IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.No.8581 of 2008 M/s.Allirajan Mines, Rep. by its Proprietor Allirajan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9. 2. The District Collector, Nilgiris, Udagamand. ... Respondents Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the first respondent dated 5.2.2008 in G.O.No.11 and to quash the same. For petitioner : Mr.S.Vijayakumar For respondents : Mr.B.Vijay, G.A. **** O R D E R The petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the impugned order passed by the Secretary to Government, Industries Department, rejecting the request of the petitioner for renewal of mining lease. 2. It is not disputed that on refusal of Government to renew the lease, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.7618 of 2003, which was decided on 14.07.2003. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under: "In the circumstance stated above, I direct the first respondent / State Government to renew the lease of the petitioner as per law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent/Government, while dealing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with the renewal is at liberty to consider all the relevant aspects required for renewal. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected WPMP is closed." 3. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court, the impugned order has been passed rejecting the request of the petitioner for renewal of lease. 4. The impugned order on the face of it contemptuous, being against the order passed by this Court. This Court while disposing of the W.P.No.7618 of 2003, had issued a specific direction to the first respondent, to renew the lease within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The liberty was given to the respondent to impose conditions permissible under law for renewal of lease, which the petitioner is bound to comply with. The order passed by this Court did not permit the respondent to refuse renewal. It liberty was to be given to the respondents even to refuse renewal, in that event this Court after setting aside the impugned order, could have remanded the case to the authorities for fresh decision in accordance with law. This Court on the other hand passed a specific order, directing the respondents to renew the lease within two months. 5. The impugned order being contrary to the order passed by this Court, therefore cannot be sustained. 6. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order, rejecting the request of the petitioner for renewal of lease, is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondents to renew lease of the petitioner in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.7618 of 2003 decided on 14.7.2003. 7. It is made clear that respondents shall be bound to renewe the lease, but will be at liberty to impose all the conditions under the law, and the petitioner shall be under legal obligation, to comply with all such conditions as stipulated for renewal of lease. No costs. vaan Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu, Industries Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9. 2. The District Collector, Nilgiris, Udagamand. + 1 cc to Mr. S. Vijayakumar, Advocate SR No.11936 + 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.12095 MRD(CO) SR/3.3.2011 W.P.No.8581 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/