Murugan v. The Commissioner

ORDER Heard both sides.

¶2The writ petitioner is an applicant for grant of license to run a brick kiln unit in the petition mentioned lands. His request was rejected vide order dated 02.05.2025. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed.

¶3Paragraph Nos.5 & 6 of the impugned order read as follows:- "5. khz;gik nrd;id cah; ePjp kd;w kJiu fpisapd; tof;F vz; W.P.(MD)No.5833/2025, Njjp 05.03.2025y; toq;fg;gl;l Mizapy; fPo; cs;s jPh;g;gpy; fPo;fz;lthW njhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. "The respondent 1 to 4 before granting any approval to the sixth respondent shall consider the objection of the writ petitioner, or his duly authorized power agent (as the writ petitioner is residing at the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), and therefore, take a call on the application made out."

¶6vdnt> khz;gik nrd;id cah; ePjpkd;w kJiuf; fpisapd; Mizg;gb epyj;jpy; chpikahsh; nrq;fy; #is elj;j Ml;Nrgiz njhptpj;jhy; jpU.rp.KUfd;.> j/ng.rpjk;guk; vd;gUf;F tpUJefh; khtl;lk;> rhj;Jhh; tl;lk;> ned;Nkdp fpuhkk;> Gy vz;. 830/3A2 (0.76.00)> 830/3B (0.46.00)> 856/1 (0.24.00)> nkhj;jk; 1.46.00 n`f;Nlh gug;G epyj;jpy; mike;Js;s ehl;L nrq;fy; #is gjpT rhd;Wjy; Nfhhpa kD js;Sgb nra;J cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ."

¶4This is a classic instance of utter non-application of mind on the part of the authority concerned. All that this Court directed was that the second respondent must take into account the objections that may be lodged by the fifth respondent. This Court never said that if there is objection, the application was to be negatived. In fact, this Court did not even go into the merits of the mater. Completely misconstruing the order passed by this Court, the second respondent had rejected the petitioner's application for the asking. I therefore set aside the order impugned in the writ petition. The mater is remitted to the file of the second respondent. Enquiry will be held on 08.12.2025 at 3.00 pm. The petitioner as well as the fifth respondent or his agent may appear. They will not be given any individual notices. Both the sides will place their respective cases. The second respondent will pass an appropriate order on merits and in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that the cases projected by both the parties will have to be duly considered and taken into account before the application submitted by the writ petitioner is given a disposal. Final order shall be passed within a period of two weeks thereafter. The writ petition is allowed on these terms. No costs.

18.11.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi NOTE:Issue Order Copy on 03.12.2025 To

1.The Commissioner, Geology and Mines Department, Guindy, Chennai-600032.

2.The Assistant Director, Geology and Mines Department, Virudhunagar District.

3.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

4.The Tahsildar, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. rmi

18.11.2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Murugan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner, Geology and Mines Department, Guindy, Chennai-600032. 2.The Assistant Director, Geology and Mines Department, Virudhunagar District. 3.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 4.The Tahsildar, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. 5.Rakkappan ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the record pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent through his Na.Ka.k.V3/938/2024 dated 02.05.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the 3rd respondent to issue Bricks kiln license in survey No.830/3A2, 830/3B, 856/1, Nenmeni Village, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunaga District. For Petitioner : Mrs.A.Banumathy For Respondents : Mr.M.Gangatharan Government Advocate for R1 to R4 : Mr.B.N.Raja Mohamed for R5