1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 08.12.2011 Coram THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA Writ Petition (MD)No.13971 of 2011 K.Dharmendiran ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai District. 2.The Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Madurai Collectorate Campus, Madurai. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District, Madurai. 4.The Assistant Geologist, (mines) Madurai District, Madurai. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the notice made in RC.No.731 of 2011/Mines, dated 11.11.2011 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same. For petitioner : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja For respondents : Mr.B.Pugalendhi Special Govt. Pleader ORDER The petitioner, who is the owner of land covered in S.F.No.707/4E admeasuring 0.26.5, 707/5 (0.44.0), 712/1 (1.81.0), 712/3 (1.81.5) of Melakkal village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District have applied for a lease to quarry rough stone and gravel over an extent of 0.95.0 hectares under Rule 19 of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2015, accordingly, he was granted such lease subject to certain conditions. After some time, the first respondent has issued the present impugned show cause notice dated 11.11.2011 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. 2. Aggrieved by the impugned show cause notice, the petitioner has come to this Court by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India on the ground that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 a) That the show cause notice has been issued with pre determination to cancel the lease. b) Issuance of show cause notice is only on the basis of Inspection report dated 08.11.2010 submitted by the Assistant Geologist (mines) and another inspection report submitted by the Village Administrative Officer, Melakkal on 08.11.2010. c) That the petitioner has already quarried 22,782 units of gravel without remitting required seigniorage charges. 3. In support of this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in S.Selvarajan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District reported in 2010 (6) CTC 73. At the outset, it has to be made clear that the impugned show cause notice dated 11.11.2011, issued by the first respondent cannot be construed that they have pre-judged the issue. Though the show cause notice was issued on the basis of two inspection reports submitted by the Assistant Geologist (mines) and the Village Administrative Officer, Melakkal dated 08.11.2010, nowhere, the show cause notice stated that the petitioner has committed any violations. On the other hand, this Court is able to see that a mere reading of show cause notice goes to say that on the basis of the report submitted by the Assistant Geologist (mines) and the Village Administrative Officer, Melakkal dated 08.11.2010, the lessee has not maintained the lease boundary and also allegedly encroached an extent of 0.05.0 hectares (480 Sq.m) in south western side of the lease granted area. Further the show cause notice says that the petitioner has not maintained any account for transaction of rough stone for the lease granted area. With all these allegations when the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of show cause notice, the petitioner cannot complain that the first respondent has already prejudged the issue. In fact, in one of the communications dated 11.11.2011 issued by the Deputy Director of Geology and Mining (incharge) addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, a request was made to conduct a detailed enquiry with the lessee and also with the Village Administrative Officer about the quantity of rough stone quarried in excess in patta S.F.No.707/4E and etc., of Melakkal village. Therefore, as the issuance of show cause notice has not decided any issue against the petitioner. Under these circumstances, as it has been settled by this Court and the Honourable Apex Court more particularly in the case of Union of India and another vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 Supreme Court Cases 28, that a mere charge sheet or show-cause notice issued by the respondent does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 is infringed. A mere show cause notice or charge sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. Hence, this court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. However as apprehended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the communication dated 15.11.2011 issued by the Deputy Director of Geology and Mining might influence the very enquiry to be initiated by the first respondent for the reason that there was a request to levy penalty as per Rule 36-C(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959, after conducting a detailed enquiry with the lessee along with the concerned village Administrative Officer about the quarrying of 22,340 units of gravel unauthorisedly without remitting the required seigniorage charges, it is hereby clarified that the enquiry officer shall not be influenced by the above mentioned proceedings dated 15.11.2011. Further coming to the report dated 08.11.2010, it is also further clarified that since the petitioner has not been issued with a copy of the inspection report of the Assistant Geologist (mines) and another inspection report by the Village Administrative Officer, Melakkal dated 08.11.2010, this court directs the respondents to issue the above said reports to the petitioner before the enquiry is initiated. With these observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Madurai District. 2.The Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Madurai Collectorate Campus, Madurai. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District, Madurai. 4.The Assistant Geologist, (mines) Madurai District, Madurai. +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.43113) W.P.(MD) No.13971 of 2011 08.12.2011 vs NSV/19.12.11/3P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/