It was also pointed out that the Petitioner has number submitted the Scheme of Mining as per Rules 15 and 18 of the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 and has number stored the over burden and waste materials as earmarked.
Before the learned Single Judge, the State also took up the stand that the order of sealing dated 9.8.2012 was illegal and companyld number be supported in law.
The State, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, preferred Writ Appeal MD Nos.
Consequently, it was pointed out that they have violated Section 4 1 and 4 1A of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957.
Consequently, under Sub Rule 2 of Rule 19 of the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999, the Government suspended the mining operations in respect of 78 granite quarries of Madurai District and, among the same, 20 quarries belong to the Petitioner firm were suspended on 14.12.2012 and the companyies of the suspension orders were issued to the Petitioner firm.
The Petitioner firm is having 55 granite quarries leased in the Madurai District measuring about 584.83 acres.
The Petitioners, therefore, approached the Madras High Court by filing W.P. MD Nos.12441 and 12442 of 2012, which were heard by a learned Single Judge.
and has set up its factory for cutting and polishing of granite in Therkkutheru Village, Madurai District.
The District Administration then forwarded the Inspection cum Evaluation Report dated 23.11.2012 to the Commissioner of Geology and Mining on 4.12.2012 and pointed out that the lessees have number submitted the scheme of mining as required under sub rules 2 and 3 of Rule 18 of the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 and that the lessees have carried out large scale unauthorized quarrying in the leasehold area and the adjoining number leasehold area.
Further, it was also pointed out that there is a vast difference between the quantity permitted by the District Mines office and the quantity quarried by the Petitioner firm.
The Commissioner of Geology and Mining vide its letter dated 6.12.2012 also recommended for further action.
departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings?
After companyducting a companyprehensive and scientific survey, the Deputy Director and the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining submitted an Evaluation Report on 23.11.2012 on 88 granite quarries.
The Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957 and other Rules, can override the General Law, viz.,
Consequently, the Commissioner of Geology and Mining vide proceedings dated 4.8.2012 deputed six Assistant Geologists, two Surveyors and two Sub Inspectors of Survey from various other Districts to assist the inspection team companystituted by the District Administration.
Further, it was also pointed out that they have number maintained the boundary stones and the safety distance and thus violated the Rules 36 4 and 36 1 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.
the penal provisions under the Indian Penal Code and the provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the initiation of parallel proceedings, viz.,
The inspection companyld number be carried out in 22 granite quarries due to water logging and among that 18 quarries belonged to the Petitioner.
Alleging that the Petitioner firm had indulged in unauthorized quarrying, the Respondent officials as well as the District Collector and Superintendent of Police took steps to seal the Petitioners factory premises, vehicles and instruments so as to suspend the quarrying operations in respect of the above mentioned quarries.
Considering the vast area involved, the District Administration requested the Commissioner of Geology and Mining to depute officers from their department for carrying on the inspection.
Among them, 16 quarries belonged to the Petitioner.
Various other violations have also been pointed out.
The Petitioner firm, it is stated, is 100 export oriented unit, recognized by the Madras Export Processing Zone.
S. Radhakrishnan, J. These Special Leave Petitions arise out of a companymon judgment and order dated 15.2.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in A. MD Nos.906 and 907 of 2012.
The Petitioner is a registered partnership firm, engaged in the manufacture of dimensional granite blocks, slabs, tiles, monuments etc.
