PIL with false allegations axed, petitioner fined Rs 50,000- The New Indian Express

[ad_1]

By Express News Service

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed a PIL after it was found that it falsely accused owners of licensed quarries in Nagapattinam of operating illegally, and was with an intention to blackmail them. The court also imposed Rs 50,000 as costs on the petitioner after the government submitted that it was in fact the petitioner, who was involved in illegal quarrying cases.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, observed that the petitioner, R Silambarasan, was obliged to ascertain facts before filing the petition and cannot plead ignorance about the quarry leases granted as per law. We further find that the petitioner has criminal track record, which includes a case under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, it added.

The petitioner, in his plea, had said that he had made a representation to the geology and mines department seeking action against illegal quarrying. However, he failed to implead any of the alleged illegal quarry owners in the petition. Government pleader P Muthukumar submitted that documents which showed the lease for quarrying in the land, mentioned in the petition, was granted with conditions. The allegation that it was an illegal quarry was wrong, he added.

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed a PIL after it was found that it falsely accused owners of licensed quarries in Nagapattinam of operating illegally, and was with an intention to blackmail them. The court also imposed Rs 50,000 as costs on the petitioner after the government submitted that it was in fact the petitioner, who was involved in illegal quarrying cases. The bench, headed by Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, observed that the petitioner, R Silambarasan, was obliged to ascertain facts before filing the petition and cannot plead ignorance about the quarry leases granted as per law. We further find that the petitioner has criminal track record, which includes a case under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, it added. The petitioner, in his plea, had said that he had made a representation to the geology and mines department seeking action against illegal quarrying. However, he failed to implead any of the alleged illegal quarry owners in the petition. Government pleader P Muthukumar submitted that documents which showed the lease for quarrying in the land, mentioned in the petition, was granted with conditions. The allegation that it was an illegal quarry was wrong, he added.

[ad_2]