M.M. Sundresh, J. - (1.)THESE appeals are against the common order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed challenging the impugned show cause notices issued to the appellants.
(2.)FACTS in Brief: - -
"2.1. The appellants have been granted mining lease by the District Collector, Madurai, (hereinafter referred to as the "respondent"). As numerous complaints have been received from the general public by the respondent, taking note of the nature of the complaints qua number of lessees, he constituted a Special Team comprising of officials from the Departments of Revenue, Survey and Geology and Mining to carry out a comprehensive inspection of the leasehold areas. Accordingly, a detailed report was filed pointing out several infirmities against lessees including the appellants.

2.2. On a consideration of the report filed, the respondent in exercise of the power conferred under Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") called upon the appellants to appear for personal hearing to show cause as to why the said report shall not be accepted and acted upon. Along with the show cause notices issued, a copy of the Inspection cum Evaluation Report with Sketch was duly furnished. Challenging these show cause notices issued, all the appellants before us have filed writ petitions before the learned single Judge.

2.3. The learned single Judge, by an elaborate common order, dismissed the writ petitions holding that there is no pre -determination or pre -conception in issuing the impugned notices. The other contentions raised were also duly considered and rejected by the learned single Judge. Being aggrieved against the said common order passed, these writ appeals have been preferred by the appellants."

(3.)SUBMISSIONS of the Appellants: - -
"The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the impugned notices are liable to be set aside being preconceived and prejudged. Since the respondent has pre -determined the entire issues, there is no point in appearing before him. The impugned notices ought not to have been issued based upon the report of the Special Team, which was made behind the back of the appellants. The respondent cannot fix 90% recovery as against the decision taken earlier. After the issuance of the impugned notices, the respondent has filed criminal cases and therefore, in view of the said subsequent developments, they are liable to be set aside. Under Section 18 -A of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, a separate mechanism is provided towards appropriate investigations. The said methodology has not been adopted in the present case. There is no power available to the respondent to invoke Section 21(5) of the Act. In support of the submissions, the following judgments have been relied upon.

SIEMENS LTD., V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( : (2006) 12 Supreme Court Cases 33);

Oryx FISHERIES PRIVATE LIMITED V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( : (2010) 13 Supreme Court Cases 427)."

Submissions of the Respondent: - -

"The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that there is no pre -determination involved. Based upon the report of the Special Team alone the respondent has initiated the proceedings. What has been recorded therein is only prima facie. As complaints have been received from different quarters, Special Teams have been constituted and based upon the report given, action is sought to be taken. The report, being a piece of evidence, a final decision would be taken only after considering the relevant materials, including the reply to be given by the appellants."