- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The short question of law which arises for consideration in these appeals is as to whether amended Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "1959 Rules"), which was amended by G.O.Ms.No. 391 dated 17.11.2000, would have retrospective effect or will become operational prospectively i.e. only from 17.11.2000. The issue has arisen in the following context: In all these appeals the respondents were granted stone quarrying leases for a particular area some time in the year 1997. At that time, as per amended Rule 8(8) of 1959 Rules, lease could be granted for a period of five years initially and thereafter it could be renewed by another five years. On the basis of this Rule, the respondents herein in all these appeals were given the leases for a period of five years. However, when these leases were still in operation and the said period of five years for which these leases were granted had not expired, Rule came to be amended vide G.O. dated 17.11.2000. The amended rule provided that the period for quarrying stone in respect of virgin areas, which had not been subjected to quarrying earlier, shall be ten years whereas the period of lease for quarrying stone in respect of other areas shall be five years. On the basis of this amendment, these respondents pleaded that since they were granted lease for quarrying stone in respect of virgin areas, amended provision was made applicable in their cases and they were entitled to continue on lease for a period of ten years.
(3.) It is in this scenario that the question arose as to whether the aforesaid Rule can be made available even in respect of the leases which were granted before 17.11.2000. We may point out at this stage itself that the High Court has decided the issue in favour of the respondents holding that the aforesaid Rule deals only with the procedures to be adopted by the District Collector from the stage he invited tenders till he executed the lease deed which is not substantive in nature and therefore would apply even in those cases where leases were earlier but were continuing on the date when the amended Rule came into force. This decision contained in impugned judgment dated 23.04.2008 is questioned by the District Collector, Kancheepuram District in the State of Tamil Nadu in these appeals.;