IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.02.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR WRIT PETITIN NO.29677 of 2003 Keerapakkam Magalir Kalludippor Membattu Sangam rep.by its Member Mr. Buela w/o Pushparaj 20, Thulakanathaman Koil street Keerapakkam, Chennai.48 .. Petitioner v 1. The District Collector Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram 2. P.Mariadoss (R2 impleaded as per order in WPMP No.37407 of 2003 dated 25.11.2003) .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the first respondent's proceedings in RCNo.40/2003 dated 09.09.2003 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to grant the lease to the petitioner with respect to stone quarry No.9 of Keerapakkam villge, Chengalpattu Taluk comprised in S.No.99 (P) for an extent of 5.00.0 hectares for the period of five years and pass further orders. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Aparna For Respondent : Mr.A.Arumugam AGP - - - O R D E R The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the first respondent dated 09.09.2003 and consequently, direct the first respondent to grant lease to the petitioner with respect to quarry No.9, village Chengleput Taluk, comprised in S.No.to an extent of 5.00.0 hectares for a period of five years and for further orders. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The petitioner's society is registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and one of the members of the said society, viz. Keerapakkam Magaleer Kalludaipore Membattu Sangam has filed this writ petition. 3. According to her, the society is formed for the welfare of the Women (Self Helped Groups) residing in and around Keerapakkam village. An application was submitted on 03.12.2002 for grant of licence for quarrying stones at Keerapakkam village, Kancheepuram District in S.No.99 (P) for an extent of 5.00.0 hectares in the prescribed form under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). As per the procedure, in Rule 8 (10-A)(B), the first respondent shall examine the applications within the time fixed in the Gazette publication and on perusal of the documents which are required to be furnished by the applicants, if any deficiency is noticed, the District Collector shall send a notice by registered post requiring the applicants to supply the details or furnish the documents which are incomplete or not furnished. In the instant case, without giving any notice, the first respondent rejected the petitioner's application straight way on the ground that the application did not satisfy the requirements of the provisions of the said Rules. 4. Earlier, the first respondent issued a notification bringing the subject quarry for public auction in the Gazette notification dated 19.12.2002 even before considering the application of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.918 Of 2003. This Court, by order dated 16.07.2003, disposed of a batch of writ petitions and remanded the matter for reconsideration, in accordance with the Rules, and, further directed to maintain status quo until such time. 5. It is further submitted that in the mean time, the petitioner society applied to the District Collector to issue necessary experience certificate as per the rules and though the petitioner has sent many reminders, there was no rspnse. But the first respondent issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to produce certain documents including the Experience certificate of the members. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner made further representation to the District Collector to issue the experience certificate in order to comply with the requirements. Instead of issuing the certificate, he directed the petitioner to approach the Assistant Director of Labour for getting the certificate. Therefore, the petitioner society approached the Assistant Inspector of Labour and submitted a representation requesting him to issue the experience certificate as per the directions of the first respondent. On receipt of representation, the Assistant Inspector of Labour orally informed the petitioner that he is not the competent authority to issue experience certificate as contemplated under the Rules, and further directed the petitioner society to get a letter from the District Collector instructing him to issue Experience Certificate. Thereafter the petitioner made further representations to the Commissioner of Labour, requesting to issue necessary experience certificate. Without considering all these facts, the application of the petitioner dated 03.12.2002 was rejected by the first respondent in his proceedings dated 09.09.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition for the relief stated supra. 6. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent is the competent authority to issue experience certificate to the members of the society and when the petitioner has applied even before the judgment of this Court made in W.P.No.414 of 2003 etc. batch dated 16.07.2003, the first respondent ought to have issued the experience certificate and should not have mis-directed the petitioner to approach the Assistant Inspector of Labour. She further submitted that the respondent has failed to consider that the very object of the SGSY Scheme is to bring the families which are below the poverty line, to a sustained level of income over a period of time and the said scheme is introduced by the Rural Development Department, Government of India. According to her, the very object of the scheme itself would be defeated by issuing a formal notification, and rejecting the application arbitrarily and thereafter bringing the quarry sites for public auction-cum-tender. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent has deliberately directed the petitioner to get the experience certificate from the authority, who is incompetent to issue the same as contemplated under the Rules, which would depict the ulterior motive of the first respondent to reject the petitioner's application for grant of stone quarry lease under the special scheme. Further, the first respondent has issued the rejection order in a hurried manner without giving an opportunity to the petitioner of personal hearing, learned counsel further submitted that members of the petitioner's society are rural downtrodden people, who possess rich experience in the stone quarrying work. 8. Per contra, referring to Rule 8(10-A)(a) and (vii) of the Rules, Mr.A.Arumugham, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that in respect of grant of lease stone quarries to the Swarozgar Yojana Scheme Groups (hereinafter called as SGSY), registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, a separate application has to be filed by the society and along with the application, they should enclose necessary Experience Certificate for consideration. 9. Referring to the impugned order, he further submitted that the petitioner society has not satisfied the condition of Rule 8(10-A)(a)(ii)(iii)(v) and (vii) of the Rules and therefore, on scrutiny of the application, the Special Committee has recommended for rejection of the petition for grant of stone quarry. 10. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that as against the impugned order, and appeal remedy is available to the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable in law. 11. Head both sides and perused the materials available on record. 12. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that in response to the notification published in the District Gazette dated 23.11.2002, the first respondent has invited applications from the qualified societies formed under the SGSY Scheme, for the grant of stone quarry lease in S.No. 99 (P) Quarry No.9 to an extent of 5.00.0 hectares in Keerapakkam villge, Chengalpattu Taluk. On 18.12.2002, the application of the petitioner society was placed before the Special Committee constituted for selection of the beneficiaries. After the scrutiny of the application of the society, it was found that the petitioner-society did not satisfy the conditions of the rule 10-A (a)of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1959, and therefore, the petition was rejected. Subsequently, the subject area/quarry was notified in the District Gazette for the grant of quarry lease through tender cum auction as per rule 8 of the said Rules, 1959. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed a writ petition praying to quash the orders of the District Collector dated 18.12.2002 and quash the said notification No.31 dated 19.12.2002 and this Court by order dated 10.01.2003 in W.P.M.p.No.1135 of 2003 in W.P.No.918 of 2003 ordered interim direction that the sale may go on but the confirmation of the sale in the name highest bidder be stayed. Thereafter, the writ petition itself was disposed of by order dated 16.07.1983, directing the District Collector to issue fresh notice to the petitioner to supply the omission as required under rule 8 (10-A)(3)(b)(i) of the Rules, 1959,within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice and after receipt of the documents, the authorities were directed to pass orders in accordance with the rule. With the above direction, the matter was remitted back for fresh disposal. 13. The impugned order further reveals that pursuant to the directions of this Court, the respondent issued a notice on 05.08.2003 to the petitioner to supply the omission and attend the committee meeting on 04.09.2003. The petitioner society failed to submit the vital documents as required under the Rules. Therefore, the Special committee recommended for rejection of the application of the petitioner-society. Rule 8 (10-A)a and b of the said Rules reads as follows: " Notwithstanding anything contrary contained in this rule, the District Collector shall, by notification in the District Gazette published in the month of April every year, call for applications for direct grant of leases of stone quarries to the (Swarna Jyanthi Gram Swarozgar Yojana Scheme Groups (hereinafter called SGSY groups)) tegisered either under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1983) or under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1975) and the societies formed by released bonded labourers, subject to the following conditions: i. Separate application shall be made for each area for which applications are invited by the District Collector through a notification in the District Gazette in the Form prescribed in Appendix VI-B. A challan for Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) remitted towards non-refundable application fee in the concerned District Treasury shall be enclosed with the application. ... ... (vii) All members of the society should have worked in any stone quarry for a period of not less than two years. The District Collector concerned is authorised to issue certificate to this effect. ... (b) (i)The District Collector shall examine all the applications received within the time-limit fixed in the Gazette notification published under clause (a) of this sub-rule, within fifteen days from the last date fixed for receipt of applications. Where it appears that a application is not complete in all material particulars or is not accompanied by the required documents, the District Collector shall, by a notice sent through registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), require the applicant to supply the omission or furnish the document, as the case may be, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice by the applicant. In such a notice, the applicant shall be specifically informed that his failure to supply the omission or furnish the document within the time-limit will result in summary rejection of his application for the said default." 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is bereft of details and no documents have been enclosed s to when the petitioner has approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour for grant of Experience Certificate. If there was any mis-direction by the first respondent, the petitioner should have immediately brought to the notice of the higher authorities. The object of granting quarry lease to these groups is only to improve their ecoomic condition but at the same time, the same should not be misused by persons who have either no experience or by others who form societies, in the name of SGSY group to deprive the genuine bonded labourers. Further it is evident that the petitioner has failed to enclose the necessary certificates and fulfill the conditions contemplated under Rule 8(10-A)(a) and (b) of the said Rules. More over, any person aggrieved by the order of the District Collector may prefer an appeal before the competent authority within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of the District Collector. In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to file the statutory remedy available to them. The petitioner has been given adequate opportunity to produce necessary documents. 15. A perusal of the rules does not contemplate any personal hearing before the Scrutiny Committee and it contemplates only a notice requiring the applicant to submit the omissions or to furnish the documents, as the case may be, within fifteen days from the date of notice by the applicant. As the petitioner failed to satisfy the requirements as contemplated under the Rules, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. An ineligible society is not entitled to the concession granted in the rules. 18. In the result, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs. 04.02.2008 Index :Yes kvsg To The District Collector Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram S.MANIKUMAR.,J. kvsg W.P.No.29677 of 2003 04.02.2008