Baghya Laksmi vs The District Collector, Coimbatore

2026:MHC:4511
WP No. 20138 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDERS RESERVED ON: 22-09-2026
ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON:11-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
WP No. 20138 of 2026
and WMP.Nos.21546 to 21548 of 2026
: {HCMA011139272026}
Baghya Laksmi
W/o. S. Ramachandiran,
Residing 5/63 Muthugoundanur Village,
Palaarpathi Post, Kinathukadavu Taluk,
Coimbatore 642 109.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The District Collector,
Coimbatore
Collectorate Building,
Coimbatore 641 018.
2. The Director,
Department of Mines and Geology, Tamilnadu,
Alandur Road, Guindy Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai 600 032.
3. The Joint Director,
Department of Mines and Geology, Tamilnadu,
Coimbatore.
4. The Tahsildar,
Kinathukadavu Taluk, Coimbatore.
5. M/s TVL. Pollachi Granites,
Rep by its Authorised Person,
24/1 Alagappa Layout, Venkatesha Colony,
Pollachi, Coimbatore.
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page1 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:24 pm )

2026:MHC:4511
WP No. 20138 of 2026
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the order in Rc.No 1727/
Mines / 2020 dated 13.11.2025 passed by the third respondent and to quash the
same and pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Kamalesh Kannan
for Mr.Sunil.S
For Respondent(s): Dr.R.Gouri,
Special Govt. Pleader for RR1 to R4
Mr.M.Velmurugan for R5
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to call for
the records relating to the order in Rc.No.1727/ Mines / 2020
dated 13.11.2025, passed by the third respondent, the Joint
Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Coimbatore, Tamil
Nadu, and to quash the same.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she is a farmer and
has agricultural lands in Muthukaundanur Village, Palaarpathi
Post, Kinathukadavu Taluk. She also undertakes silkworm
cultivation and coconut farming. The fifth respondent, M/s TVL
Pollachi Granites, was granted a quarry lease for rough stone
and gravel, with quarrying extending to 2.42.00 Ha at
S.F.No.444/1, Sokkanur Village, Kinathukadavu Taluk,
3
Coimbatore District, to excavate 3,52,210 m of rough stone and
__________
Page2 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:24 pm )

2026:MHC:4511
WP No. 20138 of 2026
3
30,619 m of gravel. The approved depth of the quarry was 27
m below ground level. When permission was granted in 2022,
environmental clearance was also issued on 28.03.2022. Due to
several other concerns, the petitioner approached the National
Green Tribunal (NGT) by filing O.A.No.138 of 2022, praying for
an injunction restraining the fifth respondent from quarrying
the fertile agricultural lands. The NGT, by a Judgment dated
25.05.2023, dismissed the same. Against that, a Writ Petition
was preferred before this Court in W.P.No.17905 of 2023, which
was also dismissed. The total quantity of approved minerals
has already been quarried. Meanwhile, the present impugned
order was passed, granting mining approval for the modified
mining plan, with a reserve of 4,87,058 metric tonnes of rough
stone and 36,266 metric tonnes of gravel, up to a depth of 62
metres below ground level. The environmental clearance also
seems to have been given on 24.03.2026. Under these
circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court
against the order granting the modified mining plan.
3. The Writ Petition is resisted by the official respondents
and the fifth respondent by filing counter-affidavits.
__________
Page3 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:24 pm )

2026:MHC:4511
WP No. 20138 of 2026
4. The official respondents contended that, in the earlier
round of litigation, various environmental concerns, including
those relating to the operation of the quarry, had been
considered in detail by the NGT and subsequently by this Court,
and that the case had been dismissed. There is no prohibition
on granting a quarry lease, including on wetlands with
agricultural activities. The only restriction is that a clear safety
distance of 7.5 meters must be maintained on all four sides of
the quarry. The Writ Petition is filed solely on the basis of
groundwater seepage caused by the fifth respondent. As
Kinathukadavu Taluk is hard rock terrain, groundwater is
generally available at depths of 70 to 90 meters. The State
Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority(SEIAA) also
granted clearance on 24.03.2026 after considering all aspects.
Therefore, there is no merit in the Writ Petition.
5. The fifth respondent has filed a separate counter-
affidavit and would submit that the land is not fertile. Only
because normal cultivation was not possible, the landowner
entered into an agreement with the fifth respondent. After
__________
Page4 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:24 pm )

2026:MHC:4511
WP No. 20138 of 2026
obtaining all licences and due environmental clearance from
the SEIAA, the original quarrying was carried out. Subsequently,
due to the reserve and ground conditions, the petitioner sought
a modified mining plan for the period from 02.11.2025 to
01.06.2027, and the same was granted by the impugned order.
Thereafter, the environmental clearance was also obtained.
6. One Mr.Manikumar has filed a statutory appeal,
challenging the environmental clearance in Appeal No. 17 of
2026, which is pending before the NGT. As far as this petitioner
is concerned, this Writ Petition is filed on account of personal
enmity, without any substance. The questions raised by the
petitioner were already raised in the earlier round of litigation,
which this Court and the NGT dismissed.
7. Mr. Kamalesh Kannan, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, would submit that it is true that when the
petitioner moved in an earlier round of litigation, the NGT as
well as this Court had dismissed the same. However, referring
to the last paragraph of the NGT’s order, he would submit that,
even at that stage, liberty had been granted to bring any
violations of law to the notice of the authorities. He would
__________
Page5 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:24 pm )

2026:MHC:4511
WP No. 20138 of 2026
submit that when a vaari runs through the site, the authorities
have no justification for sanctioning the modified mineral plan.
The entire quarry site, glistening with water, is proof of the
same.
8. The learned counsel would further submit that when the
fifth respondent originally applied for a quarry at the very same
site, they had engaged a Senior Hydrogeologist and obtained a
report from him, stating that the water table is at a depth of 7.3
meters. However, when the fifth respondent applied for a
modified mining plan, he submitted yet another report from a
Hydrogeologist, stating that the water table is located about
110 to 150 meters below ground level. Therefore, despite the
different particulars furnished in different hydrogeological
reports by private Hydrogeologists engaged by the fifth
respondent, the mining plan was granted, and this Court should
interfere in the matter.
9. Per contra, Dr.R.Gouri, the learned Special Government
Pleader, would submit that, upon considering all aspects,
including the excavation carried out, the availability of the
__________
Page6 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:24 pm )

2026:MHC:4511
WP No. 20138 of 2026
mineral, and all other factors to be taken into account as per
the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, the modified
mining plan is approved. Even if the petitioner had any
environmental concerns, she ought to have raised her
objections before the SEIAA at the time of consideration of the
application for environmental clearance. Even if any grievance
is espoused in respect of the environmental clearance, the
petitioner has an appellate remedy before the Tribunal. As a
matter of fact, an appeal filed by the third person is pending
before the NGT, and even if the petitioner is aggrieved, the
petitioner can also join herself as a party in the said pending
appeal and raise all the grounds relating to environmental
concerns therein.
10. As far as the mining authority is concerned, it has to
consider the modified mining plan strictly in accordance with
the rules. After considering the geological conditions, the
quantity of mineral removed, and other relevant aspects, the
modified mining plan has been approved. Therefore, the Writ
Petition has to be dismissed.
__________
Page7 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:24 pm )

2026:MHC:4511
WP No. 20138 of 2026
11. Mr.Velmurugan , the learned counsel appearing for the
fifth respondent, would submit that in the earlier round, the
NGT as well as this Court has categorically held that the
petitioner is approaching the Court only on account of personal
enmity. He is not the owner of the adjacent land. He has no
locus standi. This Writ Petition is not filed as a public interest
litigation. The grounds raised that there is a vaari and the water
table depletion were expressly raised in the earlier round and
have been answered by the Division Bench of this Court.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is an abuse of the process of law
and must be dismissed with exemplary costs.
12. I have considered the rival submissions made on either
side and perused the material records of the case.
13. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
fifth respondent, a perusal of paragraph No.5 of the Judgment
dated 22.03.2024 in W.P.Nos.17905 of 2023 etc., shows that
the petitioner has raised two grounds, namely, that the quarry
site interferes with a vaari or water channel and that the
groundwater is depleting in the area, and that no quarry should
__________
Page8 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:24 pm )

2026:MHC:4511
WP No. 20138 of 2026
be permitted. The NGT and thereafter the Division Bench of this
Court considered those grounds on merits, ultimately found
that everything had been duly considered and that
environmental clearance had been granted, and dismissed the
Writ Petition. It was also found that the litigation appears to be
motivated by personal enmity. In view thereof, the second
round of litigation cannot be entertained by the very same
petitioner, for the said grounds already answered.
14. At the same time, this Court cannot simply dismiss the
Writ Petition and leave the matter as such, in view of some of
the subsequent facts brought to the notice of the Court. A new
fact brought by way of this Writ Petition is that, originally, to
obtain a mining plan up to 27 meters, the fifth respondent
submitted a report of the Senior Hydrogeologist, Mr G.
Kanagarajan. The report mentions that the water table starts at
a depth of 7.3 meters and the water-yielding formation is at a
depth of 9 meters to 26 meters, and the authorities have
considered the same and granted the original mining plan. The
issue in the context of the present writ petition relates only to
the exercise of statutory power under the Tamil Nadu Minor
__________
Page9 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:24 pm )

2026:MHC:4511
WP No. 20138 of 2026
Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, putting it beyond the purview
of the National Green Tribunal to be raised in the pending
appeal and thus has to be considered by this Court.
15. To obtain the present modified mining plan, the fifth
respondent has now submitted yet another Hydrogeological
report by Dr R. Suresh, Associate Professor, Department of
Geology, Periyar University. A perusal of the report’s
conclusions and recommendations indicates that, in the mining
lease area, groundwater occurs at greater depths, depending
on the intensity of weathering and the formation's dip. No
major intersections with the water table are expected up to 100
meters. It is further stated that aquifers are located at 110 to
115 meters below ground level.
16. In this context, it must be noted that the mining plan
provides a statutory framework for the scientific and systematic
extraction of minerals, specifying, inter alia , the depth of
mining, the method of mining, etc. Under Rule 41 of the Tamil
Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (in short ‘the
Rules’), a mining plan is a prerequisite to the grant of a lease.
__________
Page10 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:24 pm )

2026:MHC:4511
WP No. 20138 of 2026
Under Rule 41 (3), the mining plan shall not be approved unless
it is prepared by a qualified person. While granting approval,
the factors to be considered are enumerated under Rules 41 (7)
and (8). The manner in which the mining plan should be
reviewed and modified has been mentioned in Rule 41 (9).
1
Deepak Kumar and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others
17. In ,
when the core group was formed to consider issues relating to
quarrying minor minerals, the depth of mining to minimise
adverse impact on the hydrogeological regime was also
mentioned at paragraph No.17 (v) of the Judgment. Pursuant
thereto, in paragraph No.22, recommendations were made, and
in Sl.No.6, it was recommended that a hydrogeological report
be prepared for the proposed mining below the groundwater
table. In paragraph No.24, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
directed that all the State Governments should give due
weightage to the aforesaid recommendations. In paragraph
No.26, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India specifically held that
the mining plan should have an effective framework that takes
care of all environmental issues, evolves a long-term, rational,
and sustainable use of the natural resource base, and includes
1
(2012) 4 SCC 629
__________
Page11 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:24 pm )

2026:MHC:4511
WP No. 20138 of 2026
the bio-assessment protocol.
18. Thus, the contention of the learned Special
Government Pleader that depletion of the groundwater table
can be considered only at the stage of environmental clearance
and not at the stage of modification of the mining plan is
unacceptable. It must be noted that both interception of the
groundwater table and its depletion are issues that must be
considered even while granting the modified mining plan. The
2
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M.C.Metha Vs. Union of India
considered the issue of groundwater table depletion while
granting quarrying permits and issued several directions with
reference to the Aravalli area and the maintenance of the
groundwater table.
19. Further, the grant of a modified mining plan is not an
empty formality and falls within the precautionary principle
advocated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Vellore
3
Citizens Welfare Forum Vs. Union of India , which requires
anticipatory protection against serious environmental harm. In
this case, the facts are alarming. If, from 9 meters, the
2
(2004) 12 SCC 118
3
(1996) 5 SCC 647
__________
Page12 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:24 pm )

2026:MHC:4511
WP No. 20138 of 2026
groundwater table has suddenly gone below 100 meters, then,
apart from the study made by the hydrogeologist engaged by
the fifth respondent, it is the duty of the authority granting the
mining plan to have applied its mind and ascertained whether
the depletion occurred pending the mining activity, and, if so,
whether it is attributable to the grant of mining. If granting
permission up to 27 meters has led to the depletion from 9
meters to 100 meters, what would be the effect of granting
permission up to 62 meters?
20. It must be further noted that while granting permission
for the modified mining plan, no such application of mind or
exercise of discretion was made by the appropriate authority.
The groundwater is contended to be below 100 meters. It was
stated that the groundwater table was only at 9 meters, and
permission was granted up to 27 meters. Now, to deny
interception, the report is submitted as if the groundwater table
is below 100 meters and there is no interception.
21. It is in this regard, interception is not the only factor,
but depletion is also a factor. Therefore, even if the petitioner's
__________
Page13 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:24 pm )

2026:MHC:4511
WP No. 20138 of 2026
prayer is held untenable, as per the dictum laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Telangana Vs. Mohd.
4
Abdul Qasim (Died) Per Lrs. , every court has a constitutional duty
to protect and preserve the environment. Courts must apply
the principles of parens patriae in light of the powers enshrined
under Articles 48 A, 41 A, 21, 14 and 19 of the Constitution of
India.
22. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is disposed of on the
following terms:
(i) The prayer made by the petitioner as such shall stand
refused;
(ii) Notwithstanding the modified mining plan granted, the third
respondent shall engage two hydrogeological experts, one from
Anna University and the other from IIT, Madras and:
A. Cause an inspection of the area;
B. Obtain a report as to all aspects relating to the groundwater
table in the area, viz., Muthukaundanur Village, Palaarpathi
Post, Kinathukadavu Taluk, Coimbatore District;
C. Ascertain whether there are concerns about interference as
well as depletion on attributable to the grant of mining
4
(2024) 6 SCC 461
__________
Page14 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:24 pm )

2026:MHC:4511
WP No. 20138 of 2026
permission and whether increasing the depth will have an
adverse effect on the same;
D. If there is a concern/likely adverse effect about the same,
give an opportunity of hearing to the fifth respondent and
pass further orders relating to the mining plan that is
granted as per Rules 41 and 42 of the Tamil Nadu Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 1959;
E. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of
four months from the date of receipt of the website-
uploaded copy of this order;
(iii) No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
11-11-2026
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Jer
To
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate Building,
Coimbatore 641 018.
2.The Director,
Department of Mines and Geology,
Alandur Road, Guindy Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai 600 032.
__________
Page15 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:24 pm )

2026:MHC:4511
WP No. 20138 of 2026
3.The Joint Director,
Department of Mines and Geology,
Coimbatore.
4.The Tahsildar,
Kinathukadavu Taluk, Coimbatore.
__________
Page16 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:24 pm )

2026:MHC:4511
WP No. 20138 of 2026
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Jer
WP No. 20138 of 2026
11-11-2026
__________
Page17 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:24 pm )