W.P.(MD) No.21440 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.(MD) No.21440 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.15928 and 15932 of 2026 P.Maruthamuthu ... Petitioner /vs./ 1.The Director Directorate of Mines and Geology Alandur Road Guindy Industrial Estate Guindy Chennai - 600 032. 2.The District Collector Tiruchirappalli District Tiruchirappalli. 3.The Assistant Director Geology and Mining Department District Collector Office Campus Tiruchirappalli District. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office Manaparai Tiruchirappalli District. 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.21440 of 2026 5.The Tahsildar Manapparai Taluk Tiruchirappalli District 6.The District Environmental Engineer Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Tiruchirappalli District. 7.Refugine Nirmal ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 5th respondent in Mu.Mu.A5/5779/2025, dated 30.07.2025, quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the mandatory siting criteria prescribed under B.P.Ms.No.4, dated 02.07.2004, and violative of the principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the 1 to 6 Respondents not to grant Consent to Establish or Consent to Operate to the proposed stone crushing unit of the 7th Respondent unless and until the mandatory statutory siting criteria are strictly complied with. For Petitioner : Mr.Rajarajan For R1 to R5 : Ms.Sudarkodi Natchiyar counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu For R6 : Mr.Madhuri Donti Reddy 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.21440 of 2026 ORDER Ms.Sudarkodi Natchiyar, learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, takes notice for the respondents 1 to 5 and Mr.Madhuri Donti Reddy, learned counsel, takes notice for the 6th respondent. 2.This writ petition is disposed of at the time of admission itself, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 and the learned counsel for the 6th respondent and after dispensing with the notice on the 7th respondent, as no adverse orders are proposed to be passed as against him at this stage in this writ petition. 3.It appears that on 03.07.2026, the fifth respondent/the Tahsildar, by perusing the report of the Revenue Inspector, V.Periyapatti, dated 16.06.2026 as well as the other documents, has addressed a letter to the Block Development Officer, Vaiyampatti, wherein, it had been stated that there are about 18 houses near the crushing unit, in the respect of which consent has been given, which is impugned herein. Content of the letter addressed by the fifth respondent/the Tahsildar, dated 03.07.2026 reads as under:- 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.21440 of 2026 “jpUr;rpuhg;gs;sp khtl;lk;> kzg;ghiw tl;lk;> ,dhk;Nfhtpy;gl;b fpuhkk; Gy vz; 10/10-y; fw;fis miuf;Fk; fpu\u; mika cs;s ,lj;ij epy msit nra;J FWtl;l epy mstu; kw;Wk; tP.ngupag;gl;b gFjp tUtha; Ma;thsu; mwpf;if rku;gpj;Js;shu;. ,jid njhlu;e;J tprhuiz nra;J vdjwpf;ifapid gpd;tUkhW njuptpj;Jf; nfhs;fpNwd;. Nkw;gb tl;lk;> ,dhk;Nfhtpy;gl;b fpuhkk;> Gy vz; 10/10-y; fw;fis miuf;Fk; fpu\u; mika cs;s ,lj;ij fle;j 12.06.2026 md;W fhiy Rkhu; 11.00 kzpastpy; tP.ngupag;gl;b gFjp tUtha; Ma;thsu;> fpuhk epu;thf mYtyUld; Nru;e;J tP.ngupag;gl;b gFjp FWtl;l epy mstu; epy msit gzp Nkw;nfhs;sg;gl;lJ. Nkw;gb Gy vz; 10/10-y; fpu\u; mikacs;s ,lj;jpypUe;J FbapUg;G tPLfspd; J}uj;ij epy msit nra;ag;gl;lJ. epy msit nra;ag;gl;ljpy; fpu\u; mikacs;s ,lj;jpypUe;J Gy vz; 9-y; 320 kPl;lu; njhiytpy; nry;tuh[;> nry;yj;Jiu> fUg;igah> fe;jrhkp kw;Wk; fNzrd; MfpNahupd; Ie;J FLk;gq;fs; tPL fl;b trpj;J tUfpd;wdu;. NkYk; Gy vz; 10/10-ypUe;J Gy vz; 8/3 tiu 280 kPl;lu; njhiytpy; kUjKj;J> gukrptk;> ky;ypfh Mfpa %d;W egu;fs; tPL fl;b trpj;J tUfpd;wdu;. ,jid njhlu;e;J Gy vz; 10/10-ypUe;J Gy vz; 8/1- tiu 380 kPl;lu; njhiytpy; Kdpag;gd; Nfhtpy; kw;Wk; tPukiy tPLk; cs;sJ. NkYk; fpu\u; mikacs;s ,lj;jpypUe;J 360 kPl;lu; njhiytpy; Gy vz; 62/3-y; rf;jp vd;gtuJ tPLk;> 390 kPl;lu; njhiytpy; Gy vz; 7/1-y; nghd;dhf;fTz;lu; kw;Wk; godpr;rhkp MfpNahu; tPL fl;b trpj;J tUfpd;wdu;. ,jid njhlu;e;J 360 kPl;lu; njhiytpy; Gy vz; 63/1A-y; tp[aFkhu;> Rg;gpukzpad;> uhkrhkp> ituKj;J> kNfe;jpud; kw;Wk; godpag;gd; Mfpa MW egu;fs; tPL fl;b trpj;J tUfpd;wdu;. vdNt fpu\u; mika cs;s ,lj;jpypUe;J 500 kPl;lu; njhiytpw;Fs; nkhj;jkhf 18 egu;fspd; tPL kw;Wk; xU Kdpag;gd; NfhtpYk; cs;sJ. vdNt ghu;it 3-y; fhZk; fbjk; thapyhf Nkw;gb fpuhkk; Gy vz;: 10/10-y; nk]pah GS nkl;ly; vd;w fpu\u; mikaTs;s ,lj;jpid Ma;T nra;J Nkw;Fwpg;gpl;l 18 tPLfshdJ cs;shl;rp mikg;Gfshy; mq;fPfupf;fg;gl;l FbapUg;Gfsh / tPLfsh vd;w tpguj;jpid mwpf;ifahf toq;FkhW md;Gld; Nfl;Lf; nfhs;fpNwd;.” 4.It appears that the Pollution Control Board has also issued a letter 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.21440 of 2026 bearing L.No.1982/kh.R.#.ngh/j.eh.kh.f.th./jpUr;rp/2026 dated 23.06.2026 to the fifth respondent/the Tahsildar, to ascertain as to whether any houses situate near the crushing unit proposed to be started by the sixth respondent herein. 5.It is noticed that the Division Bench has already passed an order in Vairamuthu Vs. The District Collector, Trichy, W.P.(MD) No.12726 of 2026, dated 01.06.2026. The said writ petition has been filed as against the respondents herein in respect of the very same crushing unit. The Division Bench has held as under:- “3.At the outset, we are of the view that once the consent orders have been passed under the above said statutes, any person aggrieved by the same, may challenge them by way of appeal, as provided under Section 28 of the Water Act and Section 31 of the Air Act. Without doing so, the petitioner cannot challenge the consents already granted by the authorities by filing the present writ petition seeking consideration of his representation. Such a course would not serve any purpose. This Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. If the petitioner has any grievance, he is at liberty to file an appeal in the manner known to law” 6.Prima facie indications are that the ground reality has not been considered while granting consent for setting up a crushing unit by the sixth respondent. It is contrary to the guidelines issued in B.P.MS.No.4, dated 02.07.2004, wherein it has been clarified as under:- 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.21440 of 2026 “2.0 Criteria for new / proposed stone crushing units 2.1 No new / proposed stone crushers should be located within 500 metres from any National highways or State highways or inhabited site' or places of public and religious importance. Note:- Inhabited site' shall mean a village site or town site or a house site as referred to in the revenue records or a house site or layout approved by a Local Body or Town or Country or Metropolitan Planning Authority, where the said Body or Authority is created under a statue and empowered to approve such an area as a house site or layout area (as desired in Rule 35 of Tamilnadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959). 2.2 The minimum distance between new / proposed stone crushers should be 1 km to avoid dust pollutional influence of one over the other. 2.3 Green belt development: The stone - crushing unit shall provide adequate green belt cover around the periphery as suggested by the Board depending on site and meteorological conditions. 3.0 Air pollution control measures The existing and new / proposed stone crushing units should provide dust containment and dust suppression systems suggested by National Productivity Council as furnished in Annexure-I and should also adhere to the recommendations furnished in NEERI Report (vide Annexure – II). The above consolidated proposal of earlier B.P.Ms.No.609, dated 9.12.1992 and B.P.Ms.No.48, dated 9.9.98 is contemplated to make clear the decisions of the Board regarding the siting criteria of the existing and new / proposed stone crushing units and hence this proposal may take effect from 10.5.1999, the date of Supreme Court order defining existing stone crushing units. The above proposal was placed before the Board at its meeting held on 22.6.2004, The Board in its Resolution No.204-1-25, dated 22.6.2004 decided to approve the siting criteria of the existing and new proposed stone crushing units with date of effect from 10.5.99, the date of the Hon'ble Supreme Court order, defining the existing 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.21440 of 2026 stone crushing units.” 7.Considering the same, status quo as on date is directed to be maintained for a period of 15 days from today. Meanwhile, it is for the petitioner to approach the Hon'ble Division Bench for appropriate clarification in the light of the communication of the fifth respondent/the Tahsildar, dated 03.07.2026, content of which is extracted above. 8.The Writ Petition stands disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 29.07.2026 Internet : Yes / No mm Note : Issue order copy on 29.07.2026 To 1.The Director Directorate of Mines and Geology Alandur Road Guindy Industrial Estate Guindy Chennai - 600 032. 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.21440 of 2026 2.The District Collector Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli. 3.The Assistant Director Geology and Mining Department District Collector Office Campus Tiruchirappalli District. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office Manaparai Tiruchirappalli District. 5.The Tahsildar Manapparai Taluk Tiruchirappalli District 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.21440 of 2026 C.SARAVANAN, J. mm W.P.(MD) No.21440 of 2026 29.07.2026 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis