D. P. Mohapatra, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The controversy raised in this case relates to grant of lease for quarrying coloured granite under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (for short 'the Rules'). The appellant M/s. TVL Sundaram Granites and the respondent No. 1 M/s. Imperial Granites Ltd. had submitted applications before the Government of Tamil Nadu for grant of lease in respect of portions of survey No. 443 in Karandepalli Village, Denkani Kotai Taluq of District Dharampuri. The total area of survey No. 443 is about 68 acres. While the appellant applied for 10 acres out of survey No. 443, the application of the respondent No. 1 was for 4.05 hectares out of the same survey No. The portion overlapping in the two applications was to an extent of two acres. The State Government considered the application of the appellant under the provisions of Rule 39 of the Rules and granted a lease in respect of an area of ten acres by G.O. Ms. No. (3D) 23 Industries (E. II) Deptt., dated 22-1-1996. By a separate order passed on the same day the application submitted by respondent No. 1 was returned by the State Government with a direction to rectify the defects pointed out by the high level Committee set up by the State Government. In pursuance of the Government order a lease was executed by the Collector of Dharampuri district in favour of the appellant on 11-2-1996. Thereafter the appellant commenced quarrying in the area.
(3.) The first respondent filed writ petitions Nos. 3114 and 3315 (or 3115) of 1996 seeking quashing of the order granting lease in favour of the appellant and for a direction for grant of a lease of the area applied for in its favour. The appellant herein was impleaded as the respondent in the writ petitions. In the writ petitions learned single Judge of the High Court while issuing notice granted interim injunction against the appellant which was continued by a subsequent order. Feeling aggrieved by the order of injunction the appellant filed Writ Appeal No. 480/96 in which the Division Bench of the High Court permitted the appellants to continue quarrying operations in the area under the lease excluding the overlapping portion. Writ Appeal No. 480/96 and Writ Petition Nos. 3114 and 3115/96 were heard together and disposed of by the Division Bench by the Judgment dated 9-9-1997 which is under challenge in this appeal. The writ petitions filed by respondent No. 1 were allowed and the writ appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. The operative portion of the impugned judgment reads as follows: "In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances stated above, we are of the considered view that the State has acted unfairly, secretly and denied the equal opportunity to all by passing a non-speaking order and illegally granted lease to the 5th respondent. Thus the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order granting lease to the 5th respondent is set aside and lease deed, if any, executed is also set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the application of all the applicants pending before them and would invite applications for granting lease of the mines by public notice and would consider the case of all applicants together. Respondents are at liberty to grant lease to any of them on merit by comparing their inter se suitability merits, public interest and interest of the development of minerals or on the basis of any other relevant considerations. The respondents are directed to complete the exercise of inviting the applications, considering and passing appropriate order of granting lease in favour of an appropriate person within a period of two months from today and till such time no mining operations should be permitted. The respondent would not take into consideration any observations made in the judgment with respect to merit of the applicant while considering the case of the applicants for grant of lease. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs." ;