IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.8.2009 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI Writ Petition Nos.7421 & 10414 of 2009 S.Krishnamoorthy .. Petitioner in W.P.No.7421/09 SRC Projects (Private) Limited rep. by its Chief Executive Paramasivam 4-B, Lakshmipuram Gandhi Road Petitioner in Salem 636 007. .. W.P.No.10414/09 Vs. The District Collector Salem District Salem. The Deputy Director Geology & Mining Collectorate Respondents in Salem. .. both W.Ps. ----- Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus for the relief as stated therein calling for the records of the Respondents relating to the order of the 1st respondnet in proceeding NO. 802/2008 /Mines -A and 815/2008 Mines-A respectively dated 04.02.2009 and quah the same and direct the ist respondent herein to forthwith grant lease to the petitioner herein for quarrying rough stone in Survey No. 106/2, (part 5) and 106/2 (Part 4) respectively of an exent of 3.00.0 hectares of Gejjainaickenpatty by extending the period fixed in the proceedings of the Ist respondent in R.C.NO. 352/2003/Mines -A and R.C.No.351/2003 Mines B respectively dated 09.07.2003 as per Rule 8 (8) of Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules ----- For Petitioners : Mr.Kandhan Duraisami For Respondents : Mr.I.Paranthaman, Addl.G.P. ----- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R The writ petitions are directed against the orders of the first respondent dated 4.2.2009, by which, the first respondent rejected the claim of the petitioners for extending the period of quarry fixed by the proceedings dated 9.7.2003, as per Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, on the ground that Rules does not permit such extension. 2. A further reference to the impugned orders makes it clear that there is nothing on record to show that extension of lease has been given to any stone quarry earlier. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is specifically stated in paragraph 9 that the quarry in question was a virgin quarry as on 24.11.2003, which reads as under: "I submit that the having the Hon'ble Court raised doubt above para 7 of the impugned order that whether the said land was vergin or old quarry, this respondent enquired the same with 2nd respondent, in turn, on 16.6.2009, the second respondent clarified the then 2nd respondent in this regard, to that, the then 2nd respondent replied on 16.6.2009 (the same day) that while he conducted physical field inspection, he saw same old pits, which was done by the local people 10 years ago for forming panchayat road. Hence he did mention neither vergin nor period of lease to quarry. Since the Hon'ble Court directed in particular to conduct enquiry to find any documents available for earlier quarry, since No document was available, the contention of the same was passed an order and in other works, after clarification from then 2nd respondent dated 16.6.2009. It was a vergin quarry as on 24.11.2003." 4. Under Rule 8, period of lease for quarrying stone in respect of virgin area is ten years, which reads as under: "The period of lease for quarrying stone in respect of the virgin areas, which have not been subjected to quarrying so far, shall be ten years. The period of lease for quarrying stone in respect of other areas shall be five years. The period of lease for quarrying sand and other minor minerals, other than the minerals covered under rules 8-A and 8-C of the said rules, shall not exceed three years and shall not be less than one year and shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:- (i) The date of commencement of the period of lease https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ granted under this rule shall be the date on which the lease deed is executed. (ii)The lease shall expire on the date specified in the lease deed and in no case extension of the period of lease shall be made." 5. On the facts of the present case, the petitioners were granted licence in 2003, for a period of five years, to quarry rough stone in survey No.106/2 (Part 5) and (Part 4) respectively of an extent of 3.00.0 hectares of Government poramboke land at Gejjalnaickenapatty Village, Salem Taluk, Salem District. Even before the completion of five years, the petitioners made an application under Rule 8(8) for extension of further period of five years and the same were rejected for the reasons stated above. 6. As per the specific admission in the counter affidavit that permission granted to the petitioners for stone quarry is a virgin quarry under Rule 8(8), the petitioners are entitled for ten years lease. Now that the petitioners have completed only five years, as per the Rule, they are entitled to extension of another five years. 7. In the circumstances, the impugned orders are set aside with direction to the first respondent/District Collector to consider the application of the petitioners and grant lease for a further period of five years as per Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules and subject to other conditions including payment of seigniorage fee and other criteria. Such order shall be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of application of the petitioners. The writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009, in each writ petition, are closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar kpl To 1. The District Collector, Salem District, Salem. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Deputy Director, Geology & Mining, Collectorate, Salem. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.42332 +2 cc to M/s.Muthumani Doraisami, Advocate, SR.No.42180,42178 W.P.Nos.7421 & 10414 of 2009 KSK {CO} TP/31.8.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/