2013 (12) TMI 1652 - SC - Indian Laws

Suspension of mining license - Seeking permission to carry quarrying operation ispite the allegation of unauthorized quarrying on Govt Land - Quarrying operations not carried out as per the mining plan - Encroachment upon the adjoining roads tanks channels and water bodies - Illicitly quarried granites in the adjacent non-leasehold areas also - Special Leave Petitions filed stands dismissed - HELD THAT - Court found it difficult to accede especially after report of the District Collector and Deputy Director of Geology and Mining as several criminal cases are pending against for carrying on illegal quarrying operations in the government land. Decision on this case CHAIRMAN ALL INDIA RAILWAY REC. BOARD ANR VERSUS K. SHYAM KUMAR ORS 2010 (5) TMI 861 - SUPREME COURT was followed. The Court opined that since several writ petitions are pending for consideration before the High Court so the Court did not deem fit to pronounce any judgement at this stage upon the various contentions raised by learned senior counsel on either side on merits of the case especially w.r.t. the issuance of the suspension orders and the show cause notices. It was also noticed that the Division Bench of the High Court has issued some equitable directions taking into consideration the interest of the workers and also for honouring some statutory obligations of the petitioner firm. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and the special leave petitions filed against those orders stand dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the sealing order and suspension of quarrying operations.
2. Validity of subsequent suspension orders and show cause notices.
3. Impact of departmental and criminal proceedings on quarrying operations.
4. Examination of subsequent events in the context of public interest.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Sealing Order and Suspension of Quarrying Operations:
The Petitioner, a registered partnership firm engaged in granite manufacturing, faced allegations of unauthorized quarrying, leading to the sealing of its factory premises and suspension of quarrying operations by the Respondent officials. The Petitioner approached the Madras High Court, where a Single Judge noted that no show cause notice had been issued for the cancellation of licenses, thus finding no justification for halting the Petitioner's mining operations. The Single Judge allowed the Petitioner to continue quarry operations under the existing lease and directed the release of bank accounts and removal of restrictions on export and import, while ensuring cooperation with the investigation.

2. Validity of Subsequent Suspension Orders and Show Cause Notices:
The State, aggrieved by the Single Judge's decision, appealed to the Division Bench, citing subsequent suspension orders and show cause notices issued during the pendency of the writ appeals. The Division Bench formulated two key questions, one of which was whether the State could rely on these subsequent events. The Court determined that in cases involving larger public interest, subsequent events could be considered, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in All India Railway Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam Kumar, which allowed reliance on subsequent materials when public interest is at stake.

3. Impact of Departmental and Criminal Proceedings on Quarrying Operations:
The Division Bench also addressed whether the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and related rules could override general laws like the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure for parallel departmental and criminal proceedings. The Court upheld that the State's actions, including suspension orders and show cause notices, were justified given the serious allegations of illegal mining and the need for a thorough investigation.

4. Examination of Subsequent Events in the Context of Public Interest:
The Court highlighted that the District Administration received numerous complaints of illegal quarrying, leading to a comprehensive inspection and evaluation. The findings revealed significant violations by the Petitioner, including unauthorized quarrying and non-compliance with mining plans and regulations. The substantial evidence of illegal activities and the potential financial impact justified the suspension of operations and issuance of show cause notices.

Conclusion:
Given the pending writ petitions and the significant evidence of illegal quarrying, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the Division Bench's judgment. The Court emphasized the importance of considering subsequent events in the public interest and upheld the equitable directions issued by the Division Bench to balance the interests of the workers and statutory obligations. The special leave petitions were dismissed, affirming the actions taken by the State and the need for continued investigation and compliance with legal procedures.