1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.P.(MD)No.805 of 2011 and MP(MD) No.1 of 2011 T.Karunakaran ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Tiruchirapalli District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirapalli. 3.The Assistant Director, Geology & Mining, Office of the District Collector, Tiruchirapalli. 4.P.Sabiyullah 5.K.Thirumurthy ... Respondents Prayer: The Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to initiate statutory action under Sections 36- A and B of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 against the respondents 4 and 5 herein, on the basis of the report under reply of the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.B.100/2008 dated 03.01.2009, for recovery of Public Revenue, within a reasonable time. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Janakiramulu For Respondents : Mr.K.Mahendran,Spl.G.P. 1 to 3 O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by P.JYOTHIMANI,J.) In respect of the alleged quarry of stones unauthorisedly in the land to an extent of 29.07.5 Hectares in Survey No.24 at Puduvadi Village, Manaparai Taluk, Trichy District, the 2nd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer has imposed a penalty of Rs.2,40,560/- and that has been communicated under the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 27.10.2010. 2.The grievance of the petitioner, who has filed the present Public Interest Litigation, is that in spite of such penalty having been imposed on respondents 4 and 5, the respondents 1 to 3 have not taken any steps for recovery of the penalty amount as per Rule 36 A and B of the Tamil Nadu Miner Mineral Concession Rules, 1959,, (herein after called as the Rules) and therefore, the present Writ petition has been filed for recovery of the penalty amount. 3.The case of the respondents 4 and 5 is that the order of the 2nd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer dated 27.10.2010 has been passed without giving notice and opportunity to the respondents 4 and 5. It is seen from the order of the 2nd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 27.10.2010 that it is only a consequential order to that of the order of penalty imposed by the 2nd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 dated 15.10.2010 in Na.Ka.No.A2/8594-2008 as it is referred to in the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 27.10.2010. 4.Since it is the case of the 4th and 5th respondents that the said orders have not been communicated to them and also taking note of the fact that as against the order of penalty, appeal lies to the District Collector as per Rule 36 of the Rules, we direct the respondents 1 to 3 to communicate the order in Na.Ka.No.A2/8594-2008, dated 15.04.2010 to the respondents 4 and 5 within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, liberty is given to the respondents 4 and 5 to file an appropriate appeal before the appellate authority as per the Rules and if any such appeal is filed, within a period of 4 weeks after the communication of the said order, the appellate authority shall receive the same and decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law, without rejecting it on the ground of limitation. 5.It is seen that in the meantime, the respondents 4 and 5 has approached the Civil Court by filing a suit in O.S.No.120 of 2011 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Manaparai, challenging the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 27.10.2010. As per the provisions of the Rules, such suit is not maintainable. Moreover, now that we have given opportunity to the respondents 4 and 5 to work out their remedy by way of filing an appeal as per the Rules, the suit has to be necessarily closed as infructuous. The learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 also undertakes to withdraw the said suit, since the respondents 4 and 5 have been given liberty to file an appeal. 6.Accordingly, we direct the learned District Munsif, Manaparai, to close the suit in O.S.No.120 of 2011 as the same has become infructuous. 7.It is needless to state that as and when the statutory appeals are filed by the respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner is entitled to implead himself before the appellate authority and participate in the enquiry as per the Rules. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector,Tiruchirapalli District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,Tiruchirapalli. 3.The Assistant Director, Geology & Mining, Office of the District Collector,Tiruchirapalli. 4. The District Munsif, Manapparai. +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR.27928 +1CC TO MR.V.JANAKIRAMULU, ADVOCATE SR.27807 Nbj : SR : 26.08.2011 : 2p/7c W.P.(MD)No.805 of 2011 & MP(MD) No.1 of 2011 16.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/