After invalidating the environmental-clearance demand, the matter may be remanded solely to determine excess quarrying.

The appellant was conducting quarrying activities under a mining lease.

The District Collector, by order dated 14 September 2024, directed him to remit 100% of the mineral cost on the allegations that he had quarried without valid environmental clearance between 15 January 2016 and 10 January 2017 and had also carried out excess quarrying.

The appellant challenged the order in W.P. No. 1910 of 2025, contending, inter alia, that he had obtained environmental clearance on 10 August 2016 and that the impugned demand had been passed without affording him an opportunity of hearing.

The learned Single Judge set aside the Collector’s order insofar as it related to quarrying without environmental clearance and remanded the matter to the District Collector to determine, after hearing the appellant, whether any excess quarrying had been undertaken.

The appellant filed the present intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging that limited remand.

Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the Collector’s order and remanding the matter for the limited purpose of determining whether excess quarrying had taken place.

Whether the appellant’s contention that the matter ought not to have been remanded, particularly because the original order was allegedly passed without a hearing and the appellant possessed environmental clearance, warranted interference in the intra-court appeal.

The appeal was considered under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, which permits an intra-court appeal against a judgment of a Single Judge.

The Court applied the principle that where an administrative demand is founded on multiple grounds, and one ground is legally unsustainable, the matter may be remanded for fresh consideration on the surviving ground, subject to observance of natural justice.

The relevant regulatory framework was the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, under which further action could be taken for unauthorised or excess quarrying, as referred to in the Collector’s order.

The Collector’s demand rested on two distinct allegations: quarrying without environmental clearance and excess quarrying.

Since the appellant had obtained environmental clearance on 10 August 2016, the Single Judge correctly held that the demand based on the allegation of quarrying without clearance during the entire period from 15 January 2016 to 10 January 2017 could not be sustained.

However, the separate allegation of excess quarrying had not been finally adjudicated.

The Single Judge therefore limited the remand to that issue and directed the District Collector to conduct an enquiry and afford the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Division Bench held that this limited remand was neither arbitrary nor perverse and that the appellant’s objection to remand had no legal basis.

The matter remained remitted to the District Collector solely to determine whether the appellant had undertaken excess quarrying, after providing him a reasonable opportunity of hearing and passing appropriate orders in accordance with law.

There was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed.