- Court
- High Court of Madras
- Decided
- 24 June 2026
- Bench
- Mohammed Shaffiq
- Case no.
- WP 23162/2026
Judgment
ORDER The writ petition is filed praying for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned Order of the 2nd Respondent in Na.Ka.No.327/ 2025 /Mines A/ dated 27.02.2026 and quash the same.
¶2The learned counsel for petitioner and respondents in unison submitted that the issue raised in the present writ petition stands covered by the order of this Court in W.P.Nos.15471 of 2020, 36268 of 2024, 32338 of 2025, 32510 of 2025 and WP (MD) No.18827 of 2025. To avoid multiplicity, the relevant portions of the order dated 21.02.2025 passed in W.P.No. 36268 of 2024 [Mani Omega granites (P) Ltd Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9] are extracted hereunder: Page3 of 5
¶2When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, drew the attention of this Court to the impugned order passed on 30.09.2024. Referring to paragraph No. 7 of the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire penalty was levied on the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner did not obtain the environmental clearance within the prescribed date and continued the quarry operation and therefore the penalty was imposed. The same is factually incorrect. The petitioner had obtained the environmental clearance on
19.07.2016, which was well within the last date, i.e.,
10.01.2017.In similar matters, without relegating the parties to appellate or other remedies, this Court itself has allowed several writ petitions, including W.P. No. 15471 of 2020, among others.
¶3The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that, in the case of the petitioner alone, if the order is within the time limit, the same order could be passed.
¶4In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed on the following terms:~
(i)
The
impugned
order
made
in Na.Ka.No.A/G&M/297/2019 dated 30.09.2024 stands quashed, as the petitioner had obtained the environmental clearance on 19.07.2016, well before the last date. Page4 of 5
¶3Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of on similar terms. In the present case, petitioner obtained environmental clearance on
15.07.2016 which is well within the cut off date of 10.01.2017. Consequently, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of the aforementioned order to the petitioner. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 24-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order jv To
¶1The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Natural Resources Department, Secretariat, Chennai-09.
¶2The District Collector Salem-636 001.
¶3The Commissioner Department of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai-032.
¶4The Assistant Director / Deputy Director Department of Geology and Mining, Salem. WPoNo.o23162oofo2026 MOHAMMEDoSHAFFIQ,oJ. jv WPoNo.o23162oofo2026 24-06-2026 Page5oofo5
Case details
Parties and counsel
Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ and WMP No.25107 of 2026 B.Venkatesh S/o.Late K.Babu, Having Office at No.255, Kanakapura Main Road, Jayanagar 7th Block,Bangalore- 560 070. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Natural Resources Department, Secretariat, Chennai-09. 2. The District Collector Salem-636 001. 3. The Commissioner Department of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai-032. 4. The Assistant Director / Deputy Director Department of Geology and Mining, Salem. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned Order of the 2nd Respondent in Na.Ka.No.327/ 2025 /Mines A/ dated 27.02.2026 and quash the same. Page2 of 5 For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Suresh Kumar for Mr.Ashwin Premsundar For Respondent(s): Mr.P.ElayaRajkumar, Counsel for Government
Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.