IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :10.01.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.No.8381 of 2004 G.Subramani ... Petitioner vs. 1. The Collector, Vellore District Vellore. 2. The Assistant Director of Mines Collector office Vellore. 3. The District Forest Office Vellore Division Vellore. ... Respondents Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the proceedings in Na.Ka. No.316/03 dated 07.12.2003 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and the first respondent has to be directed to permit the petitioner to quarry for further period of 1 year 2 months and 12 days in S.No.193 (Part 6) in Kizhminnal village, Wallajah Taluk, Vellore District, of an extent of 2 acres and pass other orders. For Petitioner : Mr. Aravind for Ms. Hemalatha For Respondents : Mr.A.Arumugam,AGP ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the proceedings of the fist respondent and further directing him to permit the petitioner to quarry for a further period of one year 2 months and 12 days and for further orders. 2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner was a lessee in respect of surveyNo.193 Part, Kizhminnal village, Walajah Taluk, Vellore District, for the purpose of quarrying blue metal stones, for a period of five years, from 31.08.1998 to 30.08.2003 and the lease was executed on 31.08.1988. While he was carrying on his quarrying business, before the expiry of the lease period, the second respondent, without any notice, threatened the petitioner to vacate from the site which necessitated the petitioner to file a writ petition in W.P.No.12932 of 2002 praying for a writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents therein, from interfering with his peaceful possession and running of blue metal stone quarrying in S.No.193 Part. This Court, in WMP No.1709 of 2002 granted an interim injunction by order dated 17.04.2002, directing the respondents therein, not to interfere with the petitioner's right to quarry in the subject land, pending disposal of the writ petition. However, the petitioner was not allowed to quarry. The third respondent filed an application in the said writ petition for impleading himself as a party to the writ petition and another application to vacate the interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner. Further, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a notification under Section 16 of the Forest Act, in G.O.Ms.No.2,Environment and Forest (FR.XIV) dated 08;01.1999 and notified the entire subject land as reserved forest. Aggrieved by the said Government Order dated 08.01.1999, the petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P.No.22111 of 2002, praying for a writ of certiorari, to quash the said Government Order, in so far as the lands in possession of the petitioner and the said writ petition is pending on the file of this Court. 3. It is further case of the petitioner that the petition filed to vacate the interim injunction by the third respondent was dismissed by order dated 24.04.2003. Subsequent to the said order, the first respondent by his proceedings dated 14.06.2003 confirmed the lease of the petitioner to quarry for five years. He was prevented to quarry for the period from 01.04.2002 to 24.06.2003 ie., one year and 83 days, even before the expiry of the lease period, and only from 24.06.2003, the petitioner was allowed to quarry blue metals without any disturbance. Since he had not quarried for the entire period, he made a representation dated 11.07.2003 seeking extension of time till 23.11.2004. Since the representation was not disposed of, the petitioner filed W.P.No.24017 of 2003 praying for a writ of certiorarified Mandamus,to quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 14.06.2003. Rejecting the request of the petitioner,the said writ petition was disposed of on 28.10.2003, thereby directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 11.07.2003. The first respondent by order dated 07.12.2003, rejected the request of the petitioner for extension of the lease period. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner, has filed the present writ petition for the relief as stated supra. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, while admitting the lease granted to the petitioner in respect of the subject land for a period of five years for quarrying the blue stone, the respondent has stated that the lease for the said quarry was determined from 01.01.1998 to 31.03.2002 and the petitioner had not remitted the security deposit immediately. Further, the petitioner produced the required stamp papers for making lease agreement, belatedly and executed the lease agreement only on 31.08.1998 and at the time of execution, the lease period was determined as 01.01.1998 to 31.03.2002. 5. It is further stated that the present writ petition praying for extension of lease period is not maintainable. The first respondent passed orders as per sub rule (8) of Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules,1959 . Hence, there is no illegality in the order. Further, the first respondent and his authorised officers are empowered to enter into any lease hold area and to verify the accounts maintained in their premises. Further, the District Collector has no power to extend the lease beyond the original date of expiry of lease. The subject quarry area was ordered to be taken over by the Forest Department and hence, further extension is totally not possible. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Rule 8(8)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959 submitted that the date of commencement of the period for which the quarrying lease is granted under the Rule, shall be the date on which the lease is executed and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to quarry for a period of five years. Since the petitioner was prevented from quarrying for the period between 01.04.2002 and 24.06.2003, the respondents ought to have extended the lease period so as to enable him to complete the remaining period of lease, that is, one year and 83 days. The first respondent having considered that the period of lease is for five years, has failed to consider that there had been continuous interference by the third respondent from carrying on quarrying, during the said period. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that since the first respondent has not denied the fact that the petitioner had not quarried for the entire period and as per the records, he was prevented from quarrying during the relevant period, the first respondent ought to have extended the lease for one year, two months and 12 days. 8. Per contra, Mr.A.Arumugham, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the first respondent, the District Collector of Vellore District has passed orders as per sub rule (8) to Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959. Further there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had sent a notice dated 15.03.2002, requesting the respondents not to interfere with his peaceful mining operation upto 30.08.2003. 9. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that as per Rule 8 (10)(b) of the said Rules, besides, the lease amount and seigniorage fee or dead rent, the lessee shall also pay such other levies as may be prescribed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, from time to time and in the event of failure to pay the seigniorage fee, the lease will be liable for cancellation on that account. He submitted that the petitioner has not paid any amount except the lease amount. 10. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submittied that as per Section 1(6)of the Forest Conservation Act 1980, to carry out mining operation in forest land, prior permission from the Central Government is required from the competent authority. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP. (Civil) No.202 of 1995 has upheld the provisions of the Forest(Conservation) Act 1980 and banned mining activity in Reserve Forest Area. Further, the subject land was declared as reserve forest under Section 1 (6) in G.O.Ms.No.2 Environment and Forest (FRXIV) Department dated 08.01.1999, published in District Gazette dated 10.02.1999. The area was declared as Reserve Forest area only on 08.01.1999, and before that issuance of the Government Order,the area was leased out to the petitioner and in such circumstances, the third respondent has filed a petition to implead himself as a respondent. 11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. Pleadings disclose that when the petitioner was declared as a successful bidder for quarrying blue metal stone in Survey No.193 Part in Kizhminnal village, Walajah Taluk for an extent of 2 acres,the petitioner has not remitted the security deposit and also failed to produce the required stamp papers for execution of the lease agreement in time. The lease period has already been determined from 01.01.1998 to 31.03.2002. After the expiry of the lease period ie., 31.03.2002, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.12932 of 2002 and obtained an interim injunction in W.M.P.No.17409 of 2002. At this stage, the Government has issued the notification under Section 16 of the Forest Act in G.O.Ms.No.2 Environment and Forest (FRXIV) Department dated 08.01.1999, published in District Gazette dated 10.02.1999. The interim injunction granted on 17.04.2003 was made absolute by order dated24.04.2003. Pursuant to the same, the first respondent has also passed an order on 14.06.2003 regulating the lease period for five years ie, from 31.08.1998 to 20.08.2003. 13. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was prevented from quarrying for the period between 01.04.1998 and 24.06.2003, is not supported by any evidence. Even other wise, if the respondents had interfered with the right of quarrying blue metal stone by the petitioner, after an order of interim injunction granted by this Court on 17.04.2002 in W.M.P.No.17409 of 2002, which is against the respondents, the petitioner could have very well file an application for contempt of Court against those who have alleged to have violated the Court's order. But this has not been done. 14.There is no provision in the Rules to extend the period for stone quarrying beyond five years and therefore extension of leave cannot be asked for as the matter of right. 15. Further, a perusal of the order dated 28.10.2003 made in W.P.No.24017 of 2003 also reveals that when the petitioner has challenged the proceedings of the first respondent dated 14.06.2003 and this Court had only directed the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 11.07.2003 in accordance with law and intimate the same to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is evident from the materials,that the original lease deed dated 31.08.1998, has been executed only due to the delay on the part of the petitioner in remitting the necessary deposit, as well as the required stamp papers for execution of the lease agreement. 16. As the petitioner had the benefit of injunction against all the respondents, the contention of the petitioner that he was prevented from quarrying, is not tenable and that there is also no supporting evidence. Further, having regard to the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. (Civil) No.202 of 1995 upholding the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980, banning the mining activity in Reserve Forest Area, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for quarrying the subject lands, which has been notified as forest area. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar kvsg To 1. The Collector, Vellore District Vellore. 2. The Assistant Director of Mines Collector office Vellore. 3. The District Forest Office Vellore Division Vellore. +1 cc to Mrs.Hemalatha, Advocate, SR.No.1583. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.1826. Mrd (co) krd / 2.6.08 W.P.No.8381 of 2004