IMB files appeals against order of single judge

The Regional Controller of Mines has filed a total of 32 writ appeals over a period of time in Madras High Court against the order of a single judge, who quashed the rejection of mining scheme of mining licences of V V Mineral (Firm).
The company was engaged in extracting major minerals in Tuticorin, Tirunelveli and Kanyakumari districts' coastal regions.
V V Mineral Managing Director S Vaikundarajan and others had filed a batch of writ petitions after the Centre issued orders rejecting their schemes of mining.
In July last year, a single judge had quashed the orders though the Centre did not file its counter affidavits. The court heard neither the arguments of the Regional Controller of mines nor received counter-affidavits before passing the orders, said Indian Bureau of Mines (IMB) in their appeals.

Additional Solicitor General of India G Rajagopalan represented the Centre before the first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice T S Sivagnanam last week and sought condonation of delay of more than 210 days in filing appeals.
"The single judge without receiving counter-affidavits and without hearing the arguments of the regional controller of mines, reserved judgment on July 7, 2014. Later, he pronounced judgments the same day, which resulted in failure of justice", Regional Controller of Mines said in his appeals.

Counters were received after pronouncement of judgments, these were not considered and taken into account before passing the orders, senior Central Government Standing Counsel Rabu Manohar submitted.

The orders suspending their mining operations were issued only because they failed to submit their mining scheme at least 120 days before expiry of their approved mining scheme, he contended.
They were first issued show-cause notices giving 30 days for submitting reply, and then suspended after no reply was forthcoming, he said.
"Without giving reply to show-cause notice, VV Mineral hurriedly came to court without exhausting the appeal remedy," he said.
The single judge failed to note that the company had already approached civil courts in Tirunelveli and filed a number of civil suits for the very same relief. All suits are pending. "Having approached civil courts, the company ought to have waited till the disposal of civil suits," he said.