(Delivered by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J) This Appeal is filed by a third party questioning the order of the learned Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the sixth respondent herein.
2. Heard Mr.Adhimoola Pandian, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents and Mr.V.Sri Balaji, learned Counsel appearing for the sixth respondent.
3. The sixth respondent herein filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.490 of 2005 seeking the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the District Collector and the Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai, to grant a lease to quarry in the lands in Survey Nos.290/1 and 2 and 291/1 to 7 in Ammachatiram Village, Kolathur Taluk, Pudukottai District for a period of twenty years. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Judge, directing the respondents to process the application and to incorporate certain protective conditions for the purpose of preserving the monuments that came under the control of Archaeology of India. Though the State itself did not file any appeal against the said order, a third party has come up with the above appeal challenging the order of the learned Judge.
4. The writ petition filed by the sixth respondent herein, was opposed 3by the Government, on the ground that Ammachatiram village falls within the area of monuments situated in Kudagu Malai. The land in respect of which the sixth respondent sought quarrying lease, was located within 300 meters from the monuments and hence it was protected under Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010. The Archaeological Survey of India itself had taken up the matter with the Government and sent objections. These objections were also placed by the official respondents, before this Court. However, those objections were overruled by the learned Judge on the ground that there are other persons who have been granted permission for carrying on mining operations. The learned Judge, after analyzing the provisions of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010 and Rules framed thereunder came to the conclusion that no declaration as contemplated under Rule 31 had been made by the Central Government to declare the particular Survey number as a protected monument. It is in such a view of the matter the learned Judge allowed the writ petition. But, we are of the considered view that the view taken by the learned Judge cannot be sustained.
5. There is no denial of the fact that the land in question is situated within the prohibited area on all sides of the Monuments protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010. As a matter of fact, the notification was issued on 16.06.1992, under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010, to the effect that no 4quarrying operations can be conducted within the prohibited area of 100 metres on all sides and within the regulated area of 200 meters from the boundary area. In other words, the sixth respondent was not entitled to conduct quarrying operations within 300 meters (100 + 200 meters) from the protected monuments.
6. When an attempt was made to undertake quarrying operations near the National Monuments in Keezhavalavu and Keezhaiyur, Melur Taluk, Madurai District, the same was prevented by this Court by an order passed in W.P(MD) No.2483 of 2008 in Mahboob Bhasha, Madurai and others -Vs- Union of India and others. In the files produced by the Archaeological Survey of India before the learned Judge and the counter affidavit filed before us, it is pointed out by the Archaeological Survey of India, that the caverns, Jain idols and inscriptions contained in the area were directed to be protected by the Government of India from the year 1943. But, on the ground that no declaration was issued under Section 31, the learned Judge issued a positive direction, overlooking the statutory prescriptions.
7. The fact that four other persons were granted quarrying licences cannot be a ground for this Court to issue a Mandamus perpetuating an illegality. Moreover, the requirement of declaration under Rule 32, could not have been a ground for the learned Judge to issue a positive Mandamus. The Act itself came only in the year 1958. This Act actually succeeded the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Declaration of National Importance) Act, 1951. But the Monuments in question were declared as protected Monuments in the year 51943. Therefore, the order of the learned Judge is liable to be set aside and hence the writ appeal is allowed. If any lease had been granted by the official respondents in favour of the sixth respondent on the basis of the judgment of the learned Judge, the said lease shall be treated as having been cancelled forthwith. The official respondents shall restore the place to its original position so that whatever remains is at least protected. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. (V.R.S.,J.) (N.K.K.,J.) 04.12.2015 Index : yes/no Internet: yes/no gsr/kpl 1.The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai. 2.The Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai-9. 3.The Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-32. 4.The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Collector Office, Pudukottai. 5.The Officer in Charge, Archeological Survey of India, Keeranur, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai. 6V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J N.KIRUBAKARAN,J gsr/kpl Writ Appeal (MD) No.653 of 2011 04.12.2015