IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:20.1.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.1072 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 N.Elangovan, Proprietor, M/s.Enn R Gee Blue Metals, SF No.531/2, Myvadi Village, Udumalpet Taluk, Tirupur District. ... Petitioner vs. 1.The District Collector, Tirupur District, Tirupur. 2.The Director of Town and Country Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai. 3.The Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Dr.Nanjappa Road, Corporation Complex, Coimbatore. 4.The Block Development Officer, (Block Panchayat), Madathukulam, Udumalpet, Tirupur District. 5.The President, Myvadi Village Panchayat, Grade-I, Udumalpet, Tirupur District. 6.Satishkumar, 7.Murugan. ... Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from granting approval for forming layouts and building planning permission in the agricultural lands comprised in Survey No.532/2 E24, 532/2 E25 and 532/2 E20 at Myvadi Village, Udumalpet, Tirupur District without considering the objection of the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan For Respondents 1 to 5 : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Government Advocate. ----- O R D E R Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from granting approval for forming layouts and building planning permission in the agricultural lands comprised in Survey No.532/2 E24, 532/2 E25 and 532/2 E20 at Myvadi Village, Udumalpet, Tirupur District without considering the objection of the petitioner. 2. Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5. In view of the order that is to be passed in this writ petition, the notice to respondents 6 and 7 is dispensed with. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. Petitioner is running a business of stone crushing and dealing in blue metals in Survey No.533/1, Myvadi Village, Madathukulam Taluk, Udumalpet. He also states that he has obtained consent from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board for air and water and it has been renewed periodically. Respondents 6 and 7 are trying to develop their property contrary to Rule 36 of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Further, the procedure and restrictions imposed in G.O.Ms.No.59 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 27.5.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.134 Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MAI) Department dated 20.9.2002 have to be scrupulously followed for grant of approval to layout situate near place of quarry. 4. In this regard, the petitioner points out para 3(ii)(g) of the G.O.Ms.No.134 dated 20.9.2002 which reads as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "3. After examining the suggestions of the Committee and also based on the decisions communicated in the Government letter fourth read above, the Government direct that the simplified procedure as detailed below be followed for approval of layout proposal without delay. (i) xxx (ii) The local body should also verify the followings points:- (a) to (f) xxx (g) that the layout is not objectionable to other because of water logging, bad drainage, unhealthy surroundings, quarries, burial grounds nearby, or suffer from unsuitability due to obstructions to and natural water course, drainage, etc." 5. Based on the above provision, petitioner has given the objection to the fifth respondent panchayat to consider his objection as and when any approval for layout is granted in respect of the lands situated within the prohibited distance from the stone quarrying or stone crushing units. 6. The apprehension of the petitioner is that approval has been given in respect of individual houses even though they are within the prohibited distance and, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed stating that further approval of housing plots contrary to the rules and government order is bad. 7. Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 on instruction states that no approval as alleged has been granted by the fifth respondent panchayat. The issue will be looked into and dealt with as per law. 8. In view of the above, respondents 1, 2 and 5 are directed to consider the objection of the petitioner on merits whenever approval for layout is granted if it falls within the prohibited distance as alleged. If any adverse order is to be passed against the respondents 6 and 7 or similarly placed persons, the respondents 1, 2 and 5/competent authorities as the case may be are directed to hear such of those persons, who will be aggrieved by the refusal to grant approval. Authorities should ensure that the principles of natural justice is strictly followed. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. ts Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Tirupur District, Tirupur. 2.The Director of Town and Country Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai. 3.The Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Dr.Nanjappa Road, Corporation Complex, Coimbatore. 4.The Block Development Officer, (Block Panchayat), Madathukulam, Udumalpet, Tirupur District. 5.The President, Myvadi Village Panchayat, Grade-I, Udumalpet, Tirupur District. + 1 cc to Mr. P. Saravana Sowmiyan, Advocate SR No.4213 + 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.4524 GV(CO) SR/28.1.2011 Order in W.P.No.1072 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/