Private quarry at Kodangipalayam in Tiruppur district fined ₹10 crore for excessive mining
In response to representations made by the Tamil Nadu Farmers' Protection Association, the taluk-level Task Force of Palladam had found that the quarry operated by Jegadeeswari Ganesan in plots 54, 55 and 63 of Kodangipalayam village, Palladam taluk, Tiruppur district, had continued mining activities despite expiry of permit, and had carried out blasting several times in the last two years using illegal explosives.
A team of officials carried out an inspection four months ago, and confirmed illegal extraction and sale of over 3 lakh cubic meters of ordinary stones and gravel.
Based on the confirmation of the Minerals Department that there were violations under Section 36-A of Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules 1959 and the Government Order 170 of Industries Department, the Palladam Taluk authorities recommended the extent of fine to be imposed on the quarry.
In view of this development, the Tamil Nadu Farmers' Protection Association called off its planned protest on Monday in front of the office of Revenue Divisional Officer.
The authorities ought to have taken stringent action for use of illegal explosives, R. Satishkumar, secretary, Legal Awareness Wing of the association, said, adding that the government officials who were complicit in the mineral theft should also be punished.
Earlier this year, the High Court had imposed fine upwards of ₹80 crore on another quarry in Kodangipalayam, for unauthorised extraction of minerals.
The proprietor of SVA Ezhil Blue Metal quarry Ramakrishnan was fined by the High Court during May for having illegally mined 39,405 cubic metres of topsoil and weathered rock, 25 times the permitted limit of 1,575 cubic metres.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Man & son create ruckus at LDA office over dispute at janata adalat
Lucknow: A high-voltage drama broke out at the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) office on Thursday during Janata Adalat when a father-son duo created a ruckus over a property dispute and threatened suicide. Security personnel and Gomtinagar police rushed in to defuse the situation. The complainants, identified as Niranjan Lal Agarwal and his son Gaurav Agarwal of Bada Chandganj, arrived with an application alleging unauthorised demolition of their building on Khasra number 448. The authority ordered an immediate probe under zone 4 officer Sangeeta Raghav. The committee, accompanied by the complainants, inspected the site the same day. The inquiry revealed that land in Khasra 447 was acquired in 1972 under the Aliganj Road and Urban Expansion Scheme. Both the High Court and Supreme Court ruled against Niranjan Lal's claims over it, and in 2011 he himself admitted before the High Court that he had no possession or objection to its demolition. Regarding Khasra 448, the authority clarified that it never took possession of the land and did not carry out any demolition there. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 20 Effective Home Remedies to Relieve Your Lower Back Pain Learn More Undo The committee concluded the complaint was misleading and baseless. Later, the father and son apologised for their outburst. Meanwhile, during the Janata Adalat held alongside the event, around 38 applications on issues like illegal construction and mutation were received. Eleven were resolved on the spot, while others were sent to concerned officers for early disposal. Among the grievances, Jitendra Kumar Yadav, a resident of Munda, Mohan Road, said he was allotted a flat in Basantkunj Yojana but discovered three graves in front of his home. His family, frightened, refused to live there, forcing him to stay in rented accommodation despite repeated complaints. LDA officials were directed to resolve the problem as soon as possible. Secretary Vivek Srivastava and other senior officers heard citizens' problems and directed officials to ensure speedy redressal. LDA VC Prathmesh Kumar said, "These public hearings are organised for addressing grievances of the allottees on priority. The authority is committed to resolving all the grievances of the public." Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
After 2 months on the run, criminal with Rs1L bounty arrested
Kanpur: After a two-month-long search, police arrested Narayan Singh Bhadauria, a key member of the Dinu Upadhyay gang, in Shyam Nagar area on Thursday afternoon. Bhadauria, an advocate by profession and close associate of gangster Dheeraj alias Dinu Upadhya, who is currently lodged in Sonbhadra jail for the murder of BSP leader Pintu Sengar, was carrying a reward of Rs 1 lakh on his head. He was presented before the court and subsequently sent to jail. A resident of Kidwai Nagar, Bhadauria faces nearly 15 criminal cases, including charges of extortion, assault, forgery of documents for illegal land grabbing, kidnapping, and robbery across multiple police stations. Recently, a shoe trader lodged a complaint against him for extortion, kidnapping, and loot. Courts had also issued non-bailable warrants against him in cases filed at Naubasta and Kohna police stations. Both these stations had separately declared rewards of Rs50,000 each for his arrest. Bhadauria had managed to evade arrest for a long time, as he had obtained a stay order from the High Court, which was lifted only recently. Acting swiftly thereafter, the Kotwali police tracked and arrested him. DCP (East) Satyajeet Gupta said Bhadauria was apprehended in Shyam Nagar and multiple FIRs against him are pending across different police jurisdictions. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
Justice is not about ‘teaching someone a lesson'
In a recent judgment on a custodial death case from Chhattisgarh, the Chhattisgarh High Court made an observation that should unsettle anyone who believes in the rule of law. The High Court noted that the police officers involved in the death of a man in custody appeared to have intended 'to teach a lesson' to the victim for misbehaving in public. The facts of the case are as troubling as the language used. In this case, a Dalit man, arrested for alleged public misbehaviour, died in custody just hours after a medical check found no injuries. However, the postmortem revealed 26 wounds. Four police officers were convicted of murder by the trial court, but the High Court reduced it to culpable homicide, citing lack of intent but knowledge that the assault could cause death. Violence cannot be framed as deterrence The statement, quietly embedded in a detailed legal opinion, is not just an off-hand remark. It is the reflection of a deeply problematic institutional mindset, one that rationalises state violence not as a constitutional aberration but as a tolerable, even necessary, tool for discipline. The judiciary must resist the temptation to rationalise police brutality, especially under the moral guise of correction or deterrence. 'Teaching a lesson' is neither a principle found in the Constitution of India nor a recognised standard of justice. Rather, it is a phrase rooted in vigilante logic, a framework where violence is met with greater violence; where the law is enforced not through rights and procedures but through fear and punishment. The real concern lies not in the commutation of the sentence, but in the conceptual framing of what happened. By stating that the officers intended to 'teach a lesson', the High Court inadvertently reinforces the very logic that normalises custodial torture in India. It suggests that the High Court views the violence not as a product of systemic rot but as a misguided form of discipline, excessive, perhaps, but still anchored in purpose. This is not a matter of semantics. Language shapes legal reasoning, and legal reasoning shapes policy. When a constitutional court appears to accept teaching a lesson as a partial justification or explanation for custodial violence, it reinforces a culture where officers feel emboldened to act as both enforcer and judge. It invites future violators to believe their actions will be read not as unlawful, but as excessive zeal. Violence as a caste-coded enforcement What gets erased in this framework is the identity of the victim, in this case a member of a Scheduled Caste. The trial court acquitted the prime accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) and the High Court did not interfere. By demanding specific proof that the violence was caste motivated, the High Court ignored the lived reality of caste power. A Dalit man beaten to death in police custody by upper caste officers in rural India is not an incidental tragedy. It reflects a broader pattern of caste-coded enforcement. India's jurisprudence around the SC/ST Act remains trapped in a narrow reading. Courts tend to interpret the law as requiring explicit evidence that the assault occurred because of caste, ignoring that structural power itself often motivates and enables the violence. As long as the legal system demands overt slurs or declared caste intent to invoke the Act, it will continue to deny justice in most of the very cases the law was designed to address. That India has a custodial violence problem is no longer in dispute. Multiple judgments by the Supreme Court of India, from Shri D.K. Basu, Ashok K. Johri vs State of West Bengal, State of U.P. to Munshi Singh Gautam (D) and Ors. vs State of M.P., have emphasised the need for procedural safeguards, transparency in detention and strict limits on police force. Yet, deaths in custody continue at an alarming rate, disproportionately affecting Dalits, Adivasis and the poor. Despite clear judicial guidelines, compliance remains sporadic and enforcement weak. Investigations are often conducted by the very institutions implicated in the abuse. The path for judicial integrity This is why judicial language matters. Courts must not only hold individuals accountable but also interrogate the institutional norms that enable violence. Every time a court suggests that violence was used 'to teach a lesson', it sends a subtle but powerful message that state brutality is regrettable, but sometimes understandable. That some people, under some circumstances, may deserve it. This is a dangerous path. The police are not agents of correction through coercion, but constitutional functionaries bound by the law. Justifying custodial violence for a minor offence such as public nuisance blurs that line dangerously. 'Teaching a lesson' is not justice. It undermines a system built on proportionality, dignity and due process. Deterrence comes from legal punishment, not from state-sanctioned force. When courts validate such reasoning, they weaken the very constitutional order they are meant to uphold. What is needed is not symbolic outrage but structural change. Courts must reinforce that violence in custody is never disciplinary. It is, in fact, criminal. The SC/ST Act must be robustly applied in every case where social power is weaponised. Independent accountability mechanisms must be strengthened and procedural safeguards made enforceable. Most of all, the judiciary must not give moral shelter to extra-legal instincts. The idea that public misbehaviour deserves private punishment is not justice but authoritarianism in slow motion. A Constitution built on dignity, equality, and the rule of law cannot coexist with a justice system that tolerates 'lessons' written in bruises. Shivangi Singh is a lawyer based in Delhi. The views expressed are personal
