IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 10-09-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.6012 of 2001 C.Kulandaivelu .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Collector, Virudhunagar District, at Virudhunagar. 2.The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining Virudhunagar. .. Respondents. Prayer: This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to disturb the petitioner from quarrying beyond 31.3.2001, in S.No.777/4A Part of Iyan Kollankondan Village, Rajapalayam Taluk. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Dhananjayan For Respondents : Mr.T.Seenivasan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents not to disturb the petitioner from quarrying beyond 31.3.2001, in S.No.777/4A, Part of Iyan Kollankondan Village, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District. 3. The petitioner has stated that he was given the lease to quarry in S.No.777/4A, Part of Iyan Kollankondan Village, by the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 15.9.96, pursuant to the notification, dated 5.8.96, inviting tenders for quarrying of rough https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ stones. The petitioner had executed a lease deed, on 6.3.97, to quarry stones for a period of five years upto 31.3.2001. However, the lease period is to be extended for a further period of five years beyond 31.3.2001, due to the amendment issued by the State Government to Rule 8(8) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. As per the said amendment, the lease period for quarrying stones in respect of virgin areas shall be ten years. The said amendment was brought into effect in pursuance of the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.391, dated 17.11.2000. 4. A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents, denying the claims made by the petitioner. It has been stated that the lease period in favour of the petitioner had expired, on 31.3.2001. Amendment to Rule 8(8) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, introduced pursuant to the order of Government in G.O.Ms.No.391, dated 17.11.2000, had been issued on a later date and therefore, the lease period granted in favour of the petitioner cannot be extended. 5. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that no further orders are required to be passed by this Court in the present writ petition, in view of the order, dated 18.8.2008, made in W.P.No.14505 of 2002, which reads as follows: "By consent of both sides, writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the second respondent dated 3.4.2002, declining the request of the petitioner for the renewal of petitioner's quarry lease for a further block period. 3.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is given quarry lease on 5.9.1996 which is a virgin quarry. The lease deed was executed on 6.3.1997 for a period of five years. According to the petitioner, since it is a virgin quarry the period of lease should be for 10 years. The petitioner submitted an application for extension of the quarry lease as per Rule 8(8) of Tamil Nadu Mine and Mineral Concession Rules 1989 as amended, in G.O.Ms.No.391 Industries (MMC1) Department dated 17.11.2000 which, according to the petitioner will apply. Since the representation seeking renewal of quarry lease is beyond 23.3.2001, he was not granted renewal of lease and hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.1617 of 2002 and this Court by order dated 28.1.2002 directed the respondents therein to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner within a period of four weeks. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 5.4.2002, the petitioner's request was rejected by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ stating that the lease was granted by order 15.9.1996 and the subsequent order issued by the Government dated 17.11.2000 is not applicable to the petitioner. 4. A similar issue was considered by Division Bench of this Court and the decision is reported in 2008 (3) TC 800 (A.Srinivasan and 25 others v The District Collector, Kancheepuram District and 8 others). In paragraph 18 the Division Bench has held as follows: " 18. For all the above reasons, we are of the considered view that so long as the lease granted in respect of the virgin areas for the first time is in force and the period of lease was not over on the date when the amendment came into force on 17.11.2000, those areas should be considered to be virgin not subjected to quarrying operation and therefore the benefit of the period of ten years shall be extended to those lessees as the virgin quarries are entitled to the grant of lease for a period of ten years as per the said amended Rule. Factually, by various orders of this Court, some of the lessees were allowed to quarry even beyond the period of five years and they are left only with one or two years period as the case may be." 5. After holding so, the Division Bench allowed similar claims made in the Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions and directed the authorities to extend the lease period for a further period of five years from the date of execution of the lease deeds and allow the lessees to quarry rest of the periods. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in W.A.No.287 of 2005, the date of the execution of the sale deed was 5.5.1999 and the expiry of the five year period was 4.6.2002 and the said lessee is also given extension for the lease period for a further period of five years. Hence, there will be a similar direction in this case also. 7.In the light of the above Division Bench Order the impugned order is set aside and the second respondent is directed to re-consider the issue and pass fresh orders in accordance with the above said Division Bench Orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 8. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs." 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and in view of the order, dated 18.8.2008, passed by this Court in W.P.No.14505 of 2002, this writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petition stands closed, as no further orders are required to be passed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar csh To 1.The Collector, Virudhunagar District, at Virudhunagar. 2.The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining Virudhunagar. 1 C.C. to Mr.A.Sivaji, Advocate, SR.No.51461 1 C.C. to Government Pleader SR.No.51712 Writ Petition No.6012 of 2001 vm(co) pmk/21.10.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/