1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:02.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.8562 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 C.Solaimalai : Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, Madurai. 2. The Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent dated 13.07.2011 in Roc.No.182/11/Mines, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- with the second respondent and further, direct the respondents to release the petitioner's lorry bearing Registration No.KA 34-5484 forthwith as per the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.7336 of 2011, dated 01.07.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul For Respondents: Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader ORDER ****** Challenge in this Writ Petition is to an order, levying penalty in Roc.No.182/11/Mines, dated 13.07.2011, by the District Collector, Madurai, by which, the petitioner, lorry owner has been directed to remit a penalty amount of Rs.3,35,346/- and produce the original challan to the Collectorate. He has been permitted to tack back the vehicle along with the granite block, after remittance of penalty amount. Indisputably, the order passed by the District Collector is appealable under Rule 36(C)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1959 before the Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Chennai, within 30 days from the date of communication of the order. 2. Assailing the correctness of the order, Mr. A.Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not issued with any show cause notice before imposing penalty by the Collector and that his appearance before the District Collector, Madurai was only with a request to release the lorry which was seized on 08.04.2011 by the Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. He further submitted that when the lorry was seized by the Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai, the second respondent herein, alleging that there was transportation of granite block without valid dispatch slip, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.7336 of 2011 and by order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 dated 01.07.2011, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition, by issuing a direction to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- with the Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District, the second respondent and on such deposit, the Tahsildar was directed to release the lorry, subject to certain conditions. He further submitted that though as per the directions of this Court, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was tendered on 26.07.2011, with a request to release the vehicle, the same was not complied with. No reasons were assigned. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was served with an order of the District Collector, Madurai, the first respondent herein, signed on 13.07.2011, imposing a penalty of Rs.3,35,346/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the respondents have violated the orders of this Court dated 01.07.2011 in not releasing the vehicle, as per the directions stated supra. For the reasons stated supra, he prayed to set aside the impugned order and consequently, prayed for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- with the Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District, the second respondent herein and on receipt of the deposit, direct the respondents to release the lorry bearing Registration No.KA 34-5484. 3. Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader, who took notice for the respondents, submitted that the order impugned in this Writ Petition, is appealable under Rule 36(C)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 before the Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Chennai. He further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that he was not given any opportunity to appear before the District Collector to refute the allegations is not correct. In this context, he invited the attention of this Court to the contents of the impugned order, wherein the District Collector has categorically recorded that the owner of the lorry bearing Registration No.KA 34-5484 appeared in person to the office of the Collectorate and had given a statement. The submission of the learned counsel for the State is placed on record. 4. As regards the alleged violation of the orders of this Court made in W.P.(MD)No.7336 of 2011, dated 01.07.2011, when the learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with a question as to when the petitioner had applied for a copy of the order made in the above said writ petition, he submitted that the copy application was made only on 20.07.2011. The impugned order levying penalty of Rs.3,35,346/- has been passed by the District Collector, Madurai, the first respondent herein on 13.07.2011 itself, wherein the first respondent had categorically directed that only after remittance of the penalty amount, the lorry would be released along with granite block. When the copy application itself has been filed only on 20.07.2011, the petitioner could have produced the order only after passing of the impugned order and, therefore, there is no justification in contending that there was a willful and deliberate act of contempt. No materials have been placed before this Court to prove that the copy of the order had already been received in the office of the District Collector, before the impugned order came to be passed. 5. Perusal of the impugned order also shows that the petitioner had given a statement before the Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. He has also appeared before the District Collector and given a statement stating that he was temporarily residing at Chamrajnagar, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Bangalore and his permanent address is 4/324, 2nd Street, Jothi Nagar,Melur, Madurai. In his statement, he has also stated that he has transported Coloumbu Jubrana variety of Granite blocks of length 3.20m., width 1.85m and height 1.80m from Nagari (Vadipatty) to Poovanthi without having valid dispatch slip for the transportation of granite and hence, the Tahsildar, Vadipatti has seized his lorry on 08.04.2011. The District Collector, Madurai District has also observed that the petitioner has accepted the offence and was ready to pay the penalty amount levied by the Government in this regard. He has also recorded that the petitioner has accepted to unload the granite block in the Government custody and further, requested to levy penalty excluding the cost of the mineral. When there is a categorical statement in the impugned order, that the petitioner had appeared in person before the District Collector, with reference to the allegations of transportation of granite block without valid dispatch slip, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is violation of principles of natural justice, in that, the petitioner had not given any show cause notice, regarding the imposition of penalty, cannot be countenanced. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to subscribe to the said contentions. 6. In addition to the above, an appeal remedy is also provided under Rule 36(C)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 before the Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Chennai. Resorting to a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be made only, if there is no efficacious and alternative remedy or in a case where violation of principles of natural justice is per se apparent. In this case, there is no jurisdictional error also. 7. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the first respondent and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and the same stands dismissed accordingly. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Collector, Madurai. 2. The Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. + 1 cc to Mr.A.Rahul, Advocate, SR No.25609 Order made in W.P.(MD).No.8562 of 2011 Dated:- 02.08.2011 SML RJ/3.8.11 (IT) 3p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/