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