Madras High Court chides officials for 'defective' order on mining activity, says such orders increase backlog
Madras High Court chides officials for 'defective' order on mining activity, says such orders increase backlog
The oral observations were made on a PIL filed challenging the cancellation of a sand mining licence by the District Collector of Vellore without following the norms.

Chennai: Chiding officials for not following norms on matters relating to quarrying, the Madras High Court has observed that "if this is the attitude of the officials, a time will come to order stopping of all mining operations in the state".

The oral observations were made by a first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and T S Sivagnanam on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by K Mani challenging the cancellation of his sand mining licence by the District Collector of Vellore without following the norms.

Mani's licence was cancelled for excessive mining of sand. He contended that the officials should have issued a show cause notice first and given a chance for personal hearing.

"Your officers have been deliberately violating the norms enabling the people to approach the Court. When they are not competent they should not hold the posts. This kind of attitude doesn't look proper. You want to teach how the show cause notice to be issued. Defective orders are passed and the High Court has to cure the same", the bench told Government Pleader STS Moorthy.

"In fact it is on account of such defective orders, cases are pending before this court", the bench said quashing the April 17 order cancelling the petitioner's licence for sand mining by the District Collector violating the provisions of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules.

"However, this would not be a licence to the petitioner to carry out mining activity which shall remain suspended awaiting orders to be passed by the competent authority", the court said.

The bench directed the authorities to issue show cause notice with all supporting materials to the petitioner and give a reasonable time of at least 15 days for him to respond to it and thereafter on personal hearing, an order in accordance with law be passed.

The bench also posed several questions to the petitioner including whether his Income Tax was assessed and for how many years he was doing the business.

The bench posted further proceedings to August 20.

What's your reaction?

Comments

https://wapozavr.com/assets/images/user-avatar-s.jpg

0 comment

Write the first comment for this!