IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.4.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMARAO AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN Writ Appeals No.669 of 2009 AND 1504 of 2009; Writ Petitions No.3557 of 2008, 4637 of 2008; 16152 of 2008; 23930 of 2008; 2234 of 2009; 2765 of 2009; 9637 of 2009 ; 9638 of 2009; 12861 of 2009; 18067 of 2009, 18068 of 2009; 19939 of 2009; 20994 to 20997 of 2009 AND 22866 of 2009. W.A.No.669 of 2009: K.Kathir Kamaraj ... Appellant Vs. 1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District. 2.M.Azagiya 3.I.Vairavan ... Respondents (Respondents 2 and 3 are impleaded as party respondents, vide order of Court dated 2.6.2009 made in M.P.Nos.3 and 6/2009) M.P.No.1 of 2010 in W.A.No.669 of 2009: K.Shankar Raj ... Petitioner Vs. 1.K.Kathir Kamaraj 2.The District Collector, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents W.A.No.1504 of 2009: K.Kathir Kamaraj ... Appellant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to the Department of Industries, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009. 2.The District Collector, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District. 3.The Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai-600032. 4.Mr.M.Azhagaiya ... Respondents W.P.No.3557 of 2008: Mrs.G.Parameswari ... Petitioner Vs. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram ... Respondent W.P.No.4637 of 2008: B.Vadivelmurugan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram. 2.M.C.Ranganathan (R.2 impleaded as per the order of the Court made in M.P.No.1/2009, dt. 17.2.2010) ... Respondents (The order dated 17.2.2010 is recalled today and this respondent is deleted from the array of parties) W.P.No.16152 of 2008: B.Venu ... Petitioner Vs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram. ... Respondent W.P.No.23930 of 2008: C.Sampath ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District. 2.The Deputy Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Krishnagiri District. ... Respondents W.P.No.2234 of 2009: N.Saravanan ... Petitioner Vs. The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram ... Respondent W.P.No.2765 of 2009: S.Thangapandian ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. 2.The Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai-600032. ... Respondents W.P.No.9637 of 2009: S.Santhanam ... Petitioner Vs. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram ... Respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ M.P.No.4 of 2009 in W.P.No.9637 of 2009: M.Aagaiya ... Petitioner Vs. 1.S.Santhanam 2.The District Collector, Kanchepuram District, Kancheepuram ... Respondents W.P.No.9638 of 2009: M.Sekar ... Petitioner Vs. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram ... Respondent W.P.No.12861 of 2009: Grama Kall and Jelly Udaikkum Meetkappatta Kothadimai Boers Nala Sangham, rep.by its President Subash Chandrabose Street, Erumapatti Post and Taluk, Namakkal District. (Regn.No.51/2000) ... Petitioner Vs. The District Collector Namakkal District, Namakkal. ... Respondent W.P.No.18067 of 2009: R.Arumugam ... Petitioner Vs. The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram ... Respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.18068 of 2009: Ms.Angel Mary ... Petitioner Vs. The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram ... Respondent W.P.No.19939 of 2009: V.Anjalai ... Petitioner Vs. The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram District. ... Respondent M.P.No.2 of 2009 in W.P.No.19939 of 2009: Sri Vembi Amman Mahalir Suya Uthavi Kuzhu (SGSY Registration No.117/2003) represented by its Promotor Mrs.Uma ... Petitioner Vs. 1.V.Anjalai 2.The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram. ... Respondents W.P.No.20994 of 2009: M.Kandasamy ... Petitioner Vs. The District Collector, Namakkal Collectorate, Namakkal District. ... Respondent W.P.No.20995 of 2009: M.Duraisamy ... Petitioner Vs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The District Collector, Namakkal Collectorate, Namakkal District. ... Respondent W.P.No.20996 of 2009: S.Ponmalai ... Petitioner Vs. The District Collector, Namakkal Collectorate, Namakkal District. ... Respondent W.P.No.20997 of 2009: S.Thangarasu ... Petitioner Vs. The District Collector, Namakkal Collectorate, Namakkal District. ... Respondent W.P.No.22866 of 2009: S.Muthukumaran ... Petitioner Vs. 1.District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram. 2.District Revenue Officer, Collector Office, Villupuram. 3.Deputy Director of Geology, Collector Office, Villupuram 4.N.Saravanan 5.C.Arputharaj 6.A.Uma Maheswari 7.B.Venu ... Respondents * * * https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ Appeals No.669 and 1504 of 2009 have been filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, as against the common order dated 30.4.2009 respectively made in W.P.Nos.551 of 2009 and 29185 of 2008. WP.No.551/2009: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records from the file of the respondent and quash the order passed by the respondent in proceedings R.C.No. 402 of 2008 daed 2-9-2008 and permit the petitioner quarry operations as well as to transport the qurried materials in respect of Quarry No.4 measuring an extent of 1.32 Hectares, comprised in Survey No. 25/2B part of Thirusoolam Village, Tambaram Taluk, kancheepuram District on payment of Seigniorage fee for a period of 16.9.2008 to 15.9.2013 as per Rule 8(8) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral concession Rules, 1959. WP.No.29185/08: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of mandamus, directing the responents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.12.2008 in the matter of conducting an auction for the quarry No. 4, situated in Survey No. 25/2B of Tirusoolam Village, Kancheepuram District to an extent of 1.32.0 Hectares as early as possible. M.P.No.1 of 2010 in W.A.No.669 of 2009 has been filed under Section 151 C.P.C., praying to implead the petitioner as party respondent, to espouse the cause of 300 families of workmen and secure the ends of justice. W.P.No.3557 of 2008 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus praying to forbear the respondent, his agents, subordinates and men from in any way interfering with the petitioner's right to continue quarry operations in stone quarry measuring 5.00.0 Hectares, comprised in S.No.99, Quarry No.12, situated in Keerapakkam village (Malai Poramboke), Chengalput Taluk, Kancheepuram District and transport the quarried stones on payment of necessary seigniorage for a further period of five years from 19.2.2008 as per Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 on payment of enhanced reasonable lease amount. W.P.No.4637 of 2008 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the respondent, his agents, subordinates and men from in anyway interfering with the petitioner's right to continue quarry operations in respect of petitioner's blue metal Quarry No.10, measuring 5.00.0 hectares, comprised in S.No.99 Part of Keerapakkam village, Chengleput Taluk, Kancheepuram District and consequently to transport the quarried material on payment of seigniorage fee, for a period of five years from 26.2.2008 to 25.2.2013 as per Rule 8(8) of the Tamil https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. W.P.No.16152 of 2008 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent's proceedings bearing Na.Ka.A/Pu & Su/673/08, dated 9.6.2008, pertaining to the stone quarry measuring 2.24.0 Hectares comprised in Survey No.44/1, situated in Thiruvakkarai village, Part 7, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District, quash the same and direct the respondent to grant permission to continue quarry operations for a further period of five years from 17.7.2008 by reconsidering the petitioner's application dated 23.2.2008. W.P.No.23930 of 2008 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to continue the quarry operation in stone quarry measuring about 5 hectares of land situated in S.F.No.86 part IV bounded on the North by S.F.No.86 Part and 85, East by S.F.No.102 South by 86 Part and West by S.F.No.86 Part in Venkeshpuram village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District and transport the quarried materials on payment of necessary seigniorage for a further period of five years as per Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 on payment of enhanced reasonable lease amount. W.P.No.2234 of 2009 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent's proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.A/Mines and Minerals/34/09, dated 24.1.2009, pertaining to the stone quarry measuring 5-00-0 Hectares, comprised in Survey Field No.97/19 (Part) situated in Thiruvakkarai Part-8 village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District, quash the same and direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to continue the quarry operations for a further period of five years from 5.2.2009 in the subject quarry. W.P.No.2765 of 2009 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent's proceedings bearing Rc.No.75/2006/Q1, dated 26.11.2008 as confirmed by the second respondent in proceedings No.Rc.No.18499/MM2/2008, dated 28.1.2009, pertaining to the stone quarry measuring 2-50-0 Hectares, comprised in Survey No.25/2B, bearing Quarry No.2, situated in Trisoolam village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, quash the same and direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner to continue the quarry operations for a further period of five years from the date of permitting the quarry operations as per Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules in the subject quarry by reconsidering the petitioner's representation dated 6.11.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.9637 of 2009 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent's proceedings bearing Rc.No.28/2003-Q1, dated 6.11.2008, pertaining to the stone quarry measuring 2-50-0 hectares, comprised in Survey No.25/2B, bearing Quarry No.3, situated in Trisoolam village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, quash the same and direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to continue the quarry operations for a further period of five years from the date of permitting the quarry operations as per Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules in the subject quarry by reconsidering the petitioner's representation dated 11.10.2008. M.P.No.4 of 2009 in W.P.No.9637 of 2009 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to implead the petitioner as a party respondent to W.P.No.9637 of 2009. W.P.No.9638 of 2009 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent's proceedings bearing Rc.No.298/2006-Q1, dated 12.11.2008, pertaining to the stone quarry measuring 3-40 acres out of the total extent of 5-40 acres, comprised in Survey No.25/2B, bearing Quarry No.1, situated in Trisoolam village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, quash the same and direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to continue the quarry operations for a further period of five years from the date of permitting the quarry opeations as per Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules in the subject quarry by reconsidering the petitioner's representation dated 13.10.2008. W.P.No.12861 of 2009 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to respondent's proceedings in Na.Ka.No.773/2008 mines/c, dated 29.8.2008 and quash the same, directing the respondent to grant stone quarry lease to the petitioner for a further period of five years with respect to stone comprised in S.No.67, Erumaipatty village and Taluk, over an extent of 0.40.0 Hectares. W.P.No.18067 of 2009 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No.Aa/Pu&Su/861/09 and dated 7.8.2009 and quash the same as illegal, erroneous, arbitrary, unsustainable in law and on facts and consequently direct the respondent to extend the lease for a further period of five years from 16.8.2009 as per Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules and on payment of enhanced reasonable lease amount, towards the stone quarry operations in the lands measuring 1.73.5 hectares comprised in S.No.393/1, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Malaikottalam village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District. W.P.No.18068 of 2009 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No.Aa/Pu&Su/756/09 and dated 6.8.2009 and quash the same as illegal, erroneous, arbitrary, unsustainable in law and on facts and consequently direct the respondent to extend the lease for a further period of five years from 13.9.2009 as per Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessions Rules and payment of enhanced reasonable lease amount, towards the stone quarry operations in the lands measuring 1.00.0 hectares comprised in S.No.346/1, Kachirapalayam village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District. W.P.No.19939 of 2009 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No.Aa/Pu & Ka./2508/08 and dated 6.8.2009 and quash the same as illegal, erroneous, arbitrary, unsustainable in law and on facts and consequently direct the respondent to extend the lease for a further period of five years from 4.7.2009 as per Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules and on payment of enhanced reasonable lease amount, towards the stone quarry operations in the lands measuring 2.81.5 hectares comprised in S.No.393/1, Malaikottalam village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District. M.P.No.2 of 2009 in W.P.No.19939 of 2009 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to implead the petitioner as a party respondent in W.P.No.19939 of 2009. Writ Petition No.20994 of 2009 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent, his agents, subordinates and men from in anyway interfering with the petitioner's right to continue quarry operations in stone quarry measuring 1.49.0 hectares in Survey No.26/1 at R.Pudupatty, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District and transport the quarried stones on payment of necessary seigniorage for a further period of five years from 7.2.2010 as per Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 on payment of enhanced reasonable lease amount. Writ PetitionNo.20995 of 2009 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent, his agents, subordinates and men from in anyway interfering with the petitioner's right to continue quarry operations in stone quarry measuring 0.86.0 hectares in Survey No.85/1 at Thengalpalayam, Namakkal District and transport the quarried stones on payment of necessary seigniorage for a further period of five years from 7.2.2010 as per Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 on payment of enhanced https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reasonable lease amount. Writ Petition No.20996 of 2009 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent, his agents, subordinates and men from in anyway interfering with the petitioner's right to continue quarry operations in stone quarry measuring 1.57.0 hectares in Survey No.35/2 at Kunavelampatty, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District and transport the quarried stones on payment of necessary seigniorage for a further period of five years from 7.2.2010 as per Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 on payment of enhanced reasonable lease amount. W.P.No.20997 of 2009 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent, his agents, subordinates and men from in any way interfering with the petitioner's right to continue quarry operations in stone quarry measuring 1.00.0 hectares in Survey No.149 at Athanoor, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District and transport the quarried stones on payment of necessary seigniorage fee for a further period of five years from 7.2.2010 as per Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 on payment of enhanced reasonable lease amount. W.P.No.22866 of 2009 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writs an orders or directions and move particularly issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioners representation dt.27.2.2009 to stop the respondent No.4 to 7 from continuing to quarry in Part No.9 in Survey No.97/17 (5 hectares), Part No.10 in Survey No.103/4 and 128/1 (1.50.0 hectares), Part No.8 in Survey No.97/57 (4.87.5 hectares) and Part No.7 in Survey No.44/1 (2.24.0 hectares) respectively in Thiruvakkarai Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District. * * * For appellants in W.A.Nos.669, : Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Sr.Counsel 1504/2009 for Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy and for petitioners in W.P.Nos.3557/08, 16152/08, 2765/09, 967/09. 9638/09 and 2234/2009 For petitioner in : Mr.R.Thiyagajan,Sr.Counsel W.P.No.4637/2008 for Mr.P.Arivudainambi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioners in W.P.Nos.20994 to : Mr.K.Selvaraj 20997/2009 For petitioner in : M/s.Selvi George W.P.No.23930/08 For petitioner in : Mr.A.Paramasivam W.P.No.12861/09 For petitioner in : Mr.P.Varjavelu W.P.No.19939/09 For petitioner in : Mr.Balan Haridas W.P.No.22866/09 For petitioners in W.P.Nos.18067 & 18068/2009 : Mr.AR.M.Arunachalam For petitioner in M.P.No.2/2009 in : M/s.R.Karthikeyan & W.P.No.19939/2009 : R.Bharanidharan For official respondents: Mr.P.S.Raman, A.G. in all the matters :assisted by Mr.R.Thirugnanam, Spl.G.P. R1 in WA.669/09 R1 to R3 in WA 1504/09 R1 in WP.Nos.3557, 4637, for Respondents 16152/08, 2234, 9637, 9638, Mr.P.S.Raman 12861, 18067, 18068, 19939, Advocate General 20994 to 20997/09 Assisted by Mr.R.Thirugnanam,Spl.GP R1 & R2 in WP.23930/08, WP.2765/09 R1 to R3 in WP.22866/09 * * * COMMON JUDGMENT ELIPE DHARMARAO, J. Since in all these matters, similar questions of law are involved, they all are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts in gist, of the above cases are extracted below: W.A.Nos.669 and 1504 of 2009: 3. Pursuant to the notification published in the District Gazette, dated 19.12.2002, by the District Collector, Kancheepuram, inviting applications for the grant of lease to quarry stones, through tender/auction in the lands comprised in various Survey Numbers in several villages of Kancheepuram District, the appellant in both the appeals by name K.Kathir Kamaraj applied for and became the highest bidder for Quarry No.4 in Survey No.25/2B, Tirusoolam village in an extent of 1.32.0 hectares and executed a deed of lease on 16.9.2003, for quarrying rights for a period of five years, i.e. upto 15.9.2008. While the said lease period was about to expire, the lessee K.Kathir Kamaraj made a request to the District Collector on 15.5.2008, seeking extension of lease for a further period of five years on the ground that the quarry for which the lease was granted was a virgin quarry and therefore, by virtue of Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, the lease ought to have been for a period of ten years in the case of virgin quarries. Thereafter, he also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.22068 of 2008, claiming that the application for renewal is pending and thus sought for a writ of mandamus to forbear the authorities from interfering with his right to continue the quarrying operations till the expiry of another five years period from the date of expiry of the original lease in which an order of interim injunction was granted on 8.9.2008. However, even by the time the interim order was granted, the District Collector had already passed an order dated 2.9.2008, rejecting the request for extension of the period of lease on the ground that the quarry in question was not a virgin quarry. Challenging the said order, the appellant has filed W.P.No.551 of 2009. In view of the rejection order passed by the District Collector, the first writ petition filed by the appellant in W.P.No.22068 of 2008 was dismissed. 4. Even before the filing of the above said W.P.No.551 of 2009 by the appellant herein, one M.Azagaiya (R.2 in W.A.No.669 of 2009 and R.4 in W.A.No.1504 of 2009) has filed W.P.No.29185 of 2008, praying to direct the official respondents to consider his representation dated 6.12.2008 in the matter of conducting auction for the Quarry No.4, situated in Survey No.25/2B of Tirusoolam village, Kancheepuram District, to an extent of 1.32.0 hectares as early as possible. Since both the above said Writ Petitions pertain to the same quarry, the learned single Judge has taken up both the matters together and upholding the stand of the District Collector that it is not a virgin quarry, but an existing quarry and therefore, the provisions of Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules have no application to the issue of quarry in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ question, has dismissed W.P.No.551 of 2009 filed by the present appellant (lessee) and disposed of W.P.No.22068 of 2008, with a direction to the District Collector, Kancheepuram to go ahead with the process of notifying the quarry No.4 for the purpose of grant of lease and act in accordance with law. Even during the pendency of the above said two writ petitions, one I.Vairavan, (R.3 in W.A.No.669 of 2009) has filed a petition to implead him as a party respondent to W.P.No.551 of 2009, opposing the claim of the petitioner therein i.e. the appellant herein, stating that he is the resident of Tirusoolam Panchayat and also an elected member of the Tirusoolam Panchayat and if the appellant is allowed to continue with his quarry operations, it will prevent other persons, such as himself (I.Vairavan) who are interested in bidding for a lease of quarry at a fresh auction. Though the learned single Judge had permitted the learned counsel for the said I.Vairavan to present his submissions, the said petition was dismissed holding that he is not a necessary party to the writ petition. 5. Aggrieved at the decision of the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.29185 of 2008 and 551 of 2009, these appeals are preferred by the lessee. During the pendency of W.A.No.669 of 2009, the above said Azagaiya and I.Varaivan have filed M.P.Nos.3 and 6 of 2009 respectively, to implead them as party respondents and both the said petitions having been allowed, they are brought on record as respondents 2 and 3 in W.A.No.669 of 2009. 6. Subsequently, one K.Shankar Raj, has filed M.P.No.1 of 2010 praying to implead him as a party respondent to W.A.No.669 of 2009. In his affidavit, he would submit that he is a public spirited citizen and Ex-Councillor of Thirusoolam Panchayat and eking out his livelihood by working as worker in the stone quarries; that originally Society was formed in the name of Thirusoolam Anna Harijan Blue Metal Workers Labour Contract Cooperative Society Ltd. and earlier the stone quarries were given to the said Society and the Society was not in a position to administer the quarries as lease not renewed; that the workmen numbering 1600 scattered to various quarries and eking out their livelihood in and around Thirusoolam area; that nearly 300 workmen of the erstwhile Harijan Society members are working in the appellant quarry over seven years and their families are fully depending upon the said quarry; that all the workmen are hailing from S.C.community and originally migrated from Tirunelveli District; that himself and other workmen are working over a period of 40 years in the stone quarries; that the entire womenfolk are also working as coolies in the said quarries; that the imminent threat of closure of the quarry would result in non-employment to three hundred families; that the entire workmen are working more than 240 days in a calendar year over a period of seven years and hence they are entitled to notice and compensation under Section 25-F of the I.D.Act and further on humane consideration of their past services to be recognised and are entitled to compensate. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the impleaded parties sail along with the learned Advocate General to contend that Quarry No.4, for which the appellant seeks extension of lease on the ground that it is a virgin quarry, is not a virgin quarry but an existing quarry and hence, the prayer of the appellant cannot be considered and that the learned single Judge has properly appreciated this aspect and has rightly rejected the claim of the lessee, wherein no interference need be made by this Court. W.P.Nos.3557 of 2008 and 4637 of 2008: 8. Coming to the case of the petitioners in these writ petitions, it has been submitted by them that they are the successful bidders for the quarry lease of respective Quarry Nos.12 (situated in S.No.99) and 10 situated in Survey No.99 Part of Keerapakkam village, Chengleput Taluk, admeasuring an extent of 5.00.0 hectares each, having been carved out from and out of a major extent of around 200 acres, classified as 'malai poramboke' in the revenue records and to augment the revenue to the Government, the respondent has sub-divided the said area as very