The court said the petitioner, instead of filing statutory appeal before the Collector, as provided under Rule 36-C, preferred an appeal directly before the Commissioner of Geology and Mining.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a stone quarry owner in Tirunelveli district, seeking quashing of a G.O.. The government had taken a suo motu revision on the proceedings of the Commissioner of Geology and Mining who modified the penalty amount imposed on the owner for quarrying beyond permissible limits.The court was hearing the petition filed by C. Ramesh, who was in 2020 granted rough stone and gravel quarrying lease in Palamadai village for five years by the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Tirunelveli. Several persons were killed in an accident at the rough stone quarry.A Special Team conducted an inspection at the quarry and found that the owner had illegally quarried and transported gravel and rough stone beyond the permitted limits.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli, conducted an inquiry based on the report of the Special Team and imposed a penalty of ₹13.65 crore under Rule 36 (A)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules.An appeal was preferred by the petitioner. The then Commissioner of Geology and Mining Department, by his initial proceedings in 2022, reduced the penalty to ₹1.99 crore by deleting the cost of minerals imposed by the RDO. The Commissioner permitted the petitioner to continue the quarry operation and extended the lease for five months, citing non-operation of the quarry.Again, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Commissioner, based on which a revised order was passed by the official after deleting the quantity of gravel and modifying the quantum of rough stone, and a modified penalty of ₹1.33 crore was imposed.The State government took up suo motu revision of the Commissioner’s orders under Rule 40 of the Rules, issued a show cause notice and set aside the Commissioner’s proceedings.It fixed the penalty at ₹3.53 crore for removal of 2,71,974 cbm of rough stones and ₹3.66 lakh for removal of 5,045 cbm of gravel beyond the permissible limits.Justice B. Pugalendhi said the petitioner instead of filing statutory appeal before the Collector, as provided under Rule 36-C, preferred an appeal directly before the Commissioner and the Commissioner entertained it. The Commissioner once again committed an error by entertaining the petitioner’s representation and passed a modified order.The Commissioner disregarded the findings of the inspection team, and the official’s proceedings were atrocious, without any jurisdiction and against the law.The manner in which the petitioner’s appeals had been dealt with by the Commissioner raised suspicion as to whether corrupt practices were adopted by the official in dealing with the petitioner’s appeal, which required further investigation, the court said.It directed the government to review all the orders passed by the Commissioner under Rule 36-D, verify the manner in which they were entertained and take appropriate action. Published - June 09, 2026 08:46 pm IST
