1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.01.2011 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.A.(MD) No.54 of 2011 S.Andiappan ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai. ... Respondent PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order, dated 22.10.2010 in W.P.(MD)No.13007 of 2010. WP(MD)No.13007 of 2010 PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the respondent made in R.C.No.1372/2009 (G & M) dated 07.10.2009 and quasht he same and consequently, direct the respondent to grant quarrying lease in respect of survey NO.39/1A, 1B and 4B over an extent of 0.48.5 hectares situated at Virachilai I Bit Village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District. For Appellant : Mr.P.Arun Jayatram For Respondent : Mr.R.Janakiramulu, Special Government Pleader. JUDGMENT R.SUBBIAH,J. This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 22.10.2010 passed in W.P(MD)No.13007 of 2010 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2.The appellant has approached this Court by filing a writ petition to quash the order made in Rc.No.1372/2009, dated 07.10.2009 and consequently, to direct the respondent to grant quarry lease in respect of S.No.39/1A, 1B and 4B over an extent of 0.48.5 hectares situated at Virachilai I Bit village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District. 3.It is the case of the appellant that he is the owner of the subject land referred above. He made an application on 25.03.2009 to the respondent for grant of quarry licence in respect of the said land under Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Minor and Minerals Concession Rules, 1959. Regarding his application, the respondent has called for a report from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai. On receipt of the said report, the respondent had rejected the application made by the appellant by invoking Rule 36(1A)(a) of the Rules on the ground that there are dwelling houses within 300 meters from the quarrying site. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant has filed the writ petition. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondent herein granted quarry licence to the adjacent lands. But he rejected the application of the appellant alone on the ground that dwelling houses are situated within 300 meters from the subject land. Thus, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondent cannot have two different yard sticks one for the subject land and another for the adjacent lands. That apart, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the inspection report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, it has been stated that a terrace building belonging to one Mr.Mathiyalagan is situated in the northern side of the subject land at a distance of 89 mts and another terrace belonging to one Mr.Poosai is situated at the southern side of the subject land at a distance of 72 mts. Both these structures situated on the northern and southern side of the appellant lands are only temporary in nature and those structures were put up by the workers nearby the quarries. But the respondent without considering these aspects has mechanically rejected the request of the appellant. 5.Heard the learned Special Government Pleader also. 6.Keeping the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, we have carefully gone through the materials available on record and we find that the Revenue Divisional Officer on inspection found that there are dwelling houses within the prohibited distance from the appellant's land. Hence, the respondent by relying upon the said report and invoking 36 (1-A) (a) rejected the application made by the appellant. Though a submission was made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent has granted licence to adjacent lands namely in S.Nos.36/2 and 36/3 to an extent of 0.49.5 hectares in favour of one G.Palanichamy and in S.No.38/1 to an extent of 0.20.0 hectares in favour of Roja Ponvizha Gramam Suyavelai Vaippu Thitta Sangam, in the affidavit it has not been mentioned as to whether there are any dwelling houses within the prohibited distance from those survey numbers or not. Under such circumstances, we do not find any force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent has granted licence to the adjacent lands. Therefore, we are of the view that the respondent has rejected the application made by the appellant on valid reasons by invoking 36(1-A)a of the Rules. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge. 7.The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (W) /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai. sms W.A.(MD) No.54 of 2011 12.01.2011 TR : 04.02.2011 : 2p/2c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/