IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.2.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI W.A.No.3124 of 2001 Annalakshmi .. Appellant Vs 1. The Director of Geology and Mining Guindy, Chennai-32. 2. The District Collector Tiruvallur District at Tiruvallur. 3. The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining Collectorate Campus Tiruvallur. .. Respondents PRAYER: Against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.8.2001 made in W.P.No.12489 of 2001. Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the Ist and 2nd respondents in Proc.R.C No.10708/MMJ/2000 dated 27.6.2001 and Proc.RC.No. 416/87/02 dt.4.5.1997 respectively and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to extend the period of lease quary for 206 days in respect of the fields in an extent of 40.00 acres in S.No. 72 in Arkampattu and S.No. 284 in Guruvoyal village in Thiruvallur Taluk and District to complete the three full years of the lease period. For Appellant : Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Raman Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr.Jyothimanian https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENT (Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.8.2001 made in W.P.No.12489 of 2001. 2.1. Brief facts, in a nutshell, are as follows: The appellant, a Sri Lankan repatriate, was granted lease for quarrying sand in an extent of 40 acres in Survey No.284 of Guruvoyal Village and S.No.72 of Arakmapattu Village of Tiruvallur Taluk and District for a period of three years by the proceedings of the second respondent dated 25.5.1987 and the lease deed was executed on 16.6.1987. The second respondent by proceedings dated 15.11.1988 cancelled the lease granted in favour of the appellant for violations of conditions of the lease deed. 2.2. Being aggrieved by the cancellation of lease, the appellant filed O.S.No.109 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur seeking permanent injunction not to interfere with the right of the appellant to quarry in the impugned lands for a further period of three years and for a declaration that the respondents therein are not entitled to enforce the order of the second respondent dated 15.11.1988. Pending suit, the appellant filed interlocutory application in I.A.No.432 of 1993 and as the same was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge by order dated 21.9.1993, the appellant filed C.R.P.No.3096 of 1993 before this Court initially under Section 115 CPC which was later converted as one filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and obtained an order of injunction dated 23.3.1994 till the disposal of the suit O.S.No.109 of 1993, suppressing the fact that the lease period itself expired long back. 2.3. On the strength of the interim injunction granted by this Court, by order dated 23.3.1994 made in C.R.P.No.3096 of 1993, the appellant restarted quarrying operation from 27.5.1994 and stopped the same on 27.2.1997, instead of 27.5.1997, as the appellant had already quarried for three months. 2.4. Alleging that due to torrential rains and heavy floods and collapse of the causeway across the river, she could not operate the quarry for about 206 days out of the total lease period and thereby she was subjected to heavy loss and mental agony, the appellant filed an application on 1.3.1997 to the second respondent seeking permission to quarry in the impugned lands for 206 days. The second respondent, by proceedings dated 4.5.1997 rejected the request of the appellant. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.5. Against the order of the second respondent dated 4.5.1997, the appellant preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 3.6.1997 and pending the same, she preferred W.P.No.8918 of 1997 before this Court seeking a writ of Mandamus to forbear the second respondent herein from interfering with the quarrying operations for a full period of three years in the said quarry and thereby to compensate the loss of period of 206 days. The first respondent treating the matter as subjudice, dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant without going into the merits of the case. This Court, by order dated 1.7.1999 dismissed W.P.No.8918 of 1997 holding that the appellant has no legal right to seek for a direction to quarry. 2.6. The appellant, thereafter, filed W.M.P.No.10780 of 2000 in W.P.No.8918 of 1997 to review the order dated 1.7.1999 made in W.P.No.8918 of 1997 and to modify the said order. The prayer in W.P.No.8918 of 1997 was amended by order dated 30.6.2000 in W.M.P.No.14258 of 2000 and this Court, by order dated 30.6.2000 in W.P.No.8918 of 1997 directed the first respondent to restore the appeal dated 3.6.1997 and to dispose of the same on merits. 2.7. The first respondent, by proceedings dated 27.6.2001, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the second respondent dated 4.5.1997. Exasperated, the appellant filed W.P.No.12489 of 2001 for issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of respondents 1 and 2 in proceedings dated 27.6.2001 and 4.5.1997 respectively, to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to extend the period of lease quarry for 206 days in respect of the impugned lands. 2.8. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 20.8.2001 in W.P.No.12489 of 2001, dismissed the writ petition holding that there is no provision in Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules for extension of period for no fault of the respondents; and that the appellant has not made out any case for grant of the prayer as sought for. 2.9. Hence, the present writ appeal. 3.1. It may not be out of context to state that against the said order dated 20.8.2001 in W.P.No.12489 of 2001 the appellant had filed a Review Application No.91 of 2001 on the grounds that (i) the law laid down by the judgment dated 27.4.2000 of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.766 of 2000 was not taken into account; and (ii) the entire lease amount was paid and the area was available for lease. 3.2. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 26.9.2001 made in Review Application No.91 of 2001 dismissed the review application holding that the grounds raised by the appellant cannot be treated as an apparent error on the face of the order dated 20.8.2001 in W.P.No.12489 of 2001. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. It may also be not out of place to mention that pending this appeal, the suit in O.S.No.109 of 1993 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruvallur was transferred to District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur and renumbered as O.S.No.673 of 1996 and the same was dismissed for default on 3.11.2004. 5. Surprisingly, in the case on hand, the appellant instead of challenging the proceedings of the second respondent dated 15.11.1988 cancelling the lease granted in favour of the appellant for violations of conditions of the lease deed by way of a writ petition, preferred suit in O.S.No.109 of 1993 and by order dated 23.3.1994 in C.R.P.No.3096 of 1993 obtained an order of injunction as prayed for till the disposal of the suit O.S.No.109 of 1993. Concededly, the order of second respondent dated 15.11.1988 cancelling lease in favour of the appellant remains unchallenged as on date. 6. The main ground on which extension of lease was sought for is that the appellant could not quarry in view of natural calamities, viz., torrential rains and floods, but not due to the fault of the respondents. 7. Clause (ii) of Rule 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules categorically states that the lease shall expire on the date specified in the lease deed and in no case extension of the period of lease shall be made. 8. In the case on hand, the appellant had quarried for the entire lease period of three years and thereafter sought for extension of lease for a period of 206 days on the ground that she could not quarry for the said period during torrential rains and heavy floods. Admittedly, there is no specific provision under the lease agreement enabling the appellant to seek extension of lease period to compensate the non-operating period nor a duty is cast on the respondents either to consider the request of the appellant to extend the lease period or to compensate the non-operative period, and in the absence of any such provision either in the lease agreement or under the Rules, it may not be proper for this Court to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.8.2001 made in W.P.No.12489 of 2001. 9. It is settled law that the word "extension" means a prolongation of the existing lease (Provash Chandra Dalui v. Biswanath Banerjee, AIR 1989 SC 1834). However, if the period of original lease is over, there is no question of granting any extension. If such extension is granted, it would amount to granting of fresh lease after expiry of the original lease. 10. In the case on hand, the appellant having accepted the terms and conditions of the lease, could not have turned round the same so https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as to make out a case on the basis of the pleadings referred to above seeking further extension of the originally fixed period of lease. 11. Be that be as it may, in view of the amendment made to Rule 38 of the Tamil Nadu Mines and Mineral Concession Rules by G.O.Ms.No.95, Industries (MMC.I) Department, dated 1.10.2003, the appellant has no right as on date to quarry in the impugned lands: "38-A. Quarrying of sand by the State Government– Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, or any order made or action taken thereunder of any judgement or decree or order of any Court, all existing leases for quarrying sand in Government lands and permissions/leases granted in ryotwari lands shall cease to be effective on and from the date of coming into force of this rule and the right to exploit sand in the State shall vest with the State Government to the exclusion of others. The proportionate lease amount for the unexpired period of the lease and unadjusted seigniorage fee, if any will be refunded." 12. For all the reasons aforesaid, even though the learned counsel for the appellant made an endorsement to withdraw the appeal, we found it a fit case to deal with the matter on merits, as discussed above, and accordingly, we hold that we find no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge warranting interference. The appeal stands dismissed but without any order as to costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. sasi To: 1. The Director of Geology and Mining. Guindy, Chennai-32. 2. The District Collector, Tiruvallur District, at Tiruvallur. 3. The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Collectorate Campus Tiruvallur. + one cc to M/s. AL. Ganthimathi, Advocate,SR.7305 + one cc to The Government Pleader, SR.7071 CU(CO) RP 28.02.08 W.A.No.3124 of 2001 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/