(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to take appropriate action on the illegal crusher Units, Quarry and Tar Mixing Plants established by the Respondents 4 to 10 within the prohibited distance of 300 mts in contravention of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959 and permanently close and completely uninstall the said units within the a time limit to be stipulated by this Honble Court.)

G. Arul Murugan, J.

The writ petition is filed seeking a direction to first respondent to take action against respondents 4 to 10, who are quarrying in S.No.598/1 and 598/2, Myvadi Village, Madathukulam Taluk, Tiruppur District.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that private respondents are carrying on quarrying within a prohibited distance of 300 meters in contravention of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules and therefore, the mining activities has to be curtailed and that the authorities have not taken any action against private respondents.

3. Learned counsel for State submits that mining lease has been granted to all the private respondents and mining is carried on strictly in adherence to the mining lease granted and in the absence of any challenge to the mining lease, the writ petition is not maintainable.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

5. The allegation made by petitioners is that quarrying is done by private respondents, which, according to them, is within the prohibited distance of 300 meters from the approved layout in S.No.598/1 and 598/2 and as such, mining is carried out illegally, in contravention of the Rules.

6. It is not in dispute, as stated in the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, that valid mining license has been issued in favour of respondents 4 to 10 for operating mining and crushing units. It is also submitted that quarrying lease has been granted after due inspection and recommendation made by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the lease is in existence since 2013.

7. It is also submitted that the mining is carried on in this place even from the year 2008 and not that the mining lease has been granted only now. It is also stated that the allegations made by petitioners that the mining is carried on within the prohibited distance of 300 meters is factually incorrect, as, there is no approved layout within the prohibited distance of 300 meters when the mining lease was granted.

8. We are not contemplating to go into the factual issues, as, petitioners have filed writ petition merely seeking to take action against quarrying activities when there is a valid mining license granted in favour of private respondents. In the absence of any challenge to the license, relief sought cannot be granted. Further it is to be noted that if petitioners are aggrieved against the mining lease granted in favour of private respondents, they have effective efficacious remedy available under Rule 36-C of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, where an appeal can be filed before the Appellate Authority/Commissioner of Geology and Mining.

9. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to petitioners to work out their remedy in the manner known to law, before the appropriate forum. There shall be no order as to costs. W.M.P.No.13127 of 2025 seeking to permit petitioners to join together and file a single writ petition is allowed on payment of separate court fee. Consequently, the other interim application is also dismissed.