CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Friday refused to accept the prayer of private mining firms to allow them to transport processed beach sand minerals which they claimed ownership over.
The first bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice J Sathya Narayana Prasad, while hearing suo motu cases on illegal beach sand mining, turned down the prayer even though senior counsels V Raghavachari and Srinath Sridevan pressed for it.
The counsels claimed that the firms already paid royalty for processed beach sand minerals and hence the stock belonged to them. Accordingly, they must be allowed to move the minerals which they said were piled up for long in godowns. They also stated that the Supreme Court has given directions in this regard.
However, the chief justice pointed out that the apex court did not grant relief to companies to transport the minerals. “The apex court has asked the high court to make the designated bench available to hear the matter,” he added.
Further, flaying the Centre for not filing the counter affidavit on the additional grounds, the bench directed it to file it by June 5. It then adjourned the case to June 7.
The case pertains to illegal mining of beach sand in Kanniyakumari, Tirunelveli and Thoothukudi districts by private mining firms. A committee headed by IAS officer Satybrata Sahoo held inspections and submitted a report finding violations in the mining and transportation of beach sand.
Later, inspections showed that the piled up minerals in sealed godowns were illegally transported by the firms. Subsequently, the government swung into action with recovery notices to the firms demanding payment of royalties along with penalties. The firms then moved court challenging the issuance of show cause notices.
Firms already paid royalty, argue counsels
The counsels claimed that the firms already paid royalty for processed beach sand minerals and hence the stock belonged to them. Accordingly, they must be allowed to move the minerals which they said were piled up for long in godowns. They also stated that the Supreme Court has given directions in this regard