The Madras High Court Bench here on Tuesday refused to restrain Madurai Collector L. Subramanian from proceeding with the inquiry into the multi-crore granite scam in the district after the dismissal on September 2 of writ petitions filed by several granite firms that challenged the show-cause notice issued to them in March 2013.
A Division Bench of Justices V. Dhanapalan and V.M. Velumani said they would neither grant an interim stay nor order status quo since the First Bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, was seized of a public interest litigation petition on the issue, and it had not prevented the district administration from inquiring into the matter.
Arguing a batch of writ appeals filed by the granite firms, senior counsel V.T. Gopalan said the show-cause notice had been issued on the basis of a report submitted by the former Collector, U. Sagayam, to the Industries Secretary on May 19, 2012. The report said the alleged irregularities in granite mining could have caused the exchequer a loss of over Rs.15,000 crore.
“I don’t know from where did this officer arrive at this fancy figure of Rs.15,000 crore. There is no scientific basis for such a claim. The officials have predetermined the liability and even quantified the loss and then issued the notices. Hence, these notices suffer from prejudice, and they are liable to be quashed…,” Mr. Gopalan argued.
Advocate Veera Kathiravan, counsel for another set of granite miners, said it would be highly improper on the part of the Collector to inquire into the issue under the Mines and Minerals Act after having filed private complaints against the firms before a judicial magistrate court at Melur.
Additional Advocate-General K. Chellapandian said the criminal proceedings initiated by the Collector would have no bearing on the inquiry being conducted under the Mines and Minerals Act. He pointed out that after the dismissal of the writ petitions, the First Bench had appointed Mr. Sagayam as a Legal Commissioner to check whether the government had initiated proper action.
The Bench adjourned the case to December 22 for filing of reply and written submissions.
