Garnet Scam looting of Rare mineral by Federation of Indian Placer Mineral Industries President Mr.Dayadevadas owned companies – High Court dismiss the review petition filed by him

Madras High Court Madurai Bench directed the Government of Tamilnadu to take action in accordance with law based on Government report dated 14.11.2011 in which the Government reported that the companies owned by Dayadevadas involved large scale illegal mining and violation of environmental laws.

The President of Indian Placer Mineral Industry Mr.Dayadevadas who is the Managing Director and Managing Partner of Indian Garnet Sand Company and Southern Enterprises against which the Government pointed out serious violations filed a review petition before the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench to review its earlier Judgment dated 18.11.2011. The division bench of Madras High Court dismiss the review petition filed by the Minor on 12.12.2013.

 

 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 12-12-2013

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL

Review Application No. 61 of 2011 and

M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 and

M.P.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2013 in

W.p (MD) No. 175 of 2010

 

 

M/S. Southern Enterprises

A Reg. Partnership Firm

Rep. By its Managing Partner

Dr.D. Dhaya Devadass

1-A, Prasad Street, Seethapathy Nagar,

Velacherry, Chennai – 600 042                        —  Review Applicant /2nd Respondent  in WP

Vs.

The Coastal Environmental and Ecological Committee

Keeraikaranthattum, Thisaiyanvillai

Tirunelveli District, through its president

R. Appu Natesan, Ex.M.L.A.                 — 1st  Respondent/ Petitioner in WP

 

2.    The Secretary to Government

Industries Department,

St. George Fort, Chennai.                       —- 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent in Wp

 

 

Prayer: Review Application filed under order 47 Rule 1 and 2 and Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to review the common order dated 18.11.2011 made in W.P. (MD) No. 175 of 2010.

 

Prayer in WP (MD). 175/2010 : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to pass an order of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, directing the respondent to consider and dispose off the petitioners representation dated 21-12-2008 within a time stipulated by this Honourable Court.

 

For Petitioner                       Mr. V. Selvaraj

 

For Respondents                  Mr. Meenakshi Sundaram (RL)

Mr. N.R. Chandran , Senior

Counsel, for Mr. M. Govindan,

SPl. G.P. (R2)

 

 ORDER

 M. JAICHANDREN. J.

 

The review application, in Review application No. 61 of 2011, has been filed on behalf of M/S. southern Enterprises, said to be a registered partnership firm, represented by its managing partner, D. Dhaya Devadas, praying that this Court may be pleased to review its is common order, dated 18.11.2011, made in W.P.(MD) No. 175 of 2010.

2. A number of grounds have been raised on behalf o0f the review applicant, stating, inter alia, that the writ petitioner, in W.P.(MD) No. 175 of 2010, namely, the coastal Environmental and Ecological Committee, represented by its president , R. Appu Natesan, had already obtained garnet mining lease, as per the government order, in G.O.Ms.No. 421, dated 19.10.1993, in certain Coastal poramboke lands. He is also carrying on his business dealing in garner mineral. As Such, it is clear that he had filed the said writ petition with the mala fide intention of safeguarding his own interests and therefore, the writ petition filed by him, in W.P.(MD) No. 175 of 2010, ought to have been dismissed in limine.

3. It has also been stated that this court had passed an order of interim direction, in the said writ petition, on 9.2.2010, directing that an interim inspection report should be filed by the respondent therein, with the assistance of the pollution Control Board and the Department of Environment, after inspecting the sites and after giving due notice to the companies concerned, as well as the petitioner in the said writ petition. pursuant to the said order a joint inspection had been made, as directed by this Court, on 6.3.2010. under the chairmanship of the then Revenue Divisional Officer. An Inspection Report, dated 6.3.2010, has been submitted to the State Government, through the District collector concerned,. Thereafter, another joint inspection had been made, in respect of the leasehold lands of the review applicant, on 6.4.2010, 7.4.2010 and 8.4.2010. A report of the said joint inspection had also been submitted to the State Government, through the District Collector, Trichy District, on 13.4.2010. However the second respondent in the present review application had failed  to place the said reports before this court, with ulterior motives, inspite of the representations made by the review applicant.

4.  It has also been stated that, during the pendency of the writ petition, Scientist attached to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, along with the District Environmental Engineer of the Tamil Nadu Pollution control Board, Trichy, had inspected the mine sites, on 25.5.2010, in response to a communication received from the Director (Vigilance) Ministry of Environment and Forests, on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner. After the said inspection the Ministry of Environment and Forests had pointed out few minor violations in the mining of the minerals. The minor violations, which had been pointed out by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, had been rectified by the review applicant. Thereafter, an inspection had also been made, on 18.1.2011, by a scientist attached to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, who had recommended the dropping of further action, in respect of the alleged violations. The said facts had been brought to the knowledge of the second respondent. However, due to brought to the knowledge of the second respondent. However, due to the undue influence used by the writ petitioner, a third inspection had been conducted, by the Revenue divisional Collector, pursuant to the directions issued by the District Collector, Trichy District, without any further orders from this court, or from the second respondent herein. In such circumstances, the inspection report, dated 14.11.2011, ought to have been rejected.

5. It had also been stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned had seved a brief notice., dated 13.8.2011, on the review applicant, with regard t the third inspection. The said notice had been served on the review applicant, only on 17.8.2011, just before the inspection had been conducted. However, a detailed notice had been served on the writ petitioner, well in advance, in order to protect his interests. As such, it could be seen that the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District collector concerned had acted in a blased manner towards the review applicant.

6. It has been further stated that this court had passed and interim order directing the government to file the report, with the assistance of the Department of Environment and the pollution control board, after inspecting the sites, based on the complaint made by the petitioner it had been stated that the review applicant had violated the special and the general conditions imposed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, with regard to the mining operations, which were being carried on in the mining sites allotted to the review applicant. However, the inspection had been conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, without obtaining the leave of this court. As such, it could be seen that the inspection report, dated 14.11.2011, is beyond the scope of the interim directions issued by this court, by its order, dated 9.2.2010, Even though it had been stated, in the notices issued to the review applicant, that the inspection of the mines would be carried out on 19.8.2011 and 20.8.2011, the joint inspection of the mines had been made, on 21.8.2011, and 22.8.2011, contrary to the statement made in the notice, dated 13.8.2011.

7. It had also been pointed out that, even though the second respondent had submitted before this court that the representation, dated 21.12.2008, would be considered by him, in the light of the report, dated 14.11.2011, he had not done so further, the second respondent had suppressed the true and material facts before this court. He had not stated before this court that there were inspections conducted, earlier, in respect of the alleged violations in the mining operations being conducted by the review applicant and that certain reports were available, based on such inspections. Thus, it is clear that the writ petitioner had obtained the order in the writ petition, by suppressing material facts, with regard to the existence of the joint inspection reports, in which it had been stated that there were only certain minor violations in the mining operations being done by the review applicant. Even the minor Violations pointed out in the joint inspection reports had been rectified by the review applicant. Therefore, the third inspection report, containing false informations, regarding the mining operations being conducted by the review applicant, ought to have been rejected. In fact,  on 14.11.2011, the review applicant had filed an application to reject the third inspection report of the third respondent. However, the said application had been returned by the Registry of this court stating that it was not maintainable.

8. It had also been stated that one Vaikundarajan,  the Chairman of M/s. V.V.Minerals, is the vice – president of the writ petitioner committee, M/s.V.V. Minerals is a rival company carrying on business in minerals obtained from its mining activities. Therefore, the writ petition had been filed with the mala fide intention of terminating the mining licences granted in favour of the review applicant, even though the review applicant had not committed any violations in its mining operations.

9. In such circumstances, it is clear that the second respondent had decided to terminate the mining leases, granted in favour of the review applicant, in collusion with Vaikundarajan, the Chairman of M/s. V.V. Minerals, Yesu Selvaraj, the president of Indian Rare Earth worker’s union and R. Appu Natesan, former Member of Legislative Assembly, the mining lease holder. In such circumstances, this court may be pleased to review the common order, dated 18.11.2011, made in W.P. (MD) No. 175 of 2010.

10. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent it has been stated that the review application, filed by the review applicant, is not maintainable, either in law or on facts. The review application has been filed only with the mala fide intention of dragging on the proceedings and for preventing the authorities concerned from taking necessary action against the review applicant, in accordance with law.

11. It has been further stated that, under order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, a judgment may be reopened, by way of a review, only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and which has to be deduced, by way of the process of reasoning, cannot be considered as an error apparent on the face of the record. A review application cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.

12. It has been further stated that several representations had been made to the authorities concerned, including the representations, dated 21.12.2008, 23.9.2009 and 29.12.2009, regarding the violations committed by the review applicant, with regard to the conditions stipulated in the environmental clearances granted, relating to the mining operations carried on by the review applicant. Since such representations had not been considered, the first respondent had approached this court by filing the writ petition, in W.P. (MD) No. 175 of 2010, seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent, herein to consider and dispose of the representation made by the first respondent, in the present review application, dated 21.12.2008, within the time frame prescribed by this court. On 9.2.2010, this court had passed and interim inspection report, after inspecting the sites in question, with the assistance of the pollution control Board and the Department of Environment and Forests, after giving due notice to the parties concerned. Pursuant to the said direction, the second respondent had directed the District Collector  concerned to take appropriation action on the representation submitted by the first respondent, dated 21.12.2008, The District Collector concerned had constituted a team to inspect the mining sites in question, along with the officials of the various departments,. The inspection had been carried out by a team of officials, from 19.8.2011 to 22.8.2011, and the reports had been submitted to the District Collector, department wise. The second respondent, after perusing the entire report, submitted by the team officials, had made his consolidated comments, on 14.11.2011, It had been found that the review applicant had violated the conditions relating to the grant of mining leases. Further, the review applicant had also mined in non mining leases. Further, the review applicant had also mined in non lease hold areas. As such, the report contained the fact that the review applicant had been carrying on illegal mining activities resulting in the illegal mining of 39,38,199 metric tonnes of garnet bearing sand out of which a quantity of 14,46,592 metric tonnes had been found in the premises belonging to the review applicant. As such, over 24,91,607 metric tonnes of illegally mined garnet sand had already been disposed of by the review applicant.

13. It had also been stated that the public works department had reported  that the review applicant had carried on illegal mining in excess of the permitted depth. The review applicant had not taken any steps to construct check dams and siltation ponds. As such the mining operations of the review applicant had damaged the banks of the river beds and the lakes. Further, the review applicant had carried on mining activities in violation of the various statutory provisions and the lease orders granted in its favour. In such circumstances, this court had passed an interim order, dated 18.11.2011, in W.P. (MD) no. 175 of 2010, directing the filing of an inspection report, with regard to the alleged illegal mining carried on by the review applicant.

14. It has been further stated that T. Chandrasekar. the counsel for the review applicant, had been heard, at length, in the writ petition, before the order had been passed by this court on 18.11.2011. However , the review applicant has chosen to file the present review application by a different counsel.

15. It had also been stated that, on 20.3.2011. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review applicant sought the permission of this court to file its objections to the inspection report. this court had permitted the review applicant to file its objections, pursuant to the request made on its behalf. However, instead of filing the objections the review applicant has chosen to file the present review application, by bringing in entirely new facts, which are contrary to the scope of a review, under order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure code, 1908.

16. It is clear that the review application had been filed only with the mala fide intention of disguising the illegal activities of the review applicant and to put undue pressure on the officials of the state government, to prevent them from taking appropriate action against the review applicant, with regard to its illegal mining activities, in accordance with law. Therefore, the present review application, filed by the review applicant, is liable to be rejected, in limine.

17. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent the averments and allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the review application had been denied, It has been stated that the review application filed by the review application is liable to be dismissed, as infructuous, as the representation, dated 21.12.2008, made by the review applicant had been disposed of finally, on 1.2.2013, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. It has also been stated that the review application is not maintainable, under orer 47 of the Civil Procedure code, 1908, as there is no error apparent on the face of the record for this court to review  its order, dated 18.11.2011, made in W.P.(MD) No. 175 of 2010.

18. It has also been stated that , on the direction issued by this court, inspection of the mines operated by the review applicant had been conducted, from 19.8.2011, to 22.8.2011, and the reports of the inspection had also been submitted to the District Collector concerned. Thereafter, the District collector, Trichy District, had forwarded his report to the second respondent , on 19.9.2011, through the Director of Geology and Mining. on 10.10.2011 the Commissioner of Geology and mining had forwarded his report to the second respondent. Based on the reports relating to the inspection conducted by a team of officials,. pursuant ot the order passed by this court, on 18.11.2011, it had been found that the review applicant had been carrying on illegal mining activities. As such, there is no reason shown by the review applicant for this court to review its order. dated 18.11.2011. made in W.P. (MD) No. 175 of 2010. Therefore, the present review application, filed by the review applicant, is liable to be dismissed.

19. In view of the averments and submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that the first respondent in the present review application had filed a writ petition before this court, In W.P.(MD) No. 175 of 2010 , praying for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent therein to consider and dispose of the representation made by the writ petitioner, the first respondent in the present review application, dated 21.12.2008, within a specified time frame. During the pendency of the writ petition this court had passed an order of interim direction, dated 9.2.2010, directing the respondent in the said writ petition to file an interim inspection report, before this court, with the assistance of the pollution Control Board and the Department of Environment and forests, after inspecting the mining sites in question. Pursuant to the said order, the respondent in the writ petition, the second respondent in the present review application, had directed the District Collector, Trichy District, to take appropriate action on the representation submitted by the writ petitioner, the first respondent herein, dated 21.12.2008, The District Collector, Trichy District, had constituted a team to inspect the mining sites in question, constituted a team to inspect the mining sites in question, consisting of the officials from the various department . The inspection of the mining sites had been made, by the team of officials, from 19.8.2011, to 22.8.2011 and reports had been submitted to the District Collector, Trichy District , department wise, Thereafter on 19.9.2011, the district Collector, Trichy district had forwarded his report to the second respondent herein , through the Director of Geology and Mining. on 10.10.2011, the commissioner of Geology and Mining had forwarded a report to the second respondent. The second respondent, after perusing the records available before him, had arrived at the conclusion that the review applicant had mined , illegally, in non-leasehold areas. It had also been found that the review applicant had carried on illegal mining, which had resulted in the illicit mining of 39,38,199 metric tonnes of garnet bearing sand. Various other illegalities had also been pointed out in the mining activities carried on by the review applicant.

20. It is also noted that this court, taking into consideration the interm inspection reprot, dated 14.11.2011, had directed the first respondent, in the writ petition to dispose of the representation of the writ petitioner dated 21.12.2008, in the light of the interim inspection report, dated 14.11.2011, by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as well as the second respondent therein, the review applicant in the present the second respondent therein , the review applicant in the present review application, and to the other parties concerned, within a period of twelve weeks from the dated of receipt of a copy of the order. Challenging the said order passed by this court, in W.P. (MD) No.175 of 2010, dated 18.11.2011, the review applicant has filed the present review application before this court.

21. Even though various grounds have been raised on behalf of the review applicant, we are of the  considered view that the review applicant has not shown sufficiant cause or reason to review the order passed by this court, on 18.11.2011, in W.P.(MD) No.175 of 2010. There is nothing shown to be erroneous on the face of the record for this court to review its order, dated 18.11.2011, made in W.P. MD No. 175 of 2010 It is well settled position in law that the review juridiction of this court is limited in nature, as held by the supreme court, in Inderchand Jain V. Motilal Jain (2009 AIR SCW 5364). Unless it is shown that an error apparent on the face of the record had occurred. It would not b e open for this court to review its order. No such error has been shown to be existing in the order passed by this court, on 18.11.2011. In such circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the present review application deserves to be dismissed. Hence., it is dismissed. consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

 

                                                                                                sd/-

                                                                                                Assistant Registrar (A.E)

 

                                             /True Copy/

                                                                                                                                                For Sub – Assistant Registrar

To

The Secretary to Government, Industries Departmnet,

St. George Fort, Chennai.

 

+ 1cc to Mr. S. Meenakshi Sundaram , Advocate in SR.NO. 62163

+1cc to Special Government pleader in SR NO 62257

+cc to Mr. A Saravanan Advocate, in SR.NO. 62183.

+ cc to Mr. K.K. Senthilvelan, Advocate, in SR.NO. 62186

 

Pre delivery order made in

Review Application No. 61 of 2011

12.12.2013

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *