w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Beach Minerals Company India Limited, Represented by its Director Mr. S. Masanam, Chennai v/s The District Collector, Thoothukudi & Another

    W.P.(MD)No. 10383 of 2013 & M.P(MD)No. 1 of 2013

    Decided On, 23 February 2017

    At, Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

    For the Petitioner: M/s. V. Sanjeevi, Advocates. For the Respondents: B. Pugazlendhi, Addl.Advocate General Assisted by Aayiram K. Selvakumar, Govt Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Praying this Court for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondent relating to the order passed in Ref.Na.Ka.No.A3/1079i/2013, dated 23.5.2013 and to quash the same.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondent relating to the order passed in Ref.Na.Ka.No.A3/1079i/2013, dated 23.5.2013 and to quash the same.

2. By order dated 23.5.2013, the second respondent had imposed the penalty against the Petitioner company for illicit removal of red soil from the land in various survey numbers stating that the lands belonged to the Petitioner.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

4. Though the Petitioner has raised several grounds in the Writ Petition, one of the grounds raised is that though the impugned order is based on the inspection reports of the Tahsildar, Sathankulam, the Revenue Divisional Officer of Thiruchendur and the Assistant Director of Geology, Thoothukudi, the said orders were not furnished to the Petitioner and that the inspections were done behind the back of the Petitioner. On a perusal of the impugned order, there is nothing on record to show that the inspections reports were furnished to the Petitioner before passing the impugned order. On that sole ground, the impugned order stands vitiated.

5. At this juncture, the learned Additional Advocate General fairly conceded that since the inspection reports were not furnished to the Petitioner prior to the passing of the order, the issue may be remanded back to the authorities concerned for fresh consideration, after affording due opportunity to the petitioner. However, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that surprise inspection is legally permissible which aspect is controverted by the Petitioner.

6. I do not wish to make any remarks on the other grounds raised by the Petitioner as well as the Land Acquisition Officer, since the matter is being remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration.

7. In view of the same, the impugned order order passed by the second respondent in Ref.Na.Ka.No.A3/1079i/2013, dated 23.5.2013 is quashed. The entire issue is remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The second respondent while conducting enquiry shall furnish all the documents and reports relied upon by the respondents and after giving due opportunity to the Petitioner, sh

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

all pass orders on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
O R