M.P. RAM MOHAN RAJA v. STA TE OF TAMIL NADU & Ors.

Appellant applied for grant of quarry lease in the Industries Department of the State Government of Tamil Nadu under Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Rule 39 of the Rules conferred power on the State Government to grant or renew quarry lease or permission in special cases. The writ petitioner approached the High Court by filing a writ Petition praying for direction to the State Government to dispose of his application made under Rule 39 of the Rules. The High Court directed the State Government to consider the application of the writ petitioner and dispose of the same within a period of four weeks and also directed the State Government G to maintain status quo, in the meantime, Rule 39 was repealed by the State Government Consequently, the application of the writ petitioner came to be rejected by the State Government vide its order dated 8.10.1996. The District Collector put certain lands for auction including the land for which the writ petitioner had applied for grant of lease. After seven years, the writ petitioner i : H 576 -" - • ,. 1 y '::: M.P.RAMMOHANRAJAv.STATEOFTAMILNADU 577 ~ filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order A dated 8.10.1996 and to direct the first respondent-State of Tamil Nadu to consider the application of the writ petitioner for grant of lease for quarrying jelly and rough stone under Rule 39 of the Rules as it stood at the relevant time. By an interim order dated 27.2.2004, Single Judge of the High Court permitted the writ petitioner to carry on quarrying operation in the said land. B The order was challenged by the State Government by filing a Writ Appeal Single Judge of the High Court passed clarificatory order against which an , ' appeal was preferred by the State Government but the same was also dismissed. The interim order dated 27.2.224 passed by the Single Judge was challenged by a private party alleging that taking advantage of the order of the Single Judge the writ petitioner has unauthorisedly encroached upon the lease-hold c land granted in his favour and started quarrying operation in the land. Hence, both these matters were clubbed together by consent of parties and were disposed of by the High Court by dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The Government on 8.10.1996 passed an order in pursuance of the direction given by the High Court rejecting the application of the applicant, same was challenged after inordinate delay i.e. on 27.4.2003 by the writ petitioner, therefore, the writ pedtion was hopelessly belated. [Para 8) [582-A-Bl D E

1.2. The High Court has rightly affirmed the objection of the respondents. When the application of the writ petitioner under Rule 39 was rejected on 8.10,1996 by the State Government pursuant to the direction given by the High Court. the writ petitioner waited up to 27.4.2003 and filed a belated F writ petition. But strangely enough, the writ petition was entertained and an h1terim order was passed and it was not interfered despite the State Government raising an objection. It was only when the third party who felt IJlllet'ed by the said interim order because the writ petitioner on account of this interim order started interfering with his area, that the matter was G entertained by the High Court and it was clubbed up together. There was no justification for the writ petitioner to have waited for a long time. Once the order was passed on 8.10.1996, then there was no need for the writ petitioner to have waited for such a long time. Thus, Court is in full agreement with the view taken by the High Court. However, the High Court despite the fact that the writ petition was belated and suffered from !aches entered. into the H « 578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R. A controversy on the merits also and took the view that when Rule 39 was deleted within four weeks of the direction to the State Government to dispose of the application of the writ petitioner, there was no option with the Collector but to reject the application as the rule which was in force was repealed, therefore, the basis on which the order was passed was knocked out. Therefore, the High B Court declined to grant any relief to the writ petitioner and dismissed the I writ petition on merit also. (Para 8) (582-B-E)

1.3 So far as the question of delay is concerned, no hard and first rule can be laid down and it will depend on the facts of each case. In the present case, the facts stare at the face of it that on 8.10.1996 an order was passed by C the Collector pursuant to the order passed by the High Court, rejecting the application of writ petitioner for consideration of the grant of mining lease. The writ petitioner sat tight over the matter and did not challenge the same up to 2003. This is on the face of it appears to be very serious. A person who can sit tight for such a long time or no justifiable reason, cannot be given any benefit. [Para 11] (583-E-F) D