- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The appellant's Writ Petition No. 1046 of 1997 was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High court by judgment dated 20-10- 1997 and further appeal filed by the appellant before the division bench in Writ Appeal No. 1686 of 1998 was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgments, this appeal has been preferred.
(3.) The following are the relevant facts: The District Collector, Tuticorin (first respondent) published a notification in the District Gazette in January 1995 calling for tender g applications for grant of lease of sand quarry in 1.17 1/2 hectares for a period of two years from 1/1/1995 to 31/3/1997. The said advertisement was amended and modified as a lease for three years, i. e. , up to 31/3/1998, rather than for two years. On 23/2/1995, the petitioner submitted his tender and offered a sum of Rs 1.60 lakhs per annum. The offer of the petitioners was the highest. The first respondent did not accept the offer but rejected the f same by orders dated 22/3/1995 in exercise of his powers under Rule 8 (6 (b) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called "the Rules"). The Collector felt that the appellant's offer, even though it was the highest, was less than the upset price as estimated by the Department. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Director of Geology and Mines (second respondent). The Director allowed the appeal of g the appellant by his order dated 1/4/1997 on the ground that by the closing date of the tenders, namely, 6/3/1995, the upset price was not fixed by the Assistant Geologist, that such upset price was fixed only on 10/3/1995 long after the closing date, namely, 6/3/1995. The Director also held that compared to another tender where the offer of Rs 1.75 lakhs of this very appellant was accepted for an extent of 3.24 hectares, the present offer of the appellant for Rs 1.60 lakhs was not unreasonable particularly when theextent of the quarry area in this case was only 1.17 1/2 hectares. However, the Director applied the provisions contained in the amendment to Rule 8-A introduced by GOMs No. 235 on 19-12-1996 by which additional seigniorage fee was payable in addition to the lease amount. By the date when the Director allowed the appeal on 1/4/1997, part of the lease period from 1/4/1995 up to 1/4/1997 had already expired. Therefore, the Director granted the lease only for the remaining period from 1/4/1997 up to 31/3/19988.;