Petitions filed by granite firm dismissed

The Madras High Court today dismissed a batch of petitions filed by RPR Granites seeking to quash show cause notices by the state to appear in person for a personal hearing in connection with a case of mining lease.
"It is well-settled law that a writ petition is not maintainable against a show-cause notice," Justice D Hariparanthaman said, dismissing the petitions after referring to a Supreme Court judgement.
The judgment was delivered in the principal seat here.
The company was granted lease to quarry granite in patta lands for 20 to 30 years in Madurai district between 2003 and 2008. On March 15 2013, the Secretary, Industries Department, issued impugned show-cause notices under Sec 4-A(4) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, directing them to appear for personal hearings on various dates, asking why their lease deeds should not be declared as lapsed.

The company submitted that the district collector is only the competent authority to adjudicate the issue and not the government. They claimed the notices were issued on basis of reports of the teams that inspected quarry sites.
They also alleged the teams made surprise inspections without giving them notice and that these were issued with a 'pre-determination' of having violated Section 4-A(4) of the Act that they have not undertaken mining operations for more than two years from the date of execution of lease deeds.

The government special pleader submitted government is the competent authority to proceed against the petitioners and that they had received several complaints on illegal granite operations in Melur Taluk in Madurai.

On a direction from the government, the then district collector had conducted an inspection and submitted a preliminary report that illegal quarrying has caused the state exchequer over Rs 16,000 crore loss. Special teams were constituted and carried out inspections on the basis of which the notices were issued, the government special pleader said.
The judge said under Sec 4-A(4) of the Act, the Secretary, Industries Department was the competent authority and that the petitioners had not cited any provision of the statute or rules that the notices should be issued only by some other authority.
The judge disagreed with the firm's contention that the notices were issued on basis of reports of inspections by the teams and that these were not given to them and said they were merely asked to appear for a personal hearing, instead of which they had prematurely moved court at SCN stage itself.

He also rejected the claim that no prior notice was given before inspection and said if the official concerned decided to do so, it could not be described as an illegal act.
The judge directed authorities to give reasonable opportunity to the petitioners by providing reports in the notices before taking a decision under the Act.