BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 7/3/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD) No.2158 of 2011 Esther Jeya Rani ... Petitioner Vs 1. The District Collector Thoothukudi District,Thoothukudi. 2. The Sub-Collector Thoothukudi District,Thoothukudi. 3. The Assistant Director Geology and Mining Department Thoothukudi District,Thoothukudi. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari in calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.Aa2/362/2011 dated 14/1/2011 which has been served upon the petitioner on 15/2/2011 and quash the same. For petitioner ... Mr.R.Anand For respondents ... Mr.D.Sasikumar, G.A. ORDER Mr.D.Sasikumar, Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The present writ petition is laid challenging the order of the second respondent dated 14/1/2011 in and by which the second respondent imposed a penalty of Rs.3,51,340/- 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. 4. 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. 5. The learned Government Advocate 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. 6. In view of the above stated position, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order of the second respondent dated 14/1/2011 on the sole https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ground that the said order came to be passed by the second respondent without due notice to the petitioner. 7. 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. 8. In fine, the impugned order of the second respondent dated 14/1/2011 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. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Collector, Thoothukudi District. 2. The Sub-Collector, Thoothukudi District. 3. The Assistant Director Geology and Mining Department Thoothukudi District. +1cc to The Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.11745 W.P.(MD) No.2158 of 2011 mvs PA/29.03.2011/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/