Thursday, Apr 24, 2003
Thursday, Apr 24, 2003 |
| Southern States | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Southern States
-
Tamil Nadu
By A. Subramani
Justice V.S. Sirpurkar dismissed writ petitions of the lessees who moved the court for extension of permit for the `unutilised period' claiming that due to litigation and interim injunctions they could not mine sand continuously. The judge also disposed of a batch of public interest litigation petitions which opposed any extension of lease on the ground that it would cause serious hazards to environment and deplete the ground water table. The first batch of petitioners were granted permits in 1995 for a period of five years under Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959. Their senior counsel, V.T. Gopalan, contended that having deposited the entire lease money the petitioners legitimately expected to work the lease for the full period of five years. If, for reasons beyond their control, they could not work out the lease for the full period, then they had every right to demand extension of permit for the unlicensed period. In the present case, the petitioners could not utilise their lease period fully owing to court orders, he said. Opposing the contention, the Additional Advocate-General of Tamil Nadu, R. Muthukumaraswamy, argued that granting extension would amount to re-writing the lease. Citing a `sea-change' in the policy as well as legal position, he said that at present there was a State-level committee to consider the question of sand-quarrying on riverbeds, particularly the Palar basin. In its counter-affidavit, the State Government said that during the past two years, 446 lorries had been seized for transporting sand illicitly in Kancheepuram district. A total penalty sum of Rs. 1.02 crores had been imposed on them and 78 criminal cases had to be registered by law-enforcing authorities. Mr. Justice Sirpurkar said the stay order was in operation only briefly. ``The fact remains that the stay, issued for a limited period, died its death, and therefore, there was nothing to stop the petitioners to work out their leases... There can be no dispute that the petitioners wasted time and did not approach the authorities with the alacrity that was demanded. Therefore, they cannot blame the Government or the court for not being able to work their leases for the full period of five years." Concurring with Mr. Muthukumaraswamy's submission that extension of licence would not be in anybody's interest, the judge said "there is a public interest now working against the petitioners." He also recorded the Additional Advocate-General's contention that the Government would incur ``tremendous financial loss'' if the leases were allowed to be renewed based on old considerations. "It the leases were to be extended for the substantial period like four years, it would be only at the cost of economy of the Government, ecology system and the drinking water facilities of the area. This would be another reason why I would be slow to accept the contentions of the petitioners," observed Mr. Justice Sirpurkar.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
