Madras High Court directed departmental action against officials
MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras HC directed the state government to initiate necessary departmental proceedings against erring officials including the then Kanniyakumari district collector for granting licence to a stone quarry by violating norms and ensure that such incidents do not repeat in the future. The court also directed the district administration to grant Rs 10 lakh compensation to the petitioner.
Justice B Pugalendhi was hearing petitions filed by M Ramesh Vargeesh seeking to quash a cancellation order passed by the collector and to re-issue the licence for a stone quarry taken on lease in Kappiyarai village in Kalkulam taluk of Kanniyakumari.
The petitioner submitted that he was granted the lease for 0.6 hectares of land from January 23, 2018 to January 22, 2023 after various inspections. Consequently, a batch of petitions were filed before the court claiming alleged violations. Based on the direction of the division bench, the authorities conducted inspections and found violations as inhabited settlements were present within a 300 metre radius. Hence, the quarry lease agreement was cancelled in December 2019.
The court said, the RDO in his report in 2011 disclosed the presence of houses within a 300 metre radius. In 2015, the assistant director of the mines and geology department filed a report saying it was the presence of farmhouses which led to the collector’s approval. The petitioner claimed he had not suppressed any facts and had furnished all necessary documents. Ramesh maintained there were no houses within the 300 metre radius.
Hence, the court appointed an advocate commissioner, who confirmed that 37 houses were present within a 300 metre radius of the quarrying operations as of March 2024.
The court said the authorities had found the houses before the approval which meant the licence was granted in violation of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.
Refusing to interfere with the collector’s order to cancel the licence, the court said it was purely the mistake of the officials, who conducted the inspection and were aware of the presence of the houses within the prohibitory distance. The purpose of the inspection itself is to ascertain if there is anything in violation of 36(1A) of the Rules.
The lease was granted violating the rules and is now cancelled on the intervention of the court. The court said Ramesh claimed he had made a huge investment and suffered a loss, and had not made any false claim. Hence, the district administration was directed to provide Rs 10 lakh compensation for the petitioner as it was not his fault.
