Justice delayed: HC punishes state govt for lease violation

Madurai:
Madras high court
has directed the principal secretary of the industries department to pay 20 lakh to five petitioners and 5 lakh to the Chief Justice Relief Fund for wilful disobedience of an order passed by the court in 2010 pertaining to granting a quarry lease to a person.
The court was hearing a
contempt petition
filed in 2015 by B Shanthi, B Balaji, B Vishnuvaradan, B Umamaheswari, and D Bhavani of Trichy district, complaining about the non-compliance of an earlier order. Since N Babu, who filed the contempt petition, died, his family members were substituted as petitioners in the case.
A person was granted a licence to quarry sand in the Cauvery river, covering an extent of 10 hectares in Srinivasanallur village at Thottiyam taluk in Trichy district, for three years from Dec 20, 2001, to Dec 19, 2004. Subsequently, the state govt issued a GO in 2003, introducing Rule 38-A to the
Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules
, 1959 (TNMMCR), thereby taking over the operation of sand quarries by the govt.
The GOs were challenged in a batch of petitions. The HC upheld the validity of the GO, subject to certain directions in favour of the petitioners.
Aggrieved by the same, the state preferred a civil appeal before the Supreme Court, which upheld the validity of Rule 38-A while permitting the lessees who were in existence as of October 2, 2003, to continue quarrying operations and also directed a refund of the unutilised lease amounts.
A review petition by the state was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court order, the Trichy district collector permitted the man to carry on quarrying operations for six months from Feb to Aug in 2007. However, the petitioner was unable to commence the quarrying operations as the forest department deferred passing an order granting permission to use the pathway for transportation. Consequently, the permission period for quarrying operations expired.
Thereafter, the man submitted a representation seeking an extension of the quarrying period; however, the same was rejected. Challenging it, the man filed a petition before the HC in 2008. The court directed the man to approach the forest department for permission to use the pathway and to approach the Trichy collector for an extension of the quarry lease. While the forest department granted permission, the collector disregarded his application.
Therefore, the man filed the present contempt petition in 2015. A subsequent review application and appeal were also dismissed.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the court holds the authorities guilty of contempt of the order passed in 2010. The wilful violation was to deny the rights of a man who was benefited from the order passed by the court. There is a collective bureaucratic effort to defend the violation of the orders of this court by taking protection under the umbrella of subsequent events. Hence, the judge gave the direction to the principal secretary.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

United News of India

34 minutes ago

• United News of India

SC halts deportation of Sri Lankan Tamil, seeks govt reply on Switzerland visa plea

New Delhi, June 23 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a 2019 deportation order issued against a Sri Lankan Tamil immigrant and sought a response from Indian authorities regarding his request to visit the Embassy of Switzerland in person to process a humanitarian visa application. A bench comprising Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh issued notice to the respondent authorities, noting that over five and a half years had passed since the said deportation order was passed by the government on November 20, 2019. The petitioner, currently held at the Trichy Special Camp, had approached the apex court challenging the deportation order and seeking permission to physically visit the Swiss Embassy. His earlier plea was dismissed by the Madras High Court in December 2024. Senior Advocate Jayanth Muth Raj, appearing for the petitioner, emphasised the imminent danger to the petitioner's life if deported to Sri Lanka, stating, 'Don't deport me... all my family members have been eliminated. I am not a threat to India. If Switzerland grants a humanitarian visa, I will go there instead of getting killed in Sri Lanka.' Muth Raj informed the bench that the petitioner has spent nine years in India, three in prison and six in detention and had already been acquitted in a human trafficking case in 2019. He also submitted that the petitioner was willing to cover the expenses for any security officer assigned to escort him to the Swiss Embassy. When Justice Viswanathan asked about the urgency of listing the matter during the court's partial working days, the counsel cited grave and continuing threats to the petitioner's life, noting that his father, sister-in-law, and brother had been executed, not during combat, but after being apprehended. The petitioner has reportedly received an email from the Swiss Embassy requiring his physical presence for visa processing. The matter will be further heard after the authorities file their response. UNI SNG RN

Time of India

39 minutes ago

• Time of India

Contempt case: Kunal excused from appearing before HC

1 2 Kolkata: Calcutta High Court on Monday dispensed with the personal appearance of Kunal Ghosh and other accused in a contempt of court case concerning a ruckus in front of chambers of high court lawyers at Old Post Office Street and Kiran Shankar Roy Road on April 25. The division bench of justices Arijit Banerjee, Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Rajarshi Bharadwaj excused the personal appearance upon an undertaking that the alleged contemnors would appear as and when directed by the court. Senior counsel for the accused, Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, opened his argument by pleading that the bench didn't have the jurisdiction to issue a contempt rule. "The CJ on his administrative side assigned the matter to the special bench. It was not a judicial order," he argued. Citing rules under the Calcutta High Court Contempt of Courts Act, 1975, Bandyopadhyay pleaded that the HC could issue a contempt rule on "its own motion" after hearing petitions of contempt that were moved before the bench. Bandyopadhyay pointed out that no such petition had been moved before the division bench of CJ TS Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) a day after the incident.

The Hindu

39 minutes ago

• The Hindu

HC reserves orders in pleas over local bodies' elections

Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court on Monday reserved orders in a batch of writ petitions of former sarpanches of village panchayats seeking a direction to State government to conduct elections to local bodies. While reserving the orders, the judge reminded Additional Advocate General Mohd. Imran Khan that the State government had earlier assured the HC that it would convene elections to local bodies by February 2025. Responding to the query from the bench, the AAG said the State government would require a month to declare reservations for backward classes in local bodies. The authorities were ensuring that the reservations to be announced for BCCs would strictly be in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court. Senior counsel Vidyasagar, appearing for the State Election Commission, informed the bench that the Commission would hold elections to local bodies within 60 days of the government announcing reservations. The six petitioners, who were sarpanches and whose terms expired by January 1, 2024, requested the bench to extend their terms or conduct elections to the village panchayats immediately. They contended that the government appointed special officers in their places following the expiry of their terms. Appointing special officers was against Articles 243E and 243K of the Constitution, they argued. The rule of special officers was also in contravention of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act-2018. They told the bench that they had spent money from their pockets for different developmental and infrastructural works in their respective villages. The government was obligated to reimburse the money they had spent, the petitioners said.