IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.10.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.1038 of 2003 M.P.Kanakan .. Petitioner vs. 1. Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, (Industries Department), For St. George, Chennai-9 2. The Director of Geology & Mining Guindy, Chennai 3. The Collector Dharmapuri District .. Respondents This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the file of the respondents 1 to 3 in proceedings No.Na.Ka.9/2001, dated 30.3.2001; proceedings No.RC.7998/2001, dated 3.7.2001 and G.O.Ms.No.D/287 dated 8.11.2002 quash the same and further direct the respondents to grant time to the petitioner to pay the balance bid amount in respect of sand quarry in survey No.20/Part 3 in Kangaleri Village, Krishnagiri Taluk, Dharmapuri District or refund the amount of Rs.1,91,500/- paid by the petitioner. For petitioner : Mr.K.V.Sanjeev Kumar For Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar Government Advocate O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties concerned. 2. The facts, in a nutshell, are as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ It has been stated that, in accordance with the notification published in the Government Gazette, on 21.12.2000, an auction was conducted, on 11.1.2001, with regard to sand quarry in S.No.20/Part 3 measuring 10 hectares in Kangaleri Village, Krishnagiri Taluk, Dharmapuri District. In the said auction conducted, on 11.1.2001, the petitioner was the successful bidder for a sum of Rs.19,15,000/- and the petitioner has paid 10% of the bid amount, viz., Rs.1,91,500/-. The petitioner had also paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- as the security deposit, while participating in the auction, as per the conditions forming part of the auction notification. 3. It has been further stated that the petitioner had to pay the balance amount of Rs.16,98,500/-, within seven days from the date of the said auction. However, since the petitioner had fallen ill, he was not able to pay the said amount, within the stipulated time. 4. It has been further stated that the petitioner had requested for extension of time for payment of the balance amount. However, on 30.3.2001, the third respondent, had passed an order stating that the amount of Rs.1,91,500/- and the security deposit of Rs.25,000/-, paid by the petitioner, had been forfeited, under Rule 8(5)(vii) of the Tamil Nadu Miner Mineral Concessions Rules, 1959. Against the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the same was dismissed, on 3.7.2001, on the ground that the appeal was filed with a delay of 23 days and that there is no provision to condone the delay. 5. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 7. Mr.K.V.Sanjeev Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the rejection of the request of the petitioner for extention of time for the payment of the balance amount and for the condonation of delay in preferring the appeals are arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The second respondent had dismissed the appeal, without applying his mind and without following the provisions of law. 8. On the contrary, Mr.P.Muthukumar, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, has resisted the contentions of the petitioner stating that there is no provision for the return of the Earnest Money Deposit and also the security deposit, paid by the petitioner. In fact, Rule 8(5)(vii) of the Tamil Nadu Miner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mineral Concessions Rules, 1959, is very clear in stating that the Earnest Money Deposit and also the security deposit paid by the petitioner would be fortified, if the balance amount is not paid. Further, it was also one of the conditions specified in the auction notification. In such circumstances, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition are not sustainable in the eye of law. 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, it is clear that the impugned orders passed by the respondents, rejecting the request of the petitioner, are in accordance with Rule 8(5)(vii) of the Tamil Nadu Miner Mineral Concessions Rules, 1959. It is also seen that there is no provision for the returning of the Earnest Money Deposit and the security deposit paid by the petitioner. Further, one of the conditions specified in the auction notification makes it clear that the said amounts would not be returned to the petitioner on his failure to pay the balance amount as the successful bidder in the public auction. 10. In such circumstances, this Court finds no cause or reason to interfere with the impugned orders challenged in the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Lan Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To: 1. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu (Industries Department), For St. George, Chennai-9 2. The Director of Geology & Mining Guindy, Chennai 3. The Collector Dharmapuri District + 1 cc to the Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate SR no. 57938 + 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.57750 MS(CO) SR/29.10.2008 W.P.No.1038 of 2003 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/