IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE:28-04-2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.8127 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 Padmavathi Magalir Suya Uthavi Kuzhu, Rep. By its President K.Pushpa, Narasingapuram Village, T.C.kandigai Post, Tiruttani Taluk, Tiruvallur District. .. Petitioner. Versus The District Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur. .. Respondent. Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent herein relating to the order passed in Ref.Na.Ka.No.1119/2006/Kanimam-2, dated 24.2.2011 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sanjeevi For Respondent : Mr.R.Thirugnanam Special Government Pleader O R D E R It has been stated that the petitioner, which is a registered society, had submitted an application, dated 15.6.2006, for the grant of lease, for quarrying rough stones in the land bearing Survey No.58/2, in T.C, Kandigai Village, Tiruttani Taluk, Tiruvallur District. The application submitted by the petitioner Society had been scrutinised and approved by the District Level Special Committee, formed for the grant of lease to SGSY Groups and Bonded Labourers Societies. 2. Based on the recommendation and approval of the District Level Special Committee, the District Collector, Tiruvallur District, the respondent herein, had granted the lease to the petitioner Society, for the quarrying of rough stones, by his proceedings, in Rc.No.1119/2006/G&M-2, dated 27.11.2006. The lease had been granted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in favour of the petitioner Society for a period of five years, from 27.11.2006 to 26.11.2011. 3. The members of the petitioner Society had been carrying on quarrying operations, as per the conditions of the lease and the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. However, the respondent, based on a discreet enquiry, said to have been made, had cancelled the lease granted in favour of the petitioner Society, by the impugned order, dated 24.2.2011. 4. It has been further stated that no proper enquiry had been conducted by the respondent before the impugned order had been passed. No notice had been issued to the petitioner Society before the lease granted in its favour had been cancelled. Further, the documents relied on by the respondent for passing the impugned order, including the inspection report, had not been given to the petitioner Society before the lease had been cancelled. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on the decisions 2006(5) CTC 857 and 2010 (6) CTC 73, in support of his contention that the respondent ought to have given an opportunity of effective hearing by giving the relevant documents to the petitioner Society before passing the impugned order, dated 24.2.2011. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted, on instructions, that the impugned order, dated 24.2.2011, had been passed by the respondent, based on the discreet enquiry report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruttani, dated 27.1.2011, wherein, it had been found that certain persons, who were not members of the petitioner Society, had been engaged in the quarrying operations, contrary to the purpose for which the quarrying lease had been granted in favour of the petitioner Society. He had also submitted that a notice had been issued to the petitioner Society and an enquiry had been conducted before the lease granted in its favour had been cancelled by the respondent, by his order, dated 24.2.2011. However, he had admitted that the communication of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruttani, dated 10.8.2010, and his report, dated 27.1.2011, had not been given to the petitioner Society during the enquiry, based on which the impugned order had been passed. 7. In such circumstances, in view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, and in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ view of the decisions cited supra, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the respondent, dated 24.2.2011, cancelling the lease granted in favour of the petitioner. Hence, it is, set aside. 8. The respondent is directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner Society, with regard to the cancellation of the rough stones quarrying lease granted in its favour. The respondent shall furnish copies of the communication, dated 10.8.2010, and the discreet enquiry report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruttani, dated 27.1.2011, to the petitioner, during the enquiry, based on which final orders may be passed, in respect of the said lease. The process of enquiry and the passing of the final order shall be completed by the respondent, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that the setting aside of the impugned order of the respondent, dated 24.2.2011, shall not entitle the petitioner to continue the quarrying operations, in respect of the land in question, until final orders are passed by the respondent, as directed by this Court. However, it would be open to the respondent to consider the granting of extension of the lease granted in favour of the petitioner to compensate the number of days, during which the petitioner had been prevented from carrying on the quarrying operations, if it is found that the members of the petitioner Society had not committed any irregularity, contrary to the terms and conditions of the lease granted in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To The District Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur. 1 cc To Mr.V.Sanjeevi, Advocate, SR.29876 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.30823 Writ Petition No.8127 of 2011 la(co) pmk.2.5.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/