High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 02.01.2007CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIANWrit Petition No.5253 of 1998C.Velayutham ..Petitionerv.1.The State of Tamil Nadurep.by its Commissionerand Secretary to GovernmentIndustries DepartmentFort St.George, Chennai – 92.The District CollectorTiruchi DistrictTiruchi. ..RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayingfor the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein. For Petitioner:Mr.V.SanjeeviFor Respondents:Mr.R.Thirugnanam,Special Government PleaderORDERThe writ petition is filed seeking for the relief of issuance ofwrit of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the firstrespondent relating to the letter No.32162/MMC-2/97-4 dated 3.3.1998and consequently direct the respondents to refix the lease amount ofRs.7 lakhs for the first year lease amount and refund the excess amountpaid by the petitioner and grant the area as notified without anyreduction in respect of quarry between miles 13/0 to 15/2 miles inKarakkadu to Thailampalayam villages falling in S.F.Nos.354 and 360 ofRevenue villages of Arasalur and Thailampalayam respectively on theleft bank of cauvery river in Musiri Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondentnotified the sand quarry at the left bank of Cauvery river from miles https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13/0 to 15/2 between Karaikkadu and Thailampalayam villages in MusiriTaluk for public auction and called for tender applications for leasingout the same for a period of three years in the District Gazette dated7.3.1993 under Rule 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral ConcessionRules, 1959; that the petitioner submitted his tender application byquoting tender amount of Rs.7 lakhs as first year lease amount underpreferential category as per the then rule 8(1)(c) of the Tamil NaduMinor Mineral Concession Rules; that the amount quoted by thepetitioner was the highest amount; that the same quarry was leased outonly for a sum of Rs.3,500/- in the earlier year; but the secondrespondent rejected the highest bid of the petitioner on the onlyground that the petitioner was an affluent person by his order dated07.04.1994 on the only ground that the petitioner was an affluentperson by his order dated 07.04.1994; that aggrieved against the saidorder, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Director ofGeology and Mining, who also dismissed the appeal on 6.10.1994 withoutconsidering the valid point raised by the petitioner; that aggrievedagainst the order of the Director of Geology and Mining, the petitionerfiled the writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.19645 of 1994; thatin the said writ petition, originally there was an order of interiminjunction restraining the respondents from leasing out the saidquarry; pending the writ petition before this Court, the petitionerhas also filed several representations before the second respondent,which have not between considered by them; hence the petitioner wasforced to file a writ petition in W.P.No.15111 of 1996 for issuance ofa writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to dispose of therepresentation; that this Court by its order dated 28.10.1996 directedthe District collector to dispose of his representation one way orother within four weeks thereafter. Pursuant to the order of thisCourt, it seems an opinion has been obtained from the GovernmentPleader and based on the opinion the District Collector has directedthe petitioner to withdraw the writ petition so as to enable him toconsider his application and on the promise of the District Collectorthe writ petition was withdrawn. However, by order dated 6.2.1997, theDistrict collector granted lease for a period of three years by raisingthe lease amount to as high as Rs.27 lakhs, which is nearly four timesover and above what the petitioner has offered and also restricted thearea to 10 hectares. Not satisfied with the grant, the petitioner hasmade a representation to the Government to the effect that the order ofthe Collector in raising the lease amount to Rs.27 lakhs and alsoreducing the area to 10 hectares is arbitrary and requested theGovernment to grant the entire area as notified in the Gazette for thehighest amount quoted by him i.e., for Rs.7 lakhs. The Government byits order dated 3.3.1998 rejected the request of the petitioner. Asagainst the said order, the present writ petition is filed and it hasbeen admitted as early as 1998 and even in the present writ petitionalso, there is an order of injunction restraining the respondent fromleasing out the remaining area as granted in the earlier writ petition.Subsequently the said order of injunction has also been extended bythis Court in its order dated 6.10.1998. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The interim application in W.M.P.No.30491 of 2000 is filed witha prayer to permit the petitioner to quarry sand from the notified areafrom miles 13/0 to 15/2 between Karaikkadu and Thailampalayam villageson the left bank of Cauvery river in Musiri Taluk excluding tenhectares already granted pending disposal of the writ petition. 4. On 19.12.2000, this Court after hearing the learned counsel oneither side disposed of the said interim application by givingdirection as follows:"... the second respondent is directed to allow the petitionerto quarry the area notified in the Gazette Notification dated7.3.1993 less the area already granted on lease on 6.4.1997 byenhancing the lease amount by 20% over and above the leaseamount fixed in the order dated 6.2.1997. The petitioner isalso liable to pay all other legal dues which the lessee isliable to pay under the provisions of the Act."5. Subsequently, clarification applications have been filed by thepetitioner in W.M.P.Nos.16925 and 10752 of 2001 seeking clarificationof the order dated 19.12.2000. The said applications have been disposedof on 18.7.2001 by observing as follows:".... 6. The earlier order is unambiguous. Therespondents are directed to permit the petitioner to quarrythe entire area as published in Gazette dated 17.3.93 minuswhat has been granted to him in the earlier instance, onthe petitioner making 20% over and above what he has paidfor the earlier three years as lease amount. Now thepetitioner himself filed an application restricting the areato 25 hectares. The area can very well be restricted to 25hectares but the lease amount cannot be restricted. Therespondents are directed to demarcate the 25 hectaresspecifically after issuing prior notice to the petitioner.The lease amount directed to be paid by the petitioner forthe area would be 20 % over and above the lease amount paidfor last of the three years for which he was granted quarrylease in the year 1997. This 20% over and above ofRs.38,88,000/- covers the area of 25 hectares. Thepetitioner has to pay 20% more for each of the following twoyears.7. The petitioner has to make not only the 20% enhancedlease amount but also the seigniorage fee and other legaldues which are leviable by the Government from time to time.Any amount paid pursuant to the order of this Court dated19.12.2000, has to be given credit to the amount directed tobe paid by the petitioner by this order. The respondent, theDistrict collector is directed to execute the lease deedwithout any further delay. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that whenthe writ petition is pending, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.95, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Industries (MMC.1) dated 01.10.2003 by which the Government themselvestook over all the sand quarrying activities. The said Government Orderwas challenged by the lessees, which are subject matter in writpetitions and ultimately the G.O. was upheld by the Supreme Court inthe case of State of Tamil Nadu v. P.Krishnamoorthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517.The Supreme Court in the above said judgment after taking intoconsideration of the arguments on either side, has upheld the validityof the Government Order by giving certain directions to therespondents. As per the direction given by the Supreme Court, thepetitioner is entitled to quarry for six months period withproportional reduction in the lease amount. 7. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondentssubmits that what ever benefit given under the above said Supreme CourtJudgment would be equally available to the petitioner. As a matter offact, subsequent to the pronouncement of the above judgment of theSupreme Court, 52 lessees, who are entitled to have the benefit as perparagraph No.36 of the said judgment, were permitted to quarry for aperiod of six months. However, the petitioner was included in the listof 52 lessees. 8. Heard the arguments on either side. The Supreme Court, whileupholding the G.O. Ms.No.95 in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v.P.Krishnamoorthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517, has given certain directions inparagraph 36 of its judgment, which read as under : "In regard to mining leases subsisting as on 2-10-2003, we have read down Rule 38-A as terminating suchleases in terms of the contract (lease deeds) by sixmonths, without assigning cause and without any liabilityto pay compensation. Such of those writ petitioners (therespondents herein) whose leases were subsisting on 23-10-2003 (and whose activities were stopped with effectfrom that day) will be entitled to carry on the quarryingactivities for a period of six months or for the actualunexpired period of the lease (as on 2-10-2003), whichever is less. This benefit will be available to eventhose who have orders of the court for grant of miningleases, but where mining leases were not executed for onereason or the other. It is, however, made clear that theState Government is at liberty to prematurely terminatethe leases for any of the causes mentioned in Section 4-A(2), by giving a notice and hearing under Section 4-A(3),if they want to terminate any lease within the saidperiod of six months." (emphasis supplied)9. In the present case, as already stated, pursuant to the orderof this Court dated 19.12.2000 made in WPMP No.30491 of 2000, an orderhas been passed by the District Collector in his proceedings in ROCNo.920 of 1993 dated 20.03.2001 granting lease for three years. Buthowever, lease deed has not been executed. The petitioner was notallowed to quarry. While that being so, G.O.Ms.No.95 Industries dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

01.10.2003 came into force from 02.10.2003 onwards taking over allquarrying activities by the Government. The observation of theSupreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. P.Krishnamoorthy,(2006) 4 SCC 517 at paragraph 36 has been extracted in the previousparagraph. From that observation it is evident that the petitioner isalso entitled to the benefit as he has been granted lease for threeyears by proceedings dated 20.03.2001 of the District Collector,Trichy. The present writ petition is also pending wherein interimorder is also granted in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the benefitof the Supreme Court judgment permitting the petitioner to quarry forsix months is equally applicable and available to the petitioner alsoon the petitioner fulfilling the other conditions. 10. In the facts and in the circumstances, as stated above and inthe light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case ofKrishnamoorthy, cited supra, the writ petition is allowed to the extentthat the petitioner is entitled to quarry for a period of six months inrespect of the area given in lease in the proceedings of the DistrictCollector in Na.Ka.Aa.No.920 of 1993 dated 20.03.2001 on the petitionercomplying with the other conditions. The petitioner is also entitledto proportionate remission in the lease amount as per G.O.Ms.No.95dated 01.10.2003. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed off.No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarmfTo1.The Commissionerand Secretary to GovernmentIndustries Department State of Tamil NaduFort St.George, Chennai – 92.The District CollectorTiruchi DistrictTiruchi. +1cc to Mr.V.Sanjeevi, Advocate Sr 53+1cc to Govt.Pleader Sr 444BS (CO)km/12.1.W.P.No.5253 of 1998