V.V. Minerals moves HC against suspension of its operations

Says orders restraining it from carrying out regular transactions are illegal

May 24, 2017 10:30 pm | Updated 10:30 pm IST

MADURAI

V.V. Minerals, a leading beach sand mineral processor and exporter, has filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court Bench here challenging the suspension of a licence granted to it for operating a beach mineral processing unit at a special economic zone (SEZ) in Nanguneri in Tirunelveli district.

The company, represented by its Managing Partner V. Velmurugan, son of S. Vaikundarajan, urged the court to quash an order passed by MEPZ Special Economic Zone on December 28 suspending the Letter of Approval (LoA) issued in 2011 and another order passed by the Board of Approval on March 27 restraining the firm from carrying out day-to-day operations.

When the case came up before Justice M.V. Muralidaran on Wednesday, the judge directed a Central Government counsel to obtain instructions by Thursday since the petitioner firm had questioned the authority of the officials to suspend the licence on the ground that the Special Economic Zones Act of 2005 did not provide for suspension of the LoA.

In his affidavit, Mr. Velmurugan stated that the LoA was suspended solely on the basis of a letter written by the Tirunelveli Collector to MEPZ SEZ on December 17 as well as another communication from the Additional Commissioner of Customs from Thoothukudi and not on the basis of any violation of the terms and conditions of the LoA.

Hence, the petitioner went on appeal before the Board of Approval under the Union Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Though the Board remanded the matter to the MEPZ SEZ for fresh consideration as per the rules, it ordered that no transaction of the firm would be allowed until the SEZ took a decision on the issue.

Aggrieved over such a restriction imposed on the firm, its Managing Partner contended that hundreds of employees would be rendered jobless and the country would lose valuable foreign exchange if the petitioner company was not allowed to carry out its operations and honour the export commitments.

He also claimed that the orders restraining the company from carrying out regular transactions were grossly illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.