G MARIMUTHU Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the above writ petition for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in NA.Kv.1/2623/2004 dated 08.12.2004 and quash the same and direct respondents 1 to 3 to permit the petitioner herein to quarry in S.No.853/1 of Viluppanoor Village, Srivilliputhur Taluk.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was a successful bidder in the tender cum public auction for lease of mining of rough stone jelly. Necessary lease agreement was executed on 20.04.1988 and the same was registered on 24.04.1988. The period of lease was five years, from 20.04.1988 to 19th April, 2003. Due to certain reasons, the petitioner could not quarry the mineral prior to 01.12.1999. However, the petitioner started quarry operations on 01.12.1999 and paid necessary fees to the Government. On 29.11.1999, the petitioner filed a petition before the Assistant Director of Mining, Virudhunagar, to take note of the situation. By representation dated 30.12.2002, the petitioner requested the District Collector, Virudhunagar, to permit him to quarry beyond the period stipulated in the agreement. Without taking into consideration, the representation of the petitioner in proper perspective, the District Collector, Virudhunagar, by his communication dated 02.01.2003, rejected the request of the petitioner, as there is no provision in the Minor Mineral Concessional Rules, for extending the lease period. Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.7707 of 2003 before this Court and by an order dated 13.08.2003, the said writ petition was dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to file an appeal. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Director of Mining, Chennai, was dismissed and hence, against that order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the first respondent on 02.07.2004. Along with the appeal, the petitioner has filed two petitions for stay and injunction, but no orders have been passed. Since the second respondent has called for tenders on 02.08.2004 for the quarry in question (2.02.5 hectare in survey 853/1 part north and 853/1 south), the petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.08.2004 bringing to the notice of the second respondent that the appeal before the Government is pending for consideration and therefore, no order should be passed granting lease to third parties. However, the second respondent viz., the District Collector, Virudhunagar, considered the application of the fourth respondent and by an order dated 08.12.2004, granted lease in his favour. Therefore the petitioner submitted a petition dated 13.12.2004, and requested respondents 2 and 3 to cancel the lease. Since no order has been passed on his petition, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that before passing orders on the petition filed by the petitioner, the second respondent ought to have given an opportunity to him to explain the situation. Though the lease deed executed in favour of the petitioner was for a period of five years, i.e., from 20.04.1998, the lease deed itself was registered only on 24.04.1998 and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to quarry for the delayed execution of the lease deed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the second respondent has granted extension of lease in some cases, on account of delay in executing the lease deed, he cannot take a different stand.