LexMIS PRP EXPORTS & ETC. versus THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 16 S.C.R. 1107 MIS PRP EXPORTS & ETC. v. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. (Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.18662-18663 of 2013) DECEMBER 13, 2013 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] A B Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - ss. 4(1) and 4(1-A) - Tamil Na du Minor Mineral C Concession Rules, 1959 - rr. 36(4) and 36(1) - Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 - s. 19(2) - Suspension of quarrying operation.--Alleging unauthorized quarrying - Single. Judge of High Court permitted continuation of investigation of criminal cases against the petitioner, but D permitted him to continue the quarry operations - Thereafter, suspension orders were passed under 1999 rules and show cause notices issued to the petitioners - Writ appeal - Division Bench allowed the appeal taking into consideration the subsequent suspension order - Held: In view of the fact E that several writ petitions are pending for consideration before High Court on the issue, and that in the present case, High Court had issued some equitable directions, it would not be appropriate to pronounce upon merit of the case. Practice and Procedure - Subsequent events - Consideration of - Permissibility - Held: Courts should examine subsequent events, in a case, where larger public interest is involved. F Petitioner-a partnership firm was engaged in the G business of granite. 55 granite guarries in the District of Madurai were leased in its favour. The respondent officials suspended its quarrying operations in the 55 quarries, sealed the factory of the petitioner and seized 1107 H 1108 SUPREME COURT REPORT~ (2013] 16 S.C.R. A its bank-accounts, on the allegation of illegal and unauthorized quarrying. The petitioner challenged the order, by filing writ petition, and the same was disposed of by Single Judge 8 of the· High Court. The Court permitted to continue the investigation of the criminal cases against the petitioner, but directed the authority concerned to let the petitioner continue the quarrying operation and run his business. The respondent-State filed writ appeal. During C pendency of the same, suspension orders dated 14.12.2012 were issued uls. 19(2) of Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1 ~99 and also show cause notices dated nil. 12.12.2012. The Division Bench of High Court allowed the writ appeal. However, it also gave D certain equitable directions. Hence the present special Leave Petitions. Dismissing the petitions, the Court HELD: 1. When a larger public interest is involved, E the Court can always look into the subsequent events. The Division Bench of the High Court was right in examining the subsequent events. [Para 7] [1115-C] All India Railway Recruitment Board vs. K. Shyam Kumar F (201 O) 6 sec 614: 201 o (6) SCR 291 - relied on. Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. (1978) 1 SCC 405: 1978 (2) SCR 272 - referred to. G 2.1. The Government and the District Administration received lot of complaints with regard to illegal quarrying in the Madurai District, which led the State Government directing the District Administration to verify the complaints. After conducting a comprehensive and H scientific survey, the Deputy Director and the Assistant PRP EXPORTS & ETC. v. CHIEF SECRETARY, 1109 GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU Director of Geology and Mining, submitted an Evaluation A Report on 23.11.2012 on 88 granite quarries. The Deputy Director and the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining · in their Evaluation Report dated 23.11.2012 reported that the Petitioner firm has not carried out the quarrying operations as per their mining plan and encroached upon B the adjoining roads, tanks, channels and water bodies and illicitly quarried granites in the adjacent non- leasehold areas. Further, it was also pointed out that there was a vast difference between the quantity permitted by the District Mines office and the quantity c quarried by the Petitioner firm. Consequently, it was pointed out that they had violated Section 4-(1) and 4-(1A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and also violated the Rules 36(4) and 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. It 0 was also pointed out that the Petitioner had not submitted the Scheme of Mining as per Rules 15 and 18 of the Granite Conservation and Development ·Rules, 1999 and had not sto
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.