![]() Online edition of India's National Newspaper Sunday, Dec 11, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Tamil Nadu |
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |
Tamil Nadu
-
Madurai
Staff Reporter
MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has suggested to the State Government to amend the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, and thereby make it mandatory for the authorities to prosecute exploiters of minerals. At present, Rule 36-A (5) of the Rules empowers officials to recover enhanced seigniorage fee up to a maximum of 15 times the normal rate, subject to a minimum of Rs. 25,000, or, in the alternative, to punish the offender with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one year. Allowing two writ petitions, Justice D. Murugesan observed: "... minerals are valuable resources to be preserved for the future generation... While dealing with unauthorised exploitation [of the minerals] the authorities must not be hasty in imposing penalty, without following the procedures contemplated under the rules or without affording a reasonable opportunity to such exploiters. The exploiters manage to get away without the penalty only on technical grounds."
"Reports not furnished"
The petitioners had sought to quash an order passed by the Kulithalai Revenue Divisional Officer imposing a penalty of Rs. 9,82,350 on the ground that the official failed to furnish them with the reports of the Tahsildar, which formed the basis for arriving at the quantum of mineral exploited and the land from which such mineral was exploited. "This court is constrained to interfere with the order of penalty only on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. Had that principle been followed, the petitioners would have explained their case, and in the event the respondent [RDO] was not satisfied with the explanation he could have imposed the penalty." However, after quashing the RDO's order, the judge remitted the matter back to him for considering it afresh and made it clear that all procedural aspects should be strictly complied with.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |
Copyright © 2005, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|