1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD)No.4718 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 S.P.Alagunambi : Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. 2. The Sub Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. : Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.Aa2/380/2011, dated 28.02.2011 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand For Respondents : Mr.N.Ilango Government Advocate ******** ORDER ****** Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. Challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 28.02.2011 imposing a penalty of Rs.17,49,400/- alleging that the petitioner instead of carrying out the quarrying work in the leased area has carried out the sand quarry, which is a Cart Poramboke, the petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that the second respondent has passed the order without due notice to the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents is unable to point out from the impugned order that the said order came to be passed by the second respondent after giving due notice to the petitioner. Even a perusal of the said order does not disclose that the said order came to be passed by the second respondent after giving due notice to the petitioner. 5. In view of the above stated position, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order of the second respondent dated 28.02.2011 on the sole ground that the said order came to be passed by the second respondent without due notice to the petitioner. 6. Even though, an appeal remedy is available to the petitioner, I am not inclined to direct the petitioner to file an appeal, since the order that came to be passed is in violation of principles of natural justice. 7. In fine, the impugned order of the second respondent dated 28.02.2011 is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. The matter is remitted to the second respondent to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner. Setting aside this order, shall not be construed that the petitioner can quarry in the cart poramboke, if he is quarrying there. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. sd/- Deputy Registrar (L.A) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. 2. The Sub Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. Copy To: The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Order made in W.P.(MD)No.4718 of 2011 25.04.2011 SML RJ/9.5.11 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/