High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 26.7.2007Coram :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAVIRAJA PANDIANAND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJAWrit Appeal No.211 of 20001. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Environment and Forest Department Fort St. George Chennai – 600 009.2. The Divisional Forest Officer Social Forestry Division Salem.... AppellantsVs.1. Tvl. Gem Granites rep. by its Partner Mr. R. Veeramani2. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Industries Department Fort St. George Chennai – 600 009.3. The District Collector Salem.... RespondentsWrit Appeal filed against the order made in W.P.No.5273 of 1992,dated 23.9.1999. petition under Article 226 of the constitution of Indiato issue a writ ofscertiorarifed mandamuss by calling for the record fromthe third respondent in G.O.Ms.No.618, environment and forests departmentdated 22.10.1991 and quash the same and consequently direct therespondents to permit the petitioner to quarry black granite in surveyNo.14/4A-2 in an extent of 4.64.0 hectares in survey 14/4A-2 inputhiragoundanpalaym village, Attur taluk, salem district for a period often years from the dated of their actual permission for quarryingFor Appellants : Mr. S. Rajasekaran Government AdvocateFor RespondentNo1.: Mr. A. JinasenanJ U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.Raviraja Pandian, J.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The respondents 2 and 4 in the writ petition are the appellants inthis writ appeal. The first respondent herein filed a writ petition inW.P.No.5273 of 1992 seeking for the relief of certiorarified mandamus tocall for the records of the third respondent in G.O.Ms.No.618, Environmentand Forest Department, dated 22.10.1991 and quash the same andconsequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to quarryblack granite in Survey No.14/4A2 in an extent of 4.64.0 hectares inSurvey No.14/4A2 in Puthiragoundampalayam village, Attur Taluk, SalemDistrict for a period of ten years. The said relief was sought for in thefollowing circumstances.2. The first respondent/petitioner is recognised as an 100% exportoriented unit for the first time in India in the year 1984 in respect ofthe subject quarry with 4.64.0 hectares in Survey No.14/4A2 inPuthiragoundampalayam village. The first respondent/petitionerparticipated in the auction and has become a successful bidder for a bidamount of Rs.25,50,010/-. The first respondent/petitioner was declared assuccessful bidder and by Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1350, Industries MMB2 Department, dated 23.11.1990. The first respondent/petitioner wasgranted quarrying lease for a period of ten years in the said area.Pursuant to the Government Order, the first respondent/petitioner has paidthe following amounts.On 12.2.1990 tender amount Rs. 25,50,010.00On 11.12.1990 Security Rs. 2,55,001.00On 3.1.1991 Stamp Duty Rs. 1,78,501.00 ---------------------Total Rs.29,83,512.00 ---------------------The lease deed was registered on 4.3.1991 for a period of ten years. 3. It is the further case of the first respondent/petitioner that thefirst respondent/petitioner even before clearing the over burden by orderdated 16.4.1991, the appellants herein directed the firstrespondent/petitioner to stop quarrying work. Thus, the firstrespondent/petitioner was not allowed to quarry after that period. After aprolonged correspondence between the parties, the Government byG.O.Ms.No.618, Forests, dated 22.10.1991 ordered that the firstrespondent/petitioner would be permitted for quarrying on condition ofpaying the amount ofRs.14,329/- and a security deposit of Rs.20,000/- andthe appellants herein further directed to execute another lease deed withthe Forest Department, as the original lease deed was executed with theDistrict Collector, the Revenue Department. Aggrieved by the aboveGovernment Order and the direction for execution of the supplementalagreement with the Forest Department, which is not contemplated under theprovisions of the Act, the writ petition was filed. The learned singleJudge after hearing the parties, has ultimately held that the GovernmentOrder in G.O.Ms.No.618, Forests, dated 22.10.1991 is not in accordancewith the statutory requirement and thereby would not stand the scrutiny ofthe law. By holding so, the learned single Judge quashed the GovernmentOrder in G.O.Ms.No.618, Forests, dated 22.10.1991. The correctness of thesaid order is now assailed before this Court by filing the above writappeal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. When the matter was taken up for orders today, the learned counselappearing for the first respondent/petitioner submits that though he hasbecome a successful bidder and paid the huge amount in a sum of Rs.28lakhs and odd in the year 1991, till date the first respondent/petitionerwas not allowed to quarry a single piece of granite. It would be suffice,if a direction is issued to the second and third respondents to refund theamount with reasonable interest. 5. We heard the learned counsel on either side and perused thematerials available on record.6. As stated above now, though the lease has been granted in favourof the first respondent/petitioner was in the year 1991 and the lease deedhas been executed on 4.3.1991, it was stated across the bar, the firstrespondent/petitioner was not allowed to quarry by the auction of theForest Department, which include the proceedings dated 16.4.1991 also, atthis point of time, the ten years lease period granted for the firstrespondent/petitioner has also expired by 17.2.2007 and nothing remains tobe adjudicated about the correctness of the Government Order inG.O.Ms.No.618, Forest, dated 22.10.1991, whereby the firstrespondent/petitioner was directed to execute the subsequent deed, whichis only for the purpose of doing quarry for the remaining period which hasalready been expired. There is no question for the firstrespondent/petitioner to quarry now. Hence, the writ appeal can bedisposed of as nothing remains to be adjudicated. However, having regardto the submission made by the learned counsel for the firstrespondent/petitioner, this Court is of the view that the interest ofjustice would be served, if a direction is issued to the second and thirdrespondents herein to consider the case of the firstrespondent/petitioner, who have deposited the huge amount of nearly Rs.28lakhs and odd as early as in the year 1991 and they are not getting anyreciprocal benefit from the second and third respondents by way ofallowing him to quarry the granite. It would be appropriate for the secondand third respondents to consider for repayment of the same as per thestatutory provisions, which exercise is directed to be done within aperiod of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.No costs.sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Industries Department Fort St. George Chennai – 600 009.2. The District Collector Salem.3. The Secretart to Government Environment and Forest Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.9.4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Salem.+ 1 cc to MR.A.Jenasenan Advocate SR.NO.46417+ 1 cc to Spl,Govt. pleader SR.NO.46424SSV (CO)RD 9.8.07W.A.No.211 of 2000