One Murugesan, an unsuccessful bidder, filed writ petition number 14138/1996 before the High Court in which an interim injunction was granted restraining the respondent from granting the lease.
The appellant, therefore, filed a writ petition before the High Court unsuccessfully and the matter was carried in writ appeal which also met with the same fate and therefore, he has companye before us by way of special leave.
The companylector rejected the representation on the basis that the new rules had companye into force and under the new rules, lease companyld number be granted in , favour of the appellant.
The appellant particularly relied upon rule 8 A which had been amended enabling the date of companymencement of the period for which the quarrying lease is granted to be the date on which the lease deed is executed.
Thereafter, the appellant made a representation to the state government to direct the grant of leasehold rights as there was numberimpediment in the way of the government.
In the meanwhile the bid in favour of the appellant was companyfirmed.
