M/s.GemGranites v. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27.4.2012CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.5113 of 2012M/s.GemGranitesRep. by its General ManagerMr.R.VedanthamNo.58, Cathedral Road,Chennai-600 086 … petitionerVs.1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Industries DepartmentFort St. George, Chennai-600 0092.The District Collector Salem … Respondents This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ ofMandamus directing the first respondent to effect refund ofRs.29,83,512/- (twenty nine lakhs eighty three thousand fivehundred and twelve) with 18% per annum from the date of paymenttill the date it is refunded back to the petitioner. For petitioner : Mr.A.JenasenanFor Respondents : Mr.M.L.Mahendran Government Advocate O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of thepetitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalfof the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Courtmay be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the firstrespondent, to refund a sum of Rs.29,83,512/-, along with theinterest on the said sum, at 18% per annum. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. It has been stated that the petitioner has been in thebusiness of exporting granites, from the year, 1972. While so, thesecond respondent had conducted an auction for the granting ofquarry lease for black and coloured granites, on 12.2.1990, inrespect of 4.64.0 hectares, in S.No.14/4A2, inPuthiragoundanpalayam village, Athur Taluk, Salem District. Thepetitioner had participated in the tender. The petitioner’s bidamount of Rs.25,50,010/- was declared as the highest amongst theparticipants. Thereafter, the first respondent, after accepting therecommendation of the Director of Geology and Mining, had confirmedthe bid in favour of the petitioner and had granted the quarryinglease, for a period of 10 years, from 1991 to 2001, as per theorder, in G.O.Ms.No.1350, Industries (MM B2) Department, dated23.11.1990. On confirmation of the tender, the petitioner had paidthe entire bid amount of Rs.25,50,010/-, on 12.2.1990, along with asum of Rs.2,55,001/- as security deposit, and a sum ofRs.1,78,501/-, as stamp duty. Thus, a total sum of Rs.29,83,512/-had been paid by the petitioner, in respect of the lease inquestion. Thereafter, a lease deed had been registered, on4.3.1991. 4. It had been further stated that the land in question hadbeen handed over to the petitioner, after the boundaries had beendemarcated, pursuant to the letter of the District Collector,Salem, the second respondent herein, dated 20.3.1991. While so, thepetitioner had received a letter, dated 16.4.1991, from the officeof the Forest Department, directing the petitioner not to start thework in the quarry site, until further instructions were receivedfrom the higher authorities. 5. It had been further stated that the petitioner had investedhuge amounts of money, on men and machineries, for starting thequarrying operations in the proposed site. However, the forestofficials concerned had restrained the petitioner from commencingthe quarrying operations. The petitioner had been asked to pay thecost of the plantation raised in the area in question, in spite ofthe entire amount having been paid by the petitioner, pursuant tothe execution of the lease deed, registered, on 4.3.1991. Further,the second respondent had directed the petitioner to pay anadditional fee, as compensation and security deposit, and toexecute a fresh lease agreement, with the forest department,stating that the petitioner would not be permitted to commencequarrying operation without entering into the fresh leaseagreement. Consequently, a Government Order had been issued, inG.O.Ms.No.618, Environment and Forest Department, dated 22.10.1991,directing the petitioner to pay the additional amounts, payable bythe petitioner, and to execute a fresh lease agreement, before https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ commencing quarrying operations. In such circumstances, thepetitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court, inW.P.No.5273 of 1992, to quash the impugned government order, issuedby the second respondent and to direct the respondents to permitthe petitioner to quarry black granites in the land in question,for a period of 10 years from the date of the granting of thepermission to commence the quarrying operation. This Court, by itsorder, dated 23.9.1999, had quashed the Government Order, inG.O.Ms.No.618, Environment and Forest Department. 6. It had been further stated that a Division Bench of thisCourt, by its order, dated 26.7.2007, made in W.A.No.211 of 2000,filed against the order made in W.P.No.5273 of 1992, dated23.9.1999, had directed the respondents 2 and 3 therein, namely,the Government of Tamil Nadu and the District Collector, Salem, toconsider the repayment of the amount paid by the petitioner, as perthe statutory provisions applicable to the case, within a period of12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Inspite of the said directions, issued by the Division Bench of thisCourt, by its order, dated 26.7.2007, the amount of Rs.29,83,512/-,paid by the petitioner, had not been refunded, till date. Further,there has been no proper response from the respondents, in spite ofthe several representations made by the petitioner, requesting themto refund the amount due to the petitioner. In such circumstances,the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, before thisCourt, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In spite of several adjournments having been granted, nocounter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner hadsubmitted that the petitioner could not commence the quarryingoperations, in spite of the entire amount of Rs.29,83,512/- havingbeen paid by the petitioner, including the bid amount, securitydeposit and the stamp duty, in respect of the quarrying leasegranted in favour of the petitioner, by way of a lease deed,registered on 4.3.1991. Further, the respondents had not repaid theamounts due to the petitioner, as per the directions issued by aDivision Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 26.7.2007, madein W.A.No.211 of 2000. 9. The learned counsel had also submitted that, in similarmatters, the Government of Tamil Nadu had refunded the amounts tothe parties concerned, along with the interest, at the rate of 18%per annum. A copy of the Government Order, in G.O.(Ms).No.190,Industries (MMB.2) Department, dated 29.12.2011, had been placed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ before this Court in support of the claim made on behalf of thepetitioner. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentshad not been in a position to refute the claims made on behalf ofthe petitioner. The amount of Rs.29,83,512/-, paid by thepetitioner, is to be refunded to the petitioner, in view of thedirections issued by the Division Bench of this Court, by itsorder, dated 26.7.2007, made in W.A.No.5273 of 1992. As the saidorder had become final, the interest, which may be payable on thesaid amount, may not be fixed at the rate of 18% per annum, asclaimed by the petitioner.11. He had further submitted that in certain recent orderspassed by this Court, directions had been issued to the stateGovernment to refund the amounts, along with the interest accruedthereon, at the rate of 9% per annum. 12. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on aperusal of the records available, and in view of the order passedby a Division Bench of this Court, on 26.7.2007, in W.A.No.211 of2000, it is noted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner hadpaid the said amount of Rs.29,83,512/-, pursuant to the quarryinglease granted in its favour, following the lease agreement,registered on 4.3.1991. It is also not in dispute that thequarrying operation could not be commenced due to the disputeraised by the forest department concerned. Further, it is not thecase of the respondents that the delay in the repayment of the saidamount, by the first respondent, has been caused by the petitioner.13. From the records available, it is seen that the amount dueto the petitioner had not been refunded, by the first respondent,in spite of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court,dated 26.7.2007, in W.A.No.211 of 2000, confirming the order, dated23.9.1999, made in W.P.No.5273 of 1992. In such circumstances, thefirst respondent is directed to refund the amount of 29,83,512/-,to the petitioner, along with the interest accrued thereon,calculated at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of thepayment of the said sum, by the petitioner, till the date of itsrepayment, by the first respondent, within a period of three monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. lanSd/-Asst. Registrar(CSV)//True Copy//Sub Asst. RegistrarTo:1. The Secretary to Government The Government of Tamil Nadu Industries Department Fort St. George, Chennai-600 0092.The District Collector Salem.+ 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.29355+ 1 cc to Mr. A. Jenasenan, Advocate SR No.29235Writ Petition No.5113 of 2012UG(CO)SR/5.6.2012.