Latest news with #ChiefJusticeReliefFund
New Indian Express
20-05-2025
- Business
- New Indian Express
Madras HC imposes Rs 25 lakh cost on state for violating court order directing grant of quarry licence in 2010
MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court recently ordered the Industries department to pay Rs 25 lakh cost for failing to obey an order passed by the court in 2010, directing the department to grant quarry permission to a man in a 10-hectare land in Tiruchy district. Hearing a contempt petition filed by the man, N Babu (now deceased), in 2015, Justice K Kumaresh Babu directed the principal secretary of the department to pay Rs 20 lakh to Babu's family, who were added as petitioners in 2020, and deposit the remaining amount in favour of the Chief Justice Relief Fund, within two months. According to the order, Babu was granted lease to quarry sand in the above land for three years from December 2001 to December 2004. Subsequently, the state government passed a G.O. on October 1, 2003, taking over the operation of all sand quarries in the state. The Supreme Court had upheld the validity of the said rule but permitted lessees, who were in existence on the above date, to continue quarrying operations for a limited period and also directed refund of unutilised lease amounts.
Time of India
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Justice delayed: HC punishes state govt for lease violation
Madurai: Madras high court has directed the principal secretary of the industries department to pay 20 lakh to five petitioners and 5 lakh to the Chief Justice Relief Fund for wilful disobedience of an order passed by the court in 2010 pertaining to granting a quarry lease to a person. The court was hearing a contempt petition filed in 2015 by B Shanthi, B Balaji, B Vishnuvaradan, B Umamaheswari, and D Bhavani of Trichy district, complaining about the non-compliance of an earlier order. Since N Babu, who filed the contempt petition, died, his family members were substituted as petitioners in the case. A person was granted a licence to quarry sand in the Cauvery river, covering an extent of 10 hectares in Srinivasanallur village at Thottiyam taluk in Trichy district, for three years from Dec 20, 2001, to Dec 19, 2004. Subsequently, the state govt issued a GO in 2003, introducing Rule 38-A to the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules , 1959 (TNMMCR), thereby taking over the operation of sand quarries by the govt. The GOs were challenged in a batch of petitions. The HC upheld the validity of the GO, subject to certain directions in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the state preferred a civil appeal before the Supreme Court, which upheld the validity of Rule 38-A while permitting the lessees who were in existence as of October 2, 2003, to continue quarrying operations and also directed a refund of the unutilised lease amounts. A review petition by the state was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Pursuant to the Supreme Court order, the Trichy district collector permitted the man to carry on quarrying operations for six months from Feb to Aug in 2007. However, the petitioner was unable to commence the quarrying operations as the forest department deferred passing an order granting permission to use the pathway for transportation. Consequently, the permission period for quarrying operations expired. Thereafter, the man submitted a representation seeking an extension of the quarrying period; however, the same was rejected. Challenging it, the man filed a petition before the HC in 2008. The court directed the man to approach the forest department for permission to use the pathway and to approach the Trichy collector for an extension of the quarry lease. While the forest department granted permission, the collector disregarded his application. Therefore, the man filed the present contempt petition in 2015. A subsequent review application and appeal were also dismissed. Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the court holds the authorities guilty of contempt of the order passed in 2010. The wilful violation was to deny the rights of a man who was benefited from the order passed by the court. There is a collective bureaucratic effort to defend the violation of the orders of this court by taking protection under the umbrella of subsequent events. Hence, the judge gave the direction to the principal secretary.
