Andavar Minerals and Industries vs The District Collector

D. Murugesan, J.—Mr. E. Sampathkumar, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

The petitioner was granted mining lease for limestone over an extent of patta land admeasuring 1.86.0 hectares in Survey Nos.312/1, 2, 3 and 4

of Nadanthai village, Paramathi-Velur Taluk, Namakkal District by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.610 Industries dated

26.5.1983 initially for a period of 3 years. The lease deed was executed on 8.8.1983. Thereafter, the lease was periodically renewed and the lease

period came to an end finally on 7.8.2005. The grievance of the petitioner is that though a renewal application under Rule 24-A of the Mineral

Concession Rules, 1960 was made on 16.5.2005, the same has not been disposed of by the State Government.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

Mr. Sanjeevi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in terms of Rule 24-A(6) of the Mineral Concession Rules, if the State

Government does not dispose of the application before the expiry of the lease period, the period of lease shall be deemed to have been extended

by a further period till the State Government passes orders. Placing reliance on the said Rules, the petitioner has approached this Court for a

direction to the District Collector, Namakkal for issue of direction on the ground that the lease is deemed to have been renewed.

In my opinion, Rule 24-A(6) of the Mineral Concession Rules would apply only in a case where application for renewal is made in terms of Rule

24-A(1) of Mineral Concession Rules, prior to at least 12 months before the lease due to expire and not in a case where application is filed after

the time limit prescribed in sub rule (1) of Rule 24-A of Mineral Concession Rules. Admittedly, the petitioner has made an application only on

16.5.2005 and the said application is not made prior to 12 months before the date on which the lease is due to expire as the lease expired on

7.8.2005. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for in this writ petition by placing reliance of Rule 24-A(6) of Mineral

Concession Rules. However, the State Government is competent to consider the application if it is filed after the expiry of 12 months as

contemplated under Rule 24-A(10) of Mineral Concession Rules by condoning the delay. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been

carrying on quarrying operation right from 26.5.1983 and the lease is renewed without any break, in my opinion, the application should be

considered by the State Government or the competent authority for grant of renewal on its own merits.

It is brought to my notice, in the case of patta lands, the authority to grant of mining lease of renewal is the Director of Geology and Mining,

Government of Tamil Nadu. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, but it is observed that the Director of Geology and Mining shall consider

the application of the petitioner made on 16.5.2005 for renewal of the lease by duly taking into consideration Rule 24-A(10) of Mineral

Concession Rules and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. It is also brought to my notice, as the application has already been

processed, the Director of Geology and Mining may consider and pass final orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

of this Order. Consequently, the connected petition W.P.M.P.No.28860 of 2005 is closed. No costs.

The Government Advocate is permitted to communicate this order to the Director of Geology and Mining, as he has not been impleaded as

respondent in this writ petition.