HC dismisses pleas challenging single

The Madras High Court today dismissed with costs a batch of writ appeals filed by various granite mining companies challenging the show cause notices issued two years ago by Madurai District Collector.
All the writ appeals were filed against the orders of a single judge who dismissed their petitions challenging the notices issued to them in connection with the "infirmities" against the lessees.
Dismissing the appeal filed by Olympus Granites Private Limited which challenged the summons issued by the Legal Commissioner U. Sagayam IAS, the court said, "The appellant cannot be said to be aggrieved by the issuance of summons as no legal injury has been caused. Instead of cooperating with the enquiry proposed, the appellant has rushed to the Court. This Court has merely asked the Legal Commissioner to file his report.

"When the Legal Commissioner while acting as an Officer of the Court issued summons, as a law abiding citizen, the appellant ought to have cooperated instead of rushing to the Court to challenge it on untenable grounds. Thus, the writ appeal stands dismissed as devoid of any merits with costs of Rs.5,000..."
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M.M. Sundresh dismissed about 30 appeals filed by various mining companies and individuals.
"It is settled law that power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is both extraordinary and discretionary.Such a power has to be exercised with circumspection while dealing with a showcause notice. A show cause notice cannot be read on a technical ground, but on a reasonable one," the bench said in its order.

The appellants were granted mining lease by the District Collector, Madurai. On the basis of several complaints received by him from general public, the Collector set up a special team, comprising various officials, to carry out comprehensive inspection of the lease hold areas.
After getting the report, he issued show cause notices to the mining companies asking them to why he should not taken action on the basis of the report which pointed out several infirmities.
The companies challenged the notices and a single judge dismissed them following which they filed the present appeals.