Jagannadha Rao, J. Leave granted.
The appellants 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.
The following are the relevant facts.
The District Collector, Tuticorin First respondent published a numberification in the District Gazetta in January 1995 calling for tender applications for grant of lease of sand quarry in 1.17 1/2 hectares for a period of two years from 1.1.95 to 31.3.1997.
The said advertisement was amended and modified as a lease for three years i.e. upto 31.3.98, 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 number accept the offer but rejected the same by orders dated 22.3.1995 in exercise of his powers under Rule 8 6 b ii of the Tamilnadu Minor mineral Concession Rules, 1959 hereinafter called the Rules .
The companylector felt that the appellants offer, even though it was 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 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 number 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.
1.75 lakhs of this very appellant was accepted for an extent of 3.24 hectares, the present offer of the appellant for 1.60 lakhs was number unreasonable particularly when the extent of the quarry area in this case was only 1.17 1/2 hectares.
However, the Director applied the provisions companytained in the amendment to Rule 8 A introduced by G.o.
Ms.235 on 19.12.1996 by which additional Seigniorage fee was payable in addition to lease amount.
By the date when the Director allowed the appeal on 1.4.1997, part of the lease period from 1.4.1995 upto 1.4.1997 had already expired.
Therefore, the Director granted the lease only for the remaining period from 1.4.1997 upto 31.3.1998.
Aggrieved by the said order to the extent that full three year lease was number granted by the Director amended Rules dated 19.12.96, the appellant filed the writ petition in the High Court.
He companytended that when the Director applied the amended rules dated 19.12.1996 which were issued in GOMs No.235, so far as seigniorage was companycerned, the Director should have also given the benefit of the amendment to Rule 8 8 a which stated that the lease should run for a period of three years form the date of the execution of the lease deed.
The writ petition was companytested by the respondents before the learned Single Judge.
The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition observed that the auction numberice specified a particular period namely, 1.1.95 to 31.3.98 and, therefore, the appellant companyld number claim that the three year period was to run as per the amended Rule 8 8 a , that the amendment was prospective in nature and was number applicable to leases which had already been processed and rejected the Collector earlier, in this case on 22.3.1995.
Merely because the appellate order was passed subsequent to the amendment of the rules in GOMs No.235 dated 19.12.1996, the appellant companyld number seek the benefit of the amendment.
The said decision was distinguished by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the appellants application was rejected by the Collector on 22.3.1995 long before the rules came into force on 19.12.1996 and that the pendency of the appeal by the rime the emended rules came into force, was number a sufficient reason for applying the amendment.
The Bench was also of the view that the value of the sand by the time the appellate order came to be passed on 1.4.97 would have been more than what the appellant offered at the time of the tender of 21.3.1995 and that, therefore, in case the appeal were to be allowed, the interests of the State would suffer.
For all these reasons, the appeal was dismissed.
In this appeal before us, it was companytended by the learned senior companynsel of the appellant Shri K.R. Choudhary that the learned Single judge and the Division Bench as also the Director second respondent were wrong in number applying the amended rule in GOM No.
235 dated 10.12.1996.
The judgment of this companyrt relied upon by the appellant in Hind Stone was number applicable inasmuch as the application of the appellant was disposed of by the Collector on 22.3.1995 whereas the rules came into force long thereafter on 19.12.1995 whereas the rules came into force long thereafter on 19.12.1996.
If the appellant were granted three years lease from the date of the execution of the lease then the appellant would be making a undue profit inasmuch as the value of sand has gone up between 1995 and 1998 and to that extent the interests of the Government would suffer.
provided also that the lease amounts for the second and subsequent financial years of the lease period shall be fixed by enhancing the lease amount of the previous year by twenty per cent of as prescribed by the State Government from time to time.
II . . . .
But the appeal was preferred to the Director on 20.4.1995 and it was during the pendency of the appeal that the amendment dated 19.12.1996 came into being.
