Madras High Court Cancels Gravel Quarry Licence Over Canal Within 500 Metres and House Within 300 Metres of Site

The petitioner, Aatrukkal Neerpasana Sangam, represented by its President, challenged the order dated 09 August 2024 by which the Deputy Director, Mines and Geology, Sivagangai, granted the sixth respondent permission to quarry gravel in Survey Nos.85/4 and 85/5A, measuring a total extent of 2.47 hectares at Malaikandan Revenue Village, Karaikudi Taluk.

The petitioner alleged that the quarry was situated near agricultural lands, a water-supply channel serving Anni Kanmoi and Nedunkulam, an electricity line, a residential house, and a Government Higher Secondary School.

The official respondents maintained that the requisite statutory clearances had been obtained and that inspections revealed no nearby kanmoi, canal, water body, high-tension power line, or archaeological site.

The sixth respondent denied the alleged violations and questioned the petitioner’s locus standi, contending that the Sangam had not disclosed its membership or registration particulars.

During the proceedings, the Court had stayed quarrying operations; the licence was due to expire on 08 August 2026.

Whether the quarrying permission was contrary to Rule 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, because the quarry was situated within the prohibited distance from a water-supply system or canal?

Whether the permission violated Rule 36(1-A) of the Rules because the quarry was situated within 300 metres of an inhabited site or residential house?

Whether the petitioner-Sangam had sufficient locus standi to maintain the writ petition in the nature of a public interest litigation?

The Court applied Rule 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, which prohibits quarrying of sand in a riverbed, adjoining area, or other area situated within a 500-metre radial distance of specified water-related installations, including a water-supply system, infiltration well, or pumping installation.

The Court treated the expression “water-supply system” broadly as encompassing canals, kanmois, lakes, and other water bodies supplying water for agricultural or drinking purposes.

It also applied Rule 36(1-A), which prohibits granting a lease for quarrying stone within 300 metres of an inhabited site.

The Court further recognised that a registered association representing affected users could maintain a public interest challenge to an environmentally and communally consequential quarrying permission.

The Court found that the canal was located approximately 131 metres from S.F.No.87 and 118 metres from S.F.No.125, distances plainly falling within the 500-metre protection contemplated by Rule 36(1).

It rejected the respondents’ narrower approach that only a 50-metre distance was relevant, holding that a canal serving the locality could fall within the broader concept of a water-supply system.

The Court also noted that a residential house with an occupied family was situated only 97 metres from the quarry, contrary to the 300-metre restriction under Rule 36(1-A).

Although the school itself was approximately 314 metres from the quarry boundary, the proposed transport pathway was closer, and the absence of documented consent from local pattadars created further concern regarding transportation of the material.

In view of the proximity of the water source, the inhabited house, and the potential danger to schoolchildren who might approach the quarry, the Court concluded that the permission had been granted in disregard of the applicable safeguards.

The Court also accepted the petitioner’s locus, relying on material showing that the association was registered and that its President was authorised to represent it.

The writ petition was allowed, and the Deputy Director’s order in Na.Ka.No.465/Kanimam/2021 dated 09 August 2024 was set aside.

The Court directed that the stoppage of quarrying operations should continue.

No order as to costs was made, and all connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.