN,J) This writ appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 01.06.2011, in W.P.(MD)No.5771 of 2011, dismissing the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2.The case of the appellant/writ petitioner is that the lands in Survey Nos.389/1A, 394/2 and 391 at Melathattaparai village in Toothukudi Taluk are owned by one E.Jerry Curdoza. On 30.11.2010, the appellant/writ petitioner entered into a lease agreement with the said Jerry Curdoza for quarrying rough stones, jelly stone and gravel from the said lands. The appellant/writ petitioner also applied to the District Collector on 20.12.2010, depositing requisite fees, for grant of permission to quarry stones from the above said lands and the same is under consideration. According to the petitioner, the lands for which he has applied for permission to quarry are already subjected to quarry operations by the previous owners on the permission granted by the District Collector, While so, a show cause notice, dated 03.05.2011, has been issued by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 1st respondent alleging illegal quarry operations by the appellant/writ petitioner and proposing to levy a sum of Rs.19,44,000/- as penalty. 3.Contending that the impugned notice has been issued without any authority and also with pre-determination, the said show cause notice was challenged by the appellant/writ petitioner before this Court in W.P. (MD)No.5771 of 2011 and the same was dismissed at the admission stage itself by the learned Single Judge observing that the appellant/writ petitioner was only called upon to reply to the show cause notice issued. Further, the learned single Judge has found that though it was contended by the appellant/writ petitioner that the impugned notice had been issued without jurisdiction/ authority, no provision of law was brought to the notice of the Court showing the authority who is competent under the relevant Rules and Act to issue the impugned notice. Therefore, challenging the above order of the learned single Judge, the present writ appeal has been filed. 4.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. We have also gone through the documents available on record. 5.The learned counsel for the appellant made an attempt to go into the merits of the matter by contending that the show cause notice has been issued without any authority and also with a pre-determined mind. He has drawn our attention to the wordings in the show cause notice to reiterate that the authorities have already pre-determined to levy penalty and, therefore, according to him, when there is pre-determination on the part of the authorities to levy penalty, the show cause notice suffers from illegality and warrants interference by this Court. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied upon a judgment of this Court in D.Raja v. The District Collector, reported in 2011(1) CWC 861 to contend that show-cause issued with pre-determination is bad in law. 6.We are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant, as the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant was on different facts where an order imposing penalty for removing certain units of sand was passed on an inspection conducted by the officials of the respondent department behind the back of the petitioner and a copy of the inspection report was not furnished to the petitioner therein. Therefore, that was interfered with and it was found to be illegal. Thus, those facts are different and they are distinguishable from the present facts and hence the said judgment does not lend any support to the petitioner/appellant herein. What has been challenged in this writ petition is only a show cause notice issued by the respondent officials calling upon the appellant/writ petitioner to show cause as to why penalty to an extent of Rs.19,44,000/- should not be levied for the alleged illegal quarrying. Therefore, it is open to the appellant/writ petitioner to submit his explanation to the show cause notice. 7.It is also brought to notice of the court by the learned counsel for the appellant that an explanation has already been submitted by the appellant/writ petitioner to the 1st respondent on 18.05.2011 in reply to the show cause notice. It is also submitted that the appellant/writ petitioner has also sought for certain documents for submitting his explanation effectively. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8.In view of the fact that representation/ explanation has already been sent by the petitioner/appellant herein, the same may be considered by the respondents. If any documents have been sought for by the petitioner, the same could be furnished to the appellant by the authorities, if permissible, to enable him to effectively defend his case before the respondent authorities. 9.In the result, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 is also dismissed. SD DEPUTY REGISTRAR ( ACCOUNTS ) /TRUE COPY/ ASST REGISTRAR gb To: 1.The Sub-Collector, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District. 2.The Tahsildar, Thoothukudi Taluk, Thoothukudi District. 1CC TO MR. N. DILIP KUMAR, ADVOCATE,SR: 20078: DM::2011:JULY::08:: Judgment in W.A.(MD)No.559/2011 M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Date:24.06.2011 3P:4C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/