Relief against licensed quarrying requires a direct challenge to the mining lease.

The petitioners sought a mandamus directing the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to act against respondents 4–10, who operated quarrying, crushing and related units in Myvadi Village, alleging that the activities violated the 300-metre restriction under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959

The State submitted that the private respondents held valid mining licences, issued after inspection and recommendation, and that the leases had existed since 2013; it also disputed that an approved layout was within the prohibited distance when the leases were granted

The petitioners sought action against the units without challenging the licences themselves

1. Whether the Court could grant a direction to act against the licensed quarrying and related activities when the petitioners had not challenged the respondents’ mining licences

2. Whether the petitioners should pursue the statutory appeal under Rule 36-C of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, rather than seek the requested relief in a writ petition

Rule 36-C of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 provides an appellate remedy before the Appellate Authority/Commissioner of Geology and Mining for persons aggrieved by a mining lease

Where the requested relief concerns activities conducted under valid licences, and those licences have not been challenged, the Court may decline to grant the relief; an aggrieved party may instead pursue the available statutory remedy

The Court noted that the private respondents held valid mining licences and that the petitioners’ allegations concerning the prohibited distance were disputed

It declined to determine those factual disputes because the petition sought action against the quarrying activities without challenging the licences under which they operated

Since Rule 36-C provided an effective remedy to challenge the leases, the Court held that the requested relief could not be granted in this writ petition

It made no order as to costs, allowed W.M.P. No. 13127 of 2025 subject to payment of separate court fees, and dismissed the other interim application