It was clearly stipulated that lease companyld only be granted in favour of Corporations wholly owned by the State Government.
By order dated 14.6.1996 the High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the State Government to companysider the application of the writ petitioner and dispose of the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of companyy of the order and also directed the State Government to maintain status quo in the meantime.
777/4A of Ayyamkollankondam village, Rajapalayam Taluk, Kamarajar District.
Subsequently, the District Collector put certain lands for auction in 2003.
The State Government passed an order on 8.10.1996 rejecting the application of the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner was asked to participate in the tender cum auction to be companyducted by the Collector for granting of quarry lease for the area applied by him.
But the private respondent who was affected by the interim order filed a writ appeal against the said order alleging that the writ petitioner under the garb of interim order was interfering with the quarry allotted to him.
The High Court passed an interim order on 29.4.2003 permitting the writ petitioner to companytinue with quarrying operation on payment of lease amount quoted by the neighbouring quarry owners.
We are satisfied that there was numberjustification for the writ petitioner to have waited for a long time.
As such the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner and the writ appeal were clubbed together.
Consequently, the application of the writ petitioner came to be rejected by order dated 8.10.1996.
The Government on 8.10.1996 passed the order in pursuance to the direction given by the High Court rejecting his application, same was challenged after inordinate delay i.e. on 27.4.2003 by the present writ petition, therefore, the writ petition was hopelessly belated.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Thereafter, Rule 39 was introduced on 8.3.1993 and that rule provided power to the State Government for relaxation.
The validity of Rule 39 was also challenged but it was upheld by this Court in Premium Granites Anr.
Government granted lease in some cases relaxing the power of prohibition but some applications were rejected.
One of the two lands for which the writ petitioner had applied for grant of lease, was also put to auction.
Rule 39 of the Rules companyferred power on the State Government to grant or renew quarry lease or permission in special cases.
When the application of the writ petitioner under Rule 39 was rejected on 8.10.1996 by the State Government in pursuance to the direction given by the High Court, the writ petitioner waited up to 27.4.2003 and filed a hopelessly belated writ petition.
In the interest of mineral development and in public interest the Government may for the reasons to be recorded, grant or renew a lease or permission to quarry any mineral.
The said order was challenged by the State Government in Writ Appeal No.1750 of 2004.
A number of applications were filed under Rule 39 of the Rules before the State Government for grant of lease.
The interim order dated 27.2.2004 passed by learned Single Judge was challenged by a private party namely, Tamilarasi in Writ Appeal No.453 of 2006 alleging that taking advantage of the order of learned Single Judge the writ petitioner has unauthorisedly encroached upon the lease hold land granted in his favour and started quarrying operation in the said land.
It may be relevant to mention here that earlier Rule 8 C of the Rules was introduced in 1977 by which grant of lease for quarrying black granite in favour of private persons was prohibited.
Once the order was passed on 8.10.1996, then there was numberneed for the writ petitioner to have waited for such a long time.
The writ petitioner did number challenge this order till 2003 and suddenly woke up to file writ petition on 27.4.2003 being writ petition No.13791 of 2003 before the High Court.
supra .
Hence, he filed the writ petition the High Court passed an order on 2.5.1996 directing the State Government to expedite the disposal of the application of the writ petitioner and to dispose the same within four weeks from the date of receipt of a companyy of the order.
But strangely enough, the said writ petition was entertained and an interim order was passed and it was number interfered despite the State Government raising an objection.
The High Court allowed certain number of writ petitions by order dated 17.3.1995 and issued directions that all pending applications should be disposed of as far as possible within a period of twelve weeks from the date of the order.
Though the Government preferred an appeal against the said order, it was rejected.
Thereafter, learned Single Judge passed some clarificatory order against which an appeal was preferred by the State Government but the same was also dismissed.
The writ petitioner did number pursue the matter after the Government passed the order dated 8.10.1996 in pursuance of the direction given by the High Court and the Collector while rejecting the application of the writ petitioner held that since rule 39 has already been repealed, therefore, the writ petitioner cannot be granted any lease in view of the changed circumstances.
Hence, a batch of writ petitions was filed before the Madras High Court.
Hence, both these matters were clubbed together by companysent of parties and were disposed of by the High Court by the companymon impugned order.
The writ petitioner made an application under Rule 39 of the Rules but his application was number disposed of within twelve weeks.
Meanwhile, on 27.6.1996 within four weeks Rule 39 was repealed.
However, on 27.6.1996 within a period of four weeks Rule 39 was repealed by the State Government.
After seven years, the writ petitioner filed the present writ petition being W.P.No.13791 of 2003 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 8.10.1996 and to direct the first respondent to companysider the application of the writ petitioner dated 2.2.1996 for grant of lease for quarrying jelly and rough stone under Rule 39 of the Rules as it stood at the relevant time.
This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated 13.7.2006 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant M.P.Ram Mohan Raja and disposed of the writ appeal filed by S.Ramilarasi in view of the affidavit filed by the State Government.
The writ petition was admitted on 29.4.2003.
By an interim order dated 27.2.2004 learned Single Judge permitted the writ petitioner to carry on quarrying operation of jelly and rough stone in the said land.
The validity of Rule 8 C was challenged before the Madras High Court and ultimately, the matter reached before this Court and in State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone AIR 1981 SC 711 this Court allowed the State appeal and upheld the validity of Rule 8 C. However, this Court observed that some of the applications which were pending before introduction of this prohibition, may be dealt with in accordance with the Rules but at the same time it is clarified that numberone has vested right for grant of lease in mining.
It was only when the third party who felt aggrieved by the said interim order because the writ petitioner on account of this interim order started interfering with his area, that the matter was entertained by the High Court and it was clubbed up together.
This order of the High Court passed on 17.3.1995 was number challenged further and it attained finality.
Arising out of S.L.P. C No.12751 of 2006 K. MATHUR, J. Leave granted.
The High Court affirmed the objection of the respondents and in our opinion, rightly so.
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are the appellant writ petitioner hereinafter to be referred to as the writ petitioner applied to the State Government in the Industries Department on 2.2.1996 under Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules for grant of quarry lease for quarrying jelly and rough stone for a period of 20 years from the poramboke lands over an extent of 3.64 hectares in survey No.782/2 and over an extent of 2.36 hectares in survey No.
Hence, aggrieved against the order passed by the Division Bench dismissing the writ petition the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.
