High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 26.07.2007Coram :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIANandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJAWrit Appeal Nos.1609 and 2052 of 20021.The State of Tamil Nadurep.by Secretary to GovernmentIndustries DepartmentMadras – 92.The CollectorDharmapuri3.The Tahsildar,Krishnagiri TalukDharmapuri District. Appellants in W.A.No.1609 of 2002 and respondents in W.A.No.2052/2002vs.T.S.Jayakumar ... Respondent inWA.No.1609 of 2002 and appellant in W.A.No.2052 of 2002Writ Appeals filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent againstthe order dated 11.4.2002 made in writ petition No.20091 of 1994. toissue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to compute thelease in favour of the petitioner herein for a period of 3 years fromthe date of actual handing over of the quarry to the petitioner hereinin respect of blue metal quarry in S.NO.79/2, Byanapalli village in anextent of 5 hectares .For Appellants:Mr.P.Subramanian,G.A. in W.A.No.1609 of 2002 and respondents in W.A.No.2052 of 2002For Respondent :Mr.S.Silambanan in WA.No.1609 of 2002 and appellant in W.A.No.2052 of 2002 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered byK.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.)These two writ appeals are filed against the same order passed bythe learned single Judge dated 11.4.2002 made in writ petition No.20091of 1994. The said writ petition was filed by the respondent inW.A.No.1609 of 2002 seeking for the relief of issuance of a writ ofmandamus directing the Government of Tamil Nadu, District Collector,Dharmapuri and the Tahsildar, Krishnagiri Taluk, the respondents in thewrit petition to compute the lease in favour of the writ petitioner fora period of three years from the date of actual handing over of thequarry to the writ petitioner herein in respect of blue metal quarry inS.No.79/2 Bynapalli village in an extent of 5 hectares. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to asarrayed in the writ petition. The relief has been sought for by the writpetitioner on the basis that the respondents have caused a publicationin the Dharmapuri District Gazette dated 14.12.1990 for leasing out theGovernment quarries for the period from 1.1.1991 to 31.12.1993. Theauction in respect of the subject quarry was held on 22.1.1991. Theconfirmation in favour of the petitioner has been made on 9.2.1991. Theconfirmation order has been served on the petitioner on 9.4.1991. Thewrit petitioner has also paid balance amount of Rs.24,588/- on28.11.1991. By letters dated 8.1.1992, 23.5.1992 and 16.7.1992, thepetitioner has expressed his difficulty in commencing the quarryingoperation. In spite of that, the lease deed was executed on 22.6.1999and the lease deed was handed over to the petitioner for registration on16.7.1993. Virtually, the lease deed came to be registered on 30.12.1993a day prior to the expiry of the lease period. By stating so, thepetitioner filed writ petition for extension of the period by threeyears.3. The learned single Judge after taking into consideration of thearguments advanced on behalf of the counsel on either side and havingregard to the factual issue and the statutory provision rejected therequest for extension of period for three years sought for by the writpetitioner, however, granted the relief of refund of the amountdeposited by the petitioner with 24 percent interest within four weeksfrom the date of receipt of copy of the order. 4. The petitioner aggrieved by that order filed Writ Appeal inW.A.NO.2052 of 2002 and the Government aggrieved by that portion oforder directing refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner withinterest has filed W.A.No.1609 of 2002.5. We heard the argument of the learned counsel appearing on eitherside and perused the materials on record.6. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant has verymuch concentrated his argument about the tactics played by the leaseholder in delaying the execution of the lease deed by placing on recordthe letters dated 8.1.1992, 23.5.1992 and 16.7.1992, whereby thesuccessful bidder has expressed his inability to comply with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conditions for execution of the lease deed because of his illness.7. We have anxiously gone through the various dates given by theGovernment Advocate. Except for the period from 8.1.1992 to 16.7.1992for six months, even though the delay is attributable to the leaseholder, in respect of the other period, absolutely there is noexplanation, what so ever, from the respondent – Government for non-execution of the lease deed. If the highest bidder is not able tocomply with or rather refused to comply with the conditions of lease orthe statutory provision governing the lease, the statute gives amplepower to the Collector to cancel the lease and bring the quarry forpublic auction once again so as to augment the income of the Government.The Collector leaving all these statutory powers waited upto the lastdate for execution of the lease deed and thereafter got it registered aday prior to the expiry of the lease deed. The action of the appellant -Collector cannot be appreciated, particularly, when there arestatutory provisions available in the Tamil Nadu Minor MineralConcession Rules to reject or revoke the lease granted in favour of thesuccessful bidder, if the successful bidder is not in a position tocomply with the statutory requirement of payment of balance lease amountfor execution of lease deed within the period stipulated therein. TheCollector has not followed that procedure and allowed the lessee to beremained idle and got the lease deed executed on penultimate date, whichis not expected of from the Collector. Hence, the order of the learnedsingle Judge directing the District collector to refund the amountdeposited by the successful bidder cannot be regarded as a one, which isillegal or irregular. At the same time, the prayer of the successfulbidder for execution of the lease deed beyond the period for which itwas brought to public auction also cannot be granted, as the period forwhich it was brought to public auction was already over and now that thearea would fetch more amount in several manifold. But we are of theconsidered opinion that while we are giving our approval to the order ofthe learned single Judge, who passed the order directing the respondentsto refund the amount to the petitioner, we are not able to approve therate of interest directed to be calculated on the amount deposited,which is as high as 24 percent, which is not at all prevalent for thepast ten years. Hence, we are of the view that it would meet the endsof justice if the interest is reduced to 12 percent. 8. Accordingly, the writ appeals are disposed of modifying theorder passed by the learned Single Judge to the limited extent grantingrate of interest at 12 percent instead of 24 percent on the amountdeposited by the lessee. However, there is no order as to costs. usksd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Secretary to GovernmentIndustries Department State of Tamil NaduMadras – 92.The CollectorDharmapuri3. The Tahsildar,Krishnagiri TalukDharmapuri District. + 1 cc to Govt.pleader SR.NO.46474MRD (co)RD 10.8.07Writ Appeal Nos.1609 and 2052 of 2002