K.P. Maduraisamy vs The District Collector

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for

issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned order, dated 03.01.2005.

The impugned order reads as under:

Proceedings of the District Collector, Madurai,

Present: Thiru. D. Raajendiran, I.A.S.,

Roc No. 1613/2005-Mines:- Dated 3.1.2006

Sub: Mines and Quarries - Madurai District-Melur Taluk-Kottampatty village - S.F. No. 148 measuring 2.00.0 hectares, Madurai North Taluk-

Meenakshipuram II Bit Village-S.F. No. 24 measuring 2.00.00 hectares -quarry lease granted to Thiru. K.P. Maduraisamy

for quarrying Rough Stone and Jelly - lease period of expired- extension of lease requested- rejected-orders-issued.

Ref.1. Common Judgment delivered by High Court, Chennai, in W.P.No.14187/2001, 14188/2001,, 14189/2001 and 14190/2001 on

08.07.2004.

Thiru.K.P. Maduraisamy letter, dated 08.12.2005.

Thiru.K.P. Maduraisamy letter, dated 08.12.2005

ORDER:

Thiru.K.P. Maduraisamy has applied for extension of quarry lease for a period of 5 years for S. No. 24 over an extent of 2.00.0 hectares in

Meenakshipuram II bit village, Madurai North Taluk, for quarrying Rough stone and Jelly.

Similarly Thiru. K.P, Maduraisamy has also applied for extension of lease for a period of 5 years for S. No. 148 over an extent of 2.00.0 hectares

in Kottampatty village, Melur Taluk.

As per rule (8)(8)(i)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959, the date of commencement of period of lease granted under this

rule shall be the date on which the lease deed is executed and the lease shall expire on the date specified in the lease deed and in No. case

extension of period of lease can be made.

Since there is No. rule provision in Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, for the grant of extension of lease period, after the expiry

of the original lease period, the request of Thiru.K.P. Maduraisamy is rejected on the following grounds.

Thiru.K.P. Maduraisamy was allotted to continue the quarry operation for the full lease period and hence the question of further extension does

not arise.

Thiru.K.P. Maduraisamy has already filed a writ petition and obtained High Court order in the reference first cited to continue the quarry

operation of the left over period.

The Rule 8(8)(1)(11) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rule 1959 clearly says ""that in No. case extension of period of lease can be

made"".

sd/-

For Collector, 3.1.06

Madurai

To,

Thiru.K.P. Maduraisamy,

S/o. Kallanai @ Ponnian Ambalam,

Thethampatti Othaveedu,

Poosaripatti Post,

Madurai North Taluk,

Madurai District.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner has challenged the impugned order, by placing reliance on the Government Order, dated 17.11.2000,

vide which, Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959, was amended.

The amended rule reads as follows:

In the said Rules, in Rule 8, for Sub-rule (8), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely:

(8).The period of lease for quarrying stone in respect of the virgin areas, which have not been subjected to quarrying so far, shall be ten years. The

period of lease for quarrying stone in respect of other areas shall be five years. The period of lease for quarrying sand and other minor minerals,

other than the minerals covered under Rules 8A and 8C of the said rules, shall not exceed three years and shall not be less than one year and shall

be subject to the following conditions, namely:

(i)The dated of commencement of period of lease granted under this rule shall be the date on which the lease deed is executed.

(ii)The lease shall expired on the date specified in the lease deed and in No. case extension of period of lease shall be made.

The amended rule can only have prospective effect, in view of the clear stipulation that the lease shall expire on the date specified in the lease

deed, and in No. case for extension of the period of lease shall be granted.

Admittedly, the lease period of the Petitioner has already expired. The prayer made in the writ petition is for extension of period of lease. The

lease in favour of the Petitioner was for the period of five years, commencing from 25.1.1996, even 10 years expired in 2006. Therefore, at this

stage, by No. stretch of imagination the lee can be extended any further.

For the reasons stated, there is No. merit in the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No.

costs.