Senthil Kumar vs the District Collector

Senthil Kumar vs The District Collector

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Mar 02, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1439885

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1439885
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr Justice G. Jayachandran,Honourable Mr.Justice Shamim Ahmed
Decided On: Mar 02, 2026
Case Number: WP/16454/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Senthil Kumar

Respondent

The District Collector

Excerpt

.....the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted thatthe writ petition is premature. the application made by the fourth respondent yet to be processed. further more, she also contended that the petitioner is not residing in the land, which is alleged to be 300 meters from the proposed quarry site.5. as far as the first contention regarding premature writ petition, we arefully in agreement with the counsel appearing for the private respondent. the page3 of 6 cause of action for the petitioner will arise only if her objection is considered and overruled, or if not at all considered, and any licence granted in violation of section 36(1-a) of the mines and minerals act.6. second ground of defence is purely based on facts. it is open to theauthorities, while considering the application for grant of quarry licence, survey the land proposed for quarrying and the land of the writ petitioner, whether it is purely agricultural land or any dwelling units are available there.7. with this observation, writ petition stands dismissed. no order as to costs. (g.j.,j.) (s.s.a.,j.) 02-03-2026 index: yes/nospeaking/non-speaking orderneutral citation: yes/no mrp page4 of 6 to1. the district collector district collectorate, namakkal.2. the assistant director department of geology and mining, namakkal.3. the block development officer o/o.the block development officer, elachipalayam, namakkal. page5 of 6dr.g.jayachandran, j.andshamim ahmed, j.mrp 02-03-2026 page6 of 6

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED Senthil Kumar S/o.Veerappan, No.3/106/2 Kottampatty, Akalampatti Village And Post, Thiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal 637212. ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The District Collector District Collectorate, Namakkal.
2. The Assistant Director Department Of Geology And Mining, Namakkal.
3. The Block Development Officer O/o.The Block Development Officer, Elachipalayam, Namakkal.
4. P.S.K.Arun S/o.Kandasamy, No.32/1 Kamaraj Nagar, Pallipalayam Village And Town, Kumarapalayam Taluk, Namakkal 638006. ..Respondent(s) Page1 of 6
This Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from granting the quarry licence to the 4th respondent in S.No. 375/2 situated in Akalampatti Village, Thiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District and consider petitioners representation dated 19.07.2023, 02.02.2024 and 26.04.2024 sent to the 1st and 2nd respondents herein as objection letters.
For Petitioner(s): Ms. Varshini .V. for Mr. I Abrar Md Abdullah For Respondent(s): Mr. M.Vijayaragavan, for R4 Ms.V.Rani , Spl.G.P., for R1 to R3

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.) The writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to restrain the respondents 1 and 2 from granting quarry licence to the 4th respondent in Survey No.375/2 situated at Akalampatti Village, Thiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District. Page2 of 6

2. According to the writ petitioner, apprehending that the respondents 1

and 2 likely to grant quarry licence to the private respondent, had given a representation on 19.07.2023, 02.02.2024 and 26.04.2024 objecting for considering the application for grant of quarry licence on the ground that the residence of the writ petitioner is situated within 300 meters from the proposed quarry site.

3. After notice, the private respondent, namely 4th respondent, has entered appearance.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that

the writ petition is premature. The application made by the fourth respondent yet to be processed. Further more, she also contended that the petitioner is not residing in the land, which is alleged to be 300 meters from the proposed quarry site.

5. As far as the first contention regarding premature writ petition, we are

fully in agreement with the counsel appearing for the private respondent. The Page3 of 6 cause of action for the petitioner will arise only if her objection is considered and overruled, or if not at all considered, and any licence granted in violation of Section 36(1-A) of the Mines and Minerals Act.

6. Second ground of defence is purely based on facts. It is open to the

authorities, while considering the application for grant of quarry licence, survey the land proposed for quarrying and the land of the writ petitioner, whether it is purely agricultural land or any dwelling units are available there.

7. With this observation, writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. (G.J.,J.) (S.S.A.,J.) 02-03-2026 Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No MRP Page4 of 6 To

1. The District Collector District Collectorate, Namakkal.

2. The Assistant Director Department Of Geology And Mining, Namakkal.

3. The Block Development Officer O/o.The Block Development Officer, Elachipalayam, Namakkal. Page5 of 6

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

AND

SHAMIM AHMED, J.

MRP 02-03-2026 Page6 of 6

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties Senthil Kumar vs The District Collector Same Judge Honourable Dr Justice G. Jayachandran,Honourable Mr.Justice S...