Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 11-11-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Baghya Laksmi, farmer residing at 5/63 Muthugoundanur Village, Palaarpathi Post, Kinathukadavu Taluk, Coimbatore, who cultivates agricultural land, silkworms and coconut.
  • Respondents: (1) District Collector, Coimbatore; (2) Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Tamil Nadu; (3) Joint Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Coimbatore; (4) Tahsildar, Kinathukadavu Taluk; (5) M/s TVL Pollachi Granites (represented by authorised person).
  • Original quarry lease (granted 2022) allowed extraction of 352,210 m³ rough stone and 30,619 m³ gravel from 2.42 ha at S.F.No.444/1, Sokkanur Village, depth up to 27 m, with environmental clearance dated 28‑03‑2022.
  • Petitioners previously approached the National Green Tribunal (NGT) (O.A.No.138 of 2022) seeking injunction; NGT dismissed on 25‑05‑2023. A writ petition (W.P.No.17905 of 2023) was also dismissed.
  • The impugned order (Rc.No.1727/ Mines/2020 dated 13‑11‑2025) granted a modified mining plan: reserve of 487,058 metric tonnes rough stone and 36,266 metric tonnes gravel, mining depth increased to 62 m, with environmental clearance dated 24‑03‑2026.
  • Respondents argued that earlier environmental concerns were fully considered, safety distance of 7.5 m maintained, and groundwater in the hard‑rock terrain lies at 70‑90 m depth.
  • Fifth respondent submitted two hydrogeological reports: (a) Senior Hydrogeologist G. Kanagarajan (water table at 7.3 m, water‑yielding formation 9‑26 m) for the original plan; (b) Dr R. Suresh, Associate Professor, Periyar University (groundwater below 100 m, aquifers at 110‑115 m) for the modified plan.
  • A statutory appeal (Appeal No. 17 of 2026) challenging the environmental clearance is pending before the NGT.
  • Counsel for petitioner highlighted the change in hydrogeological data and alleged personal enmity, while counsel for respondents maintained that the petition is an abuse of process.
  • The Court referred to Supreme Court judgments (Deepak Kumar vs State of Haryana, M.C. Metha vs Union of India, Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India, State of Telangana vs Mohd. Abdul Qasim) emphasizing the need to consider groundwater interception and depletion when approving or modifying mining plans.

Final Outcome

1. The petitioner's prayer is refused.

2. Notwithstanding the modified mining plan, the Joint Director (third respondent) shall:

  • Engage two hydrogeological experts, one from Anna University and one from IIT‑Madras.
  • Inspect the area (Muthukaundanur Village, Palaarpathi Post, Kinathukadavu Taluk, Coimbatore District).
  • Obtain a comprehensive report on all aspects of the groundwater table, including any interference or depletion attributable to the mining permission.
  • If concerns are identified, give the fifth respondent an opportunity of hearing and pass further orders in accordance with Rules 41 and 42 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.
  • Complete the above exercise within four months from receipt of the website‑uploaded copy of this order.

3. No costs are awarded.

4. All connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Topics: Groundwater Impact, Mining Regulation