Mother Earth Can Only Feed Us for Our Needs—Not Greed: Madras High Court Slams Mining Violations, Upholds ₹32 Crore Penalty

“Fraud Is a Blot on Governance—A False Front Created to Loot the State”, Madras High Court exposing what it termed as “fraudulent, unconscionable, and shocking to one's conscience” conduct by both the quarry operator and complicit government officers. Upholding a penalty of ₹32.29 crores imposed for extensive illegal mining, the Court declared that any attempt to dilute liability or revive quarry operations was a “deception that left Mother Earth battered and bruised.”

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy condemned the earlier appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Geology and Mining, which had slashed the penalty and reinstated quarrying despite clear evidence of large-scale illegal extraction. “The entire exercise points only towards extraneous considerations. This was not regulation—it was facilitation of plunder,” the Court remarked.

The petitioner, Managing Director of M/s YENCEES Blue Metals Pvt. Ltd., held leases for multiple quarries in Puravipalayam village, Coimbatore. Following complaints of illegal mining by one K.A. Radhakrishnan, a Joint Committee inspection revealed unauthorized quarrying of nearly 6 lakh cubic metres of rough stone and gravel, including from non-lease patta lands.

Based on this, the Sub-Collector, Pollachi, levied a penalty of ₹32.29 crores on January 29, 2022. However, this was overturned by the Commissioner in a shocking order dated November 25, 2022, reducing the penalty to just ₹2.48 crores and permitting the petitioner to resume quarry operations after paying a token ₹25 lakhs.

The High Court noted, “The commissioner completely gave a goby to the actual quantities mined, left out gravel entirely, and imposed a meagre fine with no reasoning. Worse still, the petitioner was allowed to continue mining—this is nothing short of administrative surrender.”

The key issue was whether the Government rightly exercised its revision powers under Rule 40 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, to restore the original penalty and revoke quarrying permission. The Court held that the government’s intervention was not only proper but necessary in the face of brazen illegality and abuse of discretion.

Justice Chakravarthy relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Common Cause v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 499, which mandates 100% recovery of the value of illegally extracted minerals and a penalty of up to 15 times the seigniorage fee. He observed:

“There can be no compromise on the quantum of compensation... it should be 100%. The violator must bear the consequences and not be rewarded by keeping 70% of the loot.”

The Court found the conduct of the Commissioner “unfathomable and unimaginable,” declaring that: “The order passed by the 2nd respondent was a deception... It represented a false front that cheated the government and the people out of lawful dues.”

The Court noted that the licensee had not only violated the lease terms but had mined in unauthorized areas, transported minerals without valid permits, and left a trail of ecological damage. “This is not deviation. This is deliberate and criminal looting,” the Court said.

On the issue of natural justice, the Court firmly held: “Fraud is anathema to natural justice. No procedural protection can shield an action that is a calculated deception.”

Calling out a “deep-rooted conspiracy” involving administrative complicity, Justice Chakravarthy ordered criminal prosecution of the petitioner under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and directed the State to initiate a vigilance inquiry against all officials involved.

“The revised mining plan was not regulation—it was an official license to loot,” the Court remarked, adding, “Article 48A of the Constitution mandates protection of the environment. The authorities have abdicated their constitutional duty.”

In upholding the ₹32.29 crore penalty and ordering criminal proceedings, the Court has drawn a firm line against corruption in mining governance. The judgment is a blistering call for accountability, environmental protection, and the end of what the Court called “a shameless betrayal of public trust.”

Date of Decision: May 22, 2025