A.Dennis Gold vs. The District Collector

Held

The Court directed the District Collector to conduct surprise inspections and initiate appropriate action against any offenders found to be illegally collecting money. The petitioner was advised to submit a complaint to the District Collector, stating that even such information would be sufficient for the Collector to take action. The Court emphasized that the District Collector must take all necessary steps to prevent the illegal collection of money by the third respondent. Furthermore, the Court warned that in the event of any lapses on the part of the authorities concerned, they would be subjected to disciplinary proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, and no order as to costs was made. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, A. Dennis Gold, Secretary of Nagercoil Region Stone, Sand Lorry and Mini Lorry Owners Welfare Association, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus. The petition aimed to direct the District Collector and the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining (respondents 1 and 2) to implement a circular issued by the District Collector on July 9, 2018. This circular was intended to prevent the third respondent, Lax Blue Metals Private Limited, from illegally collecting an excess charge of Rs. 200/- for every transit receipt and from collecting amounts over and above the GST bill receipt for minerals for every load. The petitioner alleged that despite the circular and a resolution passed by the District Collector, this illegal collection was continuing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents 1 and 2 (District Collector and Assistant Director of Geology and Mining) are obligated to implement the circular dated 09.07.2018 issued by the 1st respondent, thereby preventing the 3rd respondent (Lax Blue Metals Private Limited) from illegally collecting an excess charge of Rs. 200/- per transit receipt and amounts over and above the GST bill receipt for minerals? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the third respondent was illegally collecting Rs. 200/- in addition to the tax amount payable by lorry owners. They contended that despite a circular and resolution from the District Collector prohibiting such additional collections, the illegal practice persisted, causing grievance to the petitioner. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or state respondents beyond their role in implementing the circular. The court's directions imply an expectation of action from these authorities.