1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:9/9/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR WP(MD)No.10273 of 2011 A. Arockyanathan :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai. 2.The Assistant Director, Geology and Mines, Pudukottai. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,Pudukottai District,Pudukottai:Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to issue transport permit to remove and transport the quarry materials from Survey No.429, Thulaiyanur Village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District. For petitioners:Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For respondents:Mr.B.Pugalenthi, Spl.G.P ORDER The petitioner, has been granted lease to quarry rough stones in Survey No.429, Thulaiyanur Village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District, for a period of five years, has not been issued with transit permits to remove and transport quarrying materials, has prayed for a mandamus, directing the second respondent to issue transport permits to remove transport quarry from the site. 2.According to him, though a show cause notice dated 25/7/2011 has been issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai, calling for explanation in respect of certain allegations, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai, third respondent, has no authority to withhold issuance of transport permits or place restriction in the removal of quarried materials in Survey No.429 Thulaiyanur Village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District. According to him, non-issuance of transit permits, even before passing an appropriate order, is opposed to the scheme set out in Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. 3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 4.As per Rule 36-A-1 of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, whenever any person contravenes provisions of (sub-Section 1 and 1-A of Section 4) of the Act in any land, enhanced seigniroage fee upto a maximum of 15 times the normal rate subject to the minimum of (twenty five thousand rupees) shall be charged and recovered from that person by the District Collector or the District Forest Officer as the case may be, or in the alternative, he shall be liable to be punished as provided in sub- Section 1 of Section 21 of the Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.As per Rule 36 (5) (h) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, in case of breach by quarrying permit holder or quarrying lease holder or transferee or assignee of any of these rules or the condition of the lease, the competent authority without prejudice to any other penalty which may be imposed in respect of such breach, may cancel the lease. 6.A perusal of the show cause notice in R.C.No.4832/2011/A6 dated 25/7/2011 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukottai, shows that, for removal of mineral from the site not authorised, an inspection has been conducted and that the Deputy Director of Mines has submitted a report to take appropriate action into the provisions of the Mines and Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. In the show cause notice dated 25/7/2011, it is stated that the petitioner has been directed to appear in person on 1/8/2011. Subsequently, upon consideration of the explanation and the statement of the Village Administrative Officer, a further memorandum in R.C.No.2326/2011 dated 29/8/2011 has been issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukottai to the petitioner, indicating breach of condition Nos.21, 22 and special condition (ii) of the lease. Explanation has been sought for from the petitioner within fifteen days of receipt of the above said memorandum, as to why action should not be taken under the Mines and Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, for contravention of the lease conditions The issue as to whether the licensing authority can withhold transit permits pending disposal of any proceeding to be taken or already taken, came up for consideration before this Court in W.P.Nos.7690, 7680 and 7708 of 2011. 7.Repelling similar contentions, this Court at paragraph Nos.14 and 15 held as follows:- "14.No doubt, for contravention of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 or breach of the lease conditions, the competent authority is empowered to charge seigniorage fee upto a maximum of fifteen times, the normal rate subject to a minimum of twenty five thousand rupees and also empowered to cancel the lease, in addition to a punishment provided in sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act, yet this Court is of the view that when an authority is conferred with a power to issue transit permits or dispatch slips, he is also empowered to withhold the same, when contravention of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and the lease conditions are noticed and which is evident from the reports. As long as the lease holders engage themselves in lawful activities, it is always open to them to seek for enforcement of statutory provisions and once violations in the interest of the State and having regard to the stringent provisions in the Act and the Rules, the competent Authority can withhold transit permits. The competent authority should be given a latitude to take appropriate action, both preventive and punitive. When the competent authorities are empowered to initiate even prosecution besides levying penalty, it is needless to state that they are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 powerless to withhold dispatch slips or transit permits. The question of alleged excavation of the minerals available in the quarry sites have to be ascertained and appropriate action has to be taken thereafter. Mere recommendation to issue despatch slips or transit permits by a subordinate does not amount to acceptance of the same and if the said contentions of the petitioners are to be accepted, then there is no meaning in conferring a specific power on the authority to issue transit permit. He has to examine the recommendations and it is always open to him to reject, if he finds that there is prima facie violation. The proposition that once recommendations are made, by a subordinate official, the same should be simply accepted and that he has simply affixed his approval, would make the provisions redundant. Power to temporarily suspend the issuance of transit permits is inherent, when he is given the authority to issue and that there is no need to specifically mention in the rules. If minerals can be quarried in unauthorised places are allowed to be transported under valid permits, it would give rise to a contention that once the minerals are transported under valid dispatch slips or transit permits, no action can be taken." 8.The reasons stated supra in the above said judgments, is squarely applicable to the facts of this case where, violations of the provisions of Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and breach of the conditions of the lease have been noticed and for which action has also been taken Following the judgments stated supra, this Court is not inclined to issue any mandamus. 9.In such view of the matter, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The District Collector, Pudukottai District. 2.The Assistant Director,Geology and Mines,Pudukottai. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukottai District. +1CC to Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, Advocate. SR.No.31006. Mvs. W.P.(MD) No.10273 of 2011 RP/14.09.2011/3P/5C. 09.09.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/