M/S PRP EXPORT & ETC. Vs CHIEF SEC. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU .
Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,A.K. SIKRI
Case number: SLP(C) No.-018662-018663 / 2013
Diary number: 13779 / 2013
Advocates: K. K. MANI Vs
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS.18662-18663 OF 2013
M/s PRP Exports & Etc. …. Petitioners
Verses
The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. …. Respondents
J U D G M E N T
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. These Special Leave Petitions arise out of a common
judgment and order dated 15.2.2013 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in W.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. and has set up its
Page 2
2
factory for cutting and polishing of granite in Therkkutheru
Village, Madurai District. The Petitioner firm, it is stated,
is 100% export oriented unit, recognized by the Madras
Export Processing Zone. The Petitioner firm is having 55
granite quarries leased in the Madurai District measuring
about 584.83 acres.
2. 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.
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.
3. Before the learned Single Judge, the State also took
up the stand that the order of sealing dated 9.8.2012 was
illegal and could not be supported in law. Taking note of
Page 3
3
the stand taken by the State, the learned Single Judge
observed as follows :-
“124.` It is also admitted case of the respondents, that till date, even show cause notice with regard to cancellation of licences granted in favour of the petitioner has not been issued, therefore, there is absolutely no justification with the respondents, to stop the mining operation of the petitioner over the mines leased out to the petitioner, and thereby taking the right of livelihood of thousands of employees working in the firm.”
4. After hearing all the parties, the learned Single Judge
disposed of the writ petitions on 2.11.2012. The operative
portion of the judgment reads as follows :
“130. However, at the same time, the fact cannot be lost sight off that there are number of cases registered against the partners of the petitioner firm, and there are serious allegations of illegal mining worth of crores of rupees. Further more, in the writ petitions, the positive stand of the writ petitioner is, that the petitioners are willing to co-operate with the investigation of criminal cases in respect of furnishing all documents, records, books of accounts which are sealed by the authorities in their presence, and has further undertaken not to tamper with any records, and will not destroy any evidence whatsoever. The petitioner has also undertaken not to threat any witnesses in
Page 4
4
the investigation. Therefore, a blanket order to be passed in favour of the petitioner may hamper the investigation, which cannot be permissible in law.
131. Therefore, in order to settle equity, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-
1. The respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue the quarry operations over the leased property strictly in terms of the lease, which is admittedly in force. It shall be, however, open to the respondents to take appropriate action by following due process of law under The Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder, if so advised ;
2. The respondents shall henceforth release the bank accounts and to allow the petitioner to carry on his business in accordance with law. However, it shall be the duty of the petitioners to submit fortnightly Statement of Accounts to the Investigating Officer;
3. That the order restraining the export and import by the Investigating Officer is ordered to be quashed and it is directed that the respondents shall not interfere in the export and import on valid documents by the petitioner.
4. That the seal of the administrative building be opened, after the Investigating Officer takes in possession of the
Page 5
5
documents, the computers, hard discs, etc., required for investigation. (As agreed between the parties, the petitioner is directed to depute two persons along with an expert, if so advised to be present at the administrative building on 07.11.2012 (Wednesday) at 10.00 a.m., for handing over the computers, hard discs, documents, available in the sealed building, after transferring the datas from computers and making copies of the documents, which are required for running of business). It is made clear that the petitioner will be entitled to get copies of the documents lying within the premises and permit the Investigating Officer to take away the Computers, Hard discs and other documents, which are required for the Investigation. This process shall be completed in three days and it should be completed on or before 09.11.2012 (Friday).
5. The Investigating Officer shall permit the petitioner to carry on their business.
6. With regard to the vehicles, equipments and other accessories seized by the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act, or in criminal cases, it shall be open to the petitioner to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law for reasons thereof.
No costs.”
Page 6
6
5. The State, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned
Single Judge, preferred Writ Appeal (MD) Nos. 906 and
907 of 2012 before the Division Bench of the Madras High
Court. While dealing with various directions given by the
learned Single Judge, the State represented by the
learned Advocate General, pointed out that, during the
pendency of the writ appeals, suspension orders dated
14.12.2012 were issued under Section 19(2) of the
Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 as
well as Show Cause Notices dated nil.12.2012 were issued
to the writ petitioners. Further, it was also pointed out
that the departmental proceedings as well as the criminal
proceedings initiated against the petitioners could not be
hampered by granting permission to them to carry on
quarrying operations in their 56 quarries. The prayer
made by the Advocate General was opposed by counsel
appearing for the writ petitioners stating that any action
taken by the Government subsequent to the passing of
the order by the learned Single Judge could not be the
Page 7
7
basis for testing the correctness, or otherwise, of the
directions given by the learned Single Judge. In support
of that contention, reliance was placed on the judgment of
this Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. [1978) 1 SCC 405].
6. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court
formulated two questions which read as follows :
“(1) Whether the appellants can place reliance on the subsequent events, viz., passing of the suspension orders dated 14.12.2012 and the issuance of the show cause notice dated Nil.12.2012 to the respondents/writ petitioners firm? and
(2) Whether the provisions under the Special Law viz. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and other Rules, can override the General Law, viz., 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., departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings?”
7. Shri Harish Salve, learned senior counsel appearing
for the Petitioner, submitted that he is more concerned
with the first question and arguments were advanced by
Page 8
8
him as well as Shri C. Sundaram, learned senior counsel
appearing for the State, on that point. In our view, the
Division Bench of the High Court is right in examining the
subsequent events as well in a case where larger public
interest is involved. This Court in All India Railway
Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam Kumar [(2010) 6 SCC
614] distinguished Mohinder Singh Gill’s case (supra),
stating when a larger public interest is involved, the Court
can always look into the subsequent events. Relevant
paragraph of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow :-
“45. We are of the view that the decision-maker can always rely upon subsequent materials to support the decision already taken when larger public interest is involved. This Court in Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. v. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti found no irregularity in placing reliance on a subsequent report to sustain the cancellation of the examination conducted where there were serious allegations of mass copying. The principle laid down in Mohinder Singh Gill case is not applicable where larger public interest is involved and in such situations, additional grounds can be looked into to examine the validity of an order. The finding recorded by the High Court that the report of CBI cannot be looked into to examine the validity of the order dated 4-6-2004, cannot be sustained.
Page 9
9
8. The Government and the District Administration
received lot of complaints with regard to illegal quarrying
in the Madurai District, which led the State Government
directing the District Administration to verify the
complaints. The District Collector inspected various
quarries and submitted a preliminary report dated
19.5.2012. Subsequent to the preliminary report, the
District Administration decided to conduct a
comprehensive and scientific survey in all the 175 granite
quarries functioning in the Madurai District. 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. 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 constituted by the District
Administration. After conducting a comprehensive and
Page 10
10
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. Among
them, 16 quarries belonged to the Petitioner. The
inspection could not be carried out in 22 granite quarries
due to water logging and among that 18 quarries
belonged to the Petitioner.
9. The Deputy Director and the Assistant Director of
Geology and Mining in their Evaluation Report dated
23.11.2012 reported that the Petitioner firm has not
carried out the quarrying operations as per their mining
plan and encroached upon the adjoining roads, tanks,
channels and water bodies and illicitly quarried granites in
the adjacent non-leasehold areas also. 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. Consequently, it
was pointed out that they have violated Section 4-(1) and
4-(1A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Page 11
11
Regulation) Act, 1957. Further, it was also pointed out
that they have not 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. It was also pointed out that the Petitioner has not
submitted the Scheme of Mining as per Rules 15 and 18 of
the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999
and has not stored the over burden and waste materials
as earmarked. Various other violations have also been
pointed out.
10. 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 not 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 non-leasehold area. The Commissioner of
Page 12
12
Geology and Mining vide its letter dated 6.12.2012 also
recommended for further action. 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 copies of the suspension orders were issued to the
Petitioner firm.
11. Shri Harish Salve, learned senior counsel appearing
for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioner has
already challenged the suspension orders in the Madras
High Court in W.P. (MD) No.3829 of 2013 and the
connected writ petitions and the Court has granted stay of
the suspension orders and hence the Respondents should
have permitted the Petitioners to operate the granite
quarries in the leasehold area. Shri Salve also submitted
that the show cause notices dated 25.2.2013 issued to the
Petitioners are also under challenge in W.P. (MD) No.3012
Page 13
13
of 2013 and other connected cases before the Madurai
Bench of the Madras High Court and the Court has issued
an interim order directing the District Collector not to pass
final orders, pursuant to the suspension orders. The Court
also has reserved its judgment. Learned senior counsel
also submitted that a series of writ petitions are also
pending challenging the deemed lapse notices. In such
circumstances, learned senior counsel prayed that the
Petitioners may be allowed to operate the quarries in
accordance with the licences already granted.
12. We find it difficult to accede to that request made by
the senior counsel, at this stage, especially in the wake of
the report of the District Collector dated 19.5.2012 as well
as the report of the Deputy Director of Geology and Mining
dated 23.11.2012. In the affidavit filed by the third
respondent, it is pointed out, that the volume of illegal
transportation from the petitioners’ 16 quarries is around
1207863.164 Cubic Meters and show cause notices have
been issued to the Petitioner firm under Section 21(5) of
Page 14
14
the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957 for recovery of the cost. It is stated that the value of
the illicit quarry in the 16 quarries alone comes around
4124.14 crores. Further, it was also pointed out that other
quarry operators have also indulged in similar illegal
quarry operations and the total volume of illegal
operations is estimated around Rs.12390.460 crores.
Further, it was also pointed out that several criminal cases
are also pending for carrying on illegal quarrying
operations in the government land.
13. We are of the view that, since several writ petitions
are pending consideration before the High Court, at this
stage, it would not be appropriate to pronounce upon the
various contentions raised by learned senior counsel on
either side on merits of the case, especially in the light of
the materials leading to the issuance of the suspension
orders dated 14.12.2012 and the show cause notices
dated Nil.12.2012. We also notice that the Division Bench
of the High Court has issued some equitable directions
Page 15
15
taking into consideration the interest of the workers and
also for honouring some statutory obligations of the
petitioner firm. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere
with the impugned judgment dated 15.2.2013 and the
special leave petitions filed against those orders stand
dismissed.
………………………….……J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)
………………………………J. (A.K. Sikri)
New Delhi December 13, 2013