MADURAI : The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has suggested that the state government form a separate department to carry out sand quarrying activities in the state. A special bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and B Pugalendhi made the suggestion after finding that the government has been violating Rule 38A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, which prohibits private individuals from carrying out sand quarry operations in the state from 2003, by still engaging private contractors to quarry and transport sand.
Forming a separate department would not only enable the government to achieve the objective behind Rule 38A, but also help in avoiding allegations of illegal quarrying, the bench said. It further directed the government not to allow private operators to perform sand quarry activities and ensure that sand quarry operations are done only by the government as prescribed under the above rule. The court made the suggestion while hearing a petition filed by one Samathanam last year, alleging that a private contractor engaged by the government had been indulging in illegal quarrying in Pambar River at Thiruvadanai taluk of Ramanathapuram.
According to Samathanam, the Ramanathapuram collector had granted permission to the water resources organisation of the Public Works Department (PWD) in Madurai to quarry sand in the aforesaid area. However, the authorities gave the quarry rights to a private individual, through auction, till September 2023. Misusing this, the latter indulged in illegal quarrying by mining excess sand in nearly 100 trucks by using around six excavators, Samathanam said, and sought the court's intervention.
However, the additional advocate general, appearing for the state, denied the allegations and claimed that both the quarry activities and transportation of sand were monitored strictly and the quarry lease period was already over. Hearing both sides, the judges pointed out that the purpose for which Rule 38A was introduced was only to prevent sand quarry operations by private individuals. "However, the same was given a go-by by engaging private individuals as a lifting contractor or as a transporting contractor. This would certainly affect the very purpose and object for which this rule was introduced in the year 2003," they added.
Noting that the water resources organisation did not have sufficient machines and equipment to conduct the quarry operations and hence depended on private individuals for carrying out the quarry activities, the bench suggested formation of a separate department. Since the quarrying period had expired last year and the government claimed there was no illegal quarrying, the judges disposed of the petition.