IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 20-01-2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.7767 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.No.8553 of 2006 and W.V.M.P.No.13 of 2010 1.M/s.Indian Garnet Sand Company Pv. Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director, Mr.D.Dhaya Devadoss. 2.M/s.Southern Enterprises, represented by its Managing Partner Mr.D.Dhayadevadoss No.1-A, Prasad Street, Seethapathi Nagar, Velachery, Chennai-42. .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Industries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Regional Controller of Mines Indian Bureau of Mines, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090. 3. The District Collector, Trichirapalli District, Trichy. 4.M/s.Maruthi Minerals, represented by its Partner Vijayaramapuram, Sathankulam Taluk, Tuticorin District. .. Respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in G.O.(3D) No.46, and to quash the order, dated 27.2.2006, made therein. For Petitioners : Mr.V.Selvaraj, Senior Advocate for M/s.R.Thamaraiselvan For Respondents :Mr.C.K.Vishnu Priya (AGP) (R1 & R3) Mr.J.Ravindran (R2) Mr.A.L.Somayaji Senior Advocate, for V.Perumal (R4) O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that he would approach the competent authority, under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development), Act, 1957, by filing a revision. However, with regard to the aspect of delay in approaching the authority concerned, he had submitted that he would file an application for condoning the delay stating that it had been caused due to the pendency of the writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.7767 of 2006. 3. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents have no objection for this Court permitting the petitioners to approach the competent authority, as prayed for by the petitioners. 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the respondents, the writ petition stands dismissed, on the ground of the availability of the alternate remedy of revision, under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development), Act, 1957. It is also made clear that if the petitioner files such a Revision Petition before the competent authority, as per Section 30 of the said Act, within a period of fifteen days from today, along with an application for condoning the delay, the revisional authority concerned shall consider the same, in view of the pendency of the writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.7767 of 2006 and the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To 1. The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu Industries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Regional Controller of Mines Indian Bureau of Mines, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090. 3. The District Collector, Trichirapalli District, Trichy. 2 cc To Mr..R.Thamaraiselvan, Advocate, SR.4434 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.4493 1 cc To Mr. V.Perumal , Advocate, SR.4302 Writ Petition No.7767 of 2006 pkb(co) pmk.21.1.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/