HC upholds TN govt’s order on penalty imposed on quarry owner for illegal mining

Madurai: Madras high court has upheld an order passed by the state government setting aside the order of the commissioner of geology and mining department reducing the penalty amount imposed on a quarry owner for indulging in quarrying activities beyond the permissible limit in Tirunelveli district in 2022.

The court was hearing the petition filed by C Ramesh. The petitioner was granted rough stone and gravel quarrying lease in Palamadai village in Tirunelveli district for five years in 2020 by the assistant director of geology and mining.

Following an accident, a team inspected the petitioner’s quarry site along with others in the district, and submitted a report stating that the petitioner has illegally quarried and transported 5,045 cubic metres gravel sand and 2,71,974 cubic metres rough stone beyond the permitted limit. The Tirunelveli revenue divisional officer (RDO) conducted an inquiry and imposed a penalty of Rs13.65 crore under Rule 36 (A)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules.

The petitioner preferred an appeal which was entertained by the commissioner of geology and mining department, who in November 2022 modified the penalty as Rs1.99 crore. The commissioner also permitted the petitioner to continue the quarry operation and extended the lease for five months.

The petitioner again submitted a representation to the commissioner based on which a revised order was passed in December 2022 by modifying the penalty amount as Rs1.33 crore. In 2025, the government took up a suo motu revision and set aside the proceedings of the commissioner. The government also fixed the penalty as Rs3.53 crore. Challenging the order, the petitioner filed the present petition.

Justice B Pugalendhi took note of the state’s submission that the officer (commissioner) has passed several such orders by invoking Rule 36-D of the Rules and the same has been brought to the knowledge of the government through Arappor Iyakkam, a NGO.

The judge observed that quarry operators found an easy method to escape from penalties, by directly filing an appeal before the commissioner, instead of filing a statutory appeal before the district collector. The commissioner has also entertained such appeals without jurisdiction and passed erroneous orders favouring the quarry operators, the judge observed.

The judge observed that the manner in which the appeals of the petitioner have been dealt with by the commissioner raises reasonable suspicion as to whether corrupt practices were adopted by the commissioner in dealing with the appeal of the petitioner, which requires further investigation. Hence, the judge dismissed the petition and directed the government to review all the orders passed by the commissioner under Rule 36-D and verify the manner in which the same has been entertained and take appropriate action in accordance with the law.