WP/19631/2025 of M/S.MADHUCON GRANTIES LTD Vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

WP No. 19631 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI WP No. 19631 of 2025 and WMP Nos.22002 & 22004 of 2025 M/s.Madhucon Granities Ltd Rep.by its Authoised Signatory Madhu Complex Jubilipura, Khammam, Telangana 507 003. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, Tamil Nadu. 2. The Director, Department of Geology and Mining Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate Guindy, Chennai 600 032. 3. The Assistant Director, Department of Geology And Mining Thiruvannamalai. ..Respondent(s) __________ Page1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 19631 of 2025 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1st r espondent bearing Rc.No.141 / Kanimam /2015 dated 18/09/2024 and to quash the same. For Petitioner: Mr.A.Palaniappan For Respondents: Mr.Stalin Abimanyu for R1 to R3 Additional Government Pleader ORDER This petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the f irst respondent dated 18.09.2024 and seeking to quash the same. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the Government of Tamil Nadu, vide G.O. (3D) No.10 Industries (MME-II) Department dated 18.02.2008, granted a quarry lease in favour of the petiti oner for quarrying black granite over an extent of 2.39.5 hectares of land si tuated in Edakkal Village, Chengam Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District for a period of 20 years. Through the orders dated 29.10.2025, 27.01.2016, 13.05.2016 and 14.07.2016, the time limit for submission of the Environmental Clearance Certificate was extended upto 630 days. The petitioner obtained the Environmental Clearance on 06.07.2016. Since the respondents refused to issue __________ Page2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 19631 of 2025 despatch permits, the petitioner filed W.P No.7536 of 2019 to consider the application dated 24.10.2018 for issuance of despatch/transport permits and the same was disposed of by order dated 21.06.2019 directing the 2 nd respondent to process the petitioner’s application. The first respondent District Collector, issued a notice dated 09.07.2019, demanding a sum of Rs.99,53,248/- towards the cost and penalty of the mineral being 141.628 cubic meters of black granite which were transported during the period from 15.01.2016 to 05.07.2016. Challenging the said notice, the petitioner filed W.P No.27182 of 2020 befor e this Court. The 2nd respondent rejected the application for approval of 2nd scheme of mining through order dated 15.-07.2019 and against which, the petitioner filed W.P No.27183 of 2020 before this Court and both the petiti ons were dismissed by this Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner pr eferred W.A.No.290 & 291 of 2021 before this Court and the same were disposed of on 17.10.2023 directing the petitioner to submit its reply to the responde nts in respect of demand notice dated 09.07.2019. During the pendency of the writ appeals, the 2 nd respondent granted approval for the 3 rd scheme of mining. On 12.01.2024, the petitioner submitted its reply to the 1 st respondent. Without considering its reply, the first respondent District Collector, Thiruva nnamalai passed the impugned order dated 18.09.2024, reiterating the earlier demand. Since the petitioner obtained Environment Certificate on 06.07.2016 prior t o 630 days i.e before 10.01.2017, the impugned order reflects non-application of __________ Page3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 19631 of 2025 mind and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, he prayed for appr opriate orders. 3.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would fairly submit that this Court may set aside the im pugned order and remand the matter back to the first respondent / Distr ict Collector for fresh consideration. 4.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials on record. 5.Considering the submissions mad by both sides, the impugned order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the first respondent is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the third respondent for fresh consideration, limite d solely to ascertaining whether any excess quarrying was carried out during the lease period. The third respondent shall conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable oppor tunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. __________ Page4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 19631 of 2025 6. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. T here shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous peti tions are closed. 01-04-2026 Index: Yes/No (4/4) Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Uma To 1. The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, Tamil Nadu. 2. The Director, Department of Geology and Mining Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. 3. The Assistant Director, Department of Geology And Mining Thiruvannamalai. __________ Page5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 19631 of 2025 M.DHANDAPANI, J. Uma WP No. 19631 of 2025 and WMP Nos.22002 & 22004 of 2025 (4/4) 01-04-2026 __________ Page6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis