The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has sought responses from Tamil Nadu’s Mineral Resources Department commissioner, Archaeology Department director and district collector over a plea seeking a halt to quarrying near Oonan Karadu, also known as Perumal Malai, in Madurai district. The court raised concerns about protecting the hill and its archaeological remains before the next hearing on November 2.
The case concerns a hillock located near Peraiyur, at S Pappinayakkanpatti and P Sankaralingapuram. The petitioner, Pethanan, president of the Nammalvar Nature Protection Association, told the court that the hill contains archaeological features including burial urns and Vatteluttu inscriptions. The petition claims that permission has been granted for a stone quarry in the area and that quarrying could damage both the archaeological remains and the natural resources of the hill.
A division bench comprising Justices P Velmurugan and K K Ramesh Krishnan heard the public interest litigation. The Tamil Nadu government sought additional time to file its response. During the hearing, the judges questioned the government’s priorities, observing that protecting natural hill resources was more important than protecting liquor shops and asking whether natural resources could be recovered after being exploited.
The court’s direction places the immediate responsibility for clarifying the quarry’s status on three authorities. The Mineral Resources Department is expected to address the permissions and regulatory basis for quarrying. The Archaeology Department has been asked to respond on the reported heritage features, while the district collector is also required to file a response on the local administration’s position.
The petition links two separate public responsibilities at the site: preventing damage to a natural hill and safeguarding physical evidence of the region’s past. The claims regarding the burial urns, inscriptions and quarry permission remain matters to be addressed through the responses ordered by the court. No final ruling stopping quarrying was reported in the supplied account.
The proceedings also underline the role of public interest litigation in bringing potential conflicts between mineral extraction, environmental protection and heritage conservation before the judiciary. The next procedural milestone is the filing of responses by the Mineral Resources Department commissioner, Archaeology Department director and district collector on November 2.
