AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Dhanapalan, J.—Heard Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Rajeswaran, learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Challenging the proceedings of the 1st respondent in G.O.(D) No. 20, Industries (MMB-2)
Department, dated 30.01.2012, seeking to quash the same and for a direction to the 1st respondent to grant renewal of quarrying lease by
reconsidering their renewal application dated 06.09.2007 in respect of their granite bearing patta lands measuring 0.07.5 hectares comprised in
Survey No. 97/2B, 2.87.0 hectares comprised in Survey No. 98/1B, totally measuring 2.94.5 hectares situated in DEVANNA GOUNDANUR
Village, Sankari Taluk, Salem District, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
Facts of the case as put forth in the affidavit, would run thus:
2.1. The petitioner is the absolute owner of the patta lands measuring 0.07.5 hectares comprised in Survey No. 97/2B, 2.87.0 hectares comprised
in Survey No. 98/1B, totally measuring 2.94.5 hectares situated in Devanna Goundanur Village, Sankari Taluk, Salem District. Since the said patta
lands contain granite deposits, the petitioner applied to the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent for granite quarry lease in respect of their
said patta lands to quarry colour granite. Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent vide G.O.(3D) No. 137, Industries (MMB-2) Department, dated
04.11.1998, granted granite quarrying lease in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject quarry lands under the then existing Rule 19-A of
the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules (in short ''Rules). Necessary lease agreement was executed on 02.12.1998 and duly registered.
The said lease was for a period of ten years i.e., from 02.12.1998 to 01.12.2008. After execution of the lease agreement, the petitioner
commenced quarry operations and transported the quarried mineral with valid transport permits issued by the 2nd respondent on payment of
necessary seigniorage and there was no violation whatsoever during the said lease period.
2.2. As per the existing rules all four sides of the lease area, 7.5 meters shall be kept as buffer zone to prevent any encroachment over the adjacent
lands. But if the adjacent land lease holder agrees that no buffer zone is required between the two leases, the same can be reduced into a written
agreement and submitted to the Mining Department as well as to the 2nd respondent. With the said consent, the quarry operations can be carried
without leaving the buffer zone with the permission of the 2nd respondent. Since the subject lands of the petitioner are situated adjacent to the lease
lands of M/s. Everest Granites Pvt. Ltd., of No. 7, Causeway Road, Lakshmi Mansion, Gugai, Salem-636 006, both the petitioner and the said
M/s. Everest Granites Pvt., Ltd., have agreed and entered into a consent agreement dated 12.11.2001 between each other, agreeing not to have
any buffer zone between both the lands.
2.3. Pursuant to the said consent agreement entered into between the petitioner and the said M/s. Everest Granites Pvt., Ltd., the 2nd respondent
permitted to carry on quarry operations between the subject area of the petitioner and the said M/s. Everest Granites Pvt., Ltd., without leaving
any buffer zone between the subject area of the petitioner and the said M/s. Everest Granites Pvt., Ltd. There is no violation whatsoever regarding
the same and if there is any violation or such consent agreement is not permitted, the 2nd respondent ought to have not permitted the same and
ought to have stopped quarry operations carried on in the said buffer zone leaving the area used for approach roads during the entire lease period
of ten years.
2.4. Apart from the said quarrying in the buffer zone, a major portion of the buffer zone has been used for laying approach road, to have ingress
and egress for heavy quarrying equipments and vehicles as is done in every granite quarry including the quarries operated by the State Owned
Corporation, Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited (TAMIN). During the currency of the said lease period, the Central Government has framed Granite
Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 acting u/s 18 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957, with effect from
01.06.1999, thereby introducing uniform policy throughout India for granting of granite quarry leases. The said rules over ride the rules framed by
the State Government. By the said rules, minimum lease period is fixed as twenty years and one renewal for the same period of 20 years is
contemplated.
2.5. Since the said Granite Conservation and Development Rules came during the currency of the said lease, as per the settled law, the lease is
deemed to be brought in conformity with the said rules and the lease period of ten years as fixed originally is deemed to have been modified as
twenty years. Applying the said principle, the respondents directed the petitioner to submit mining plan as per the said Granite Conservation and
Development Rules, 1999, by which the said requirement of submission of mining plan even for the then existing leases has been introduced. The
said requirement was introduced for the first time in respect of granite quarries. Pursuant to the said direction of the respondent, the petitioner by a
letter dated 05.12.2002, five copies of the mining plan has been submitted through the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Salem as per the
then existing procedure.
2.6. Though the subject lease is deemed to have been modified as twenty years, since the respondents were not in a position whether to apply the
said provision of law or not, the petitioner, with abundant caution submitted a renewal application dated 06.09.2007 to the 1st respondent through
the 2nd respondent, since the lease expired on 01.12.2008, since as per the rules, the renewal application shall be submitted one year before the
expiry of the lease period. The petitioner has complied with all formalities and requirements. Since the renewal application was not considered by
the respondents, the petitioner moved a writ petition in W.P. No. 17760 of 2008 before this Court praying for the issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus directing the respondents herein to consider and pass orders on the said renewal application of the petitioner dated 06.09.2007. By an
order dated 25.07.2008, this Court allowed the said writ petition directing the 1st respondent to consider the said renewal application of the
petitioner and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the said order.
2.7. Since the 1st respondent did not comply with the said order of this Court, by a representation dated 20.11.2008, the petitioner, enclosing a
photo copy of the order of this Court passed in W.P. No. 17760 of 2008, requested the 1st respondent to comply with the said order. As the 1st
respondent did not comply with the said request of the petitioner, the petitioner was constrained to move another writ petition in W.P. No. 30221
of 2008 praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider their representation dated 20.11.2008, by complying
with the order of this Court passed in W.P. No. 17760 of 2008. By an order dated 22.12.2008, the said writ petition was allowed by this Court
directing the 1st respondent to consider the said representation and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner''s renewal application on merits and
in accordance with law, expeditiously in any event within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.
2.8. Though the renewal application is dated 06.09.2007, the order of this Court passed in W.P. No. 17760 of 2008 is dated 25.07.2008. The
petitioner''s representation is dated 20.11.2008 and the order of this Court passed in W.P. No. 30221 of 2008 is dated 22.12.2008. The 1st
respondent has not complied with the said orders of this Court for reasons best known to him.
2.9. Though the lease period expired on 01.12.2008 and though there was no violation whatsoever during the currency of the said lease, to the
shock and surprise of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 05.04.2011 after four years and four months of the
expiry of the said lease period alleging that the petitioner has violated one of the conditions of lease, by not maintaining 7.5 meters buffer zone on
the western side, i.e., between the lease area of the petitioner and the lease area of M/s. Everest Granites Pvt. Ltd., and asking to show cause as
to why penalty in respect of removal of 930 cbm of granite from the said buffer zone shall not be levied.
2.10. To the said show cause notice of the 2nd respondent dated 05.04.2011, which was received by the petitioner on 08.04.2011, the petitioner
sent a detailed reply on 21.04.2011, denying the said allegation and also explaining about the consent agreement entered into between the
petitioner and M/s. Everest Granites Pvt., Ltd., and also stating that the 2nd respondent has permitted the quarry operations in the said buffer zone
area of 7.5 meters and issued transport permits on payment of required seigniorage to transport the quarried mineral from the said buffer zone of
7-5 meters, both to the petitioner as well as to the said M/s. Everest Granites Pvt., Ltd. The petitioner also enclosed along with the said reply, a
photo copy of the said consent agreement, chitta and adangal showing that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the subject quarry lands and also
stating that except the petitioner, no other person or persons have got any right or interest over the subject quarry lands.
2.11. After receipt of the said reply, the 2nd respondent presumed to have dropped further proceedings. Though there is no impediment
whatsoever to grant renewal of the granite quarrying lease in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject quarry lands and having kept the
renewal application dated 06.09.2007 for more than four years and four months in spite of issuance of Writ of Mandamus twice by this Court, the
1st respondent instead of granting renewal, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, by an impugned order in G.O.(D) No. 20, Industries
(MMB-2) Department, dated 30.01.2012, rejected the said renewal application.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come before this Court with the present Writ Petition.
Respondents have filed counter affidavit, wherein, it is stated as follows:
3.1. A multi-coloured granite quarry lease was granted in favour of M/s. Imperial Granites Ltd., for 10 years period in S. Nos. 97/2B (0.07.5
hectares), 98/1B(2.87.0 hectares) over an extent of 2.94.5 hectares of patta lands in Devannagoundanur Village, Sankari Taluk, Salem District
vide G.O. (3D) No. 137, Industries (MMB. 2) Department, dated 4.11.1998. The lease deed was executed on 02.12.1998 and on 01.12.2008.
The lessee company has preferred quarrying lease renewal application on 06.11.2007 under Rule 19-A of the Rules.
3.2. This Court, by an order dated 25.07.2008 in W.P. Nos. 17760 to 17762 of 2008 and M.P. Nos. 1, 1 & 1/2008, directed the Government
to consider the renewal application submitted by the petitioner and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
3.3. The District Collector, Salem, the 2nd respondent herein forwarded the renewal application for quarrying of Multi colour granite over an
extent of 2.94.5 hectares of patta lands in S.F. Nos. 97/2B (0.07.5 hectares) and 98/1aB (2.87.0 hectares) of Devannagoundanur Village,
Sankari Taluk, Salem District to the Government through the Director of Geology and Mining for rejection. The Commissioner of Geology and
Mining, requested to specifically state as to whether the applicant company has satisfied/complied with all the statutory documents and as to
whether the applicant is eligible for grant of renewal of quarry lease or not.
3.4. The 2nd respondent sent quarry lease renewal application of M/s. Imperial Granite (P) Limited, to the Commissioner of Geology and Mining,
recommending for rejection on the following grounds:-
(i) The applicant Company viz., M/s. Imperial Granites (P) Limited has violated one of the conditions imposed in G.O.(3D) No. 137, Industries
(MMB. 2) Department, dated 04.11.1998, i.e., 7.5 metres safety distance has not been maintained in western boundary (i.e., in between the lease
area of M/s. Everest Granites and M/s. Imperial Granites Private Limited) and ascertained that 930 CbM of granite had been removed from the
safety zone.
(ii) The applicant has not submitted valid mining plan/scheme along with renewal application.
3.5. The Commissioner of Geology and Mining has requested the 2nd respondent to clarify as to whether action has been intimated against the ex-
lessee during the course of quarry operation with regard to the violation of the condition and if it is so, requested him to inform the penal action if
any, initiated against the ex-lessee. In the meantime, counsel for the writ petitioner sent a notice to the 1st and 2nd respondents herein and informed
that if the orders of this Court passed in W.P. No. 30221 of 2008, dated 22.12.2008 are not complied with, his client will be constrained to move
necessary contempt application against the respondents.
3.6. The Government requested the 2nd respondent and the Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Chennai to send remarks to the Government
urgently, since the issue involves contempt of this Court. In this connection, a show cause notice was issued by the second respondent to the
petitioner for levying penalty for violating one of the conditions imposed in G.O.(3D) No. 137, Industries (MMB. 2) Department, dated
4.11.1998.
3.7. In the meanwhile, the quarry lease, renewal application of M/s. Imperial Granites Pvt. Ltd., for the above area was rejected by the
Government, Industries Department in their G.O.(D) No. 20, Industries (MMB. 2) Department, dated 30.01.2012 on the following grounds:-
(i) The applicant company has not obtained consent from the joint pattadars of the area applied for renewal of quarry area. Hence, the applicant
company has no surface right over the renewal applied area.
(ii) The applicant company has violated one of the lease conditions imposed in the order granting quarry lease i.e., ""the applicant company should
leave 7.5 metres safety distance to the adjacent patta land situated on the western side"" and 930 cubic metres of Granite blocks were quarried and
removed from the safety zone, i.e. 7.5 metres on the western part of the area granted on quarry lease. Rule 19-A(18) of the Tamil Nadu Minor
Mineral Concession Rules stipulates that the lease granted under this rule may be renewed for a period not exceeding 20 years, subject to the
satisfactory performance of the lessee in the past, in fulfilling the conditions of the lease.
(iii) The applicant had not produced the copy of the valid approved Mining Plan/scheme of mining in respect of the area applied for renewal of
quarry lease for colour granite, which is a mandatory one of considering the application, for the renewal of quarry lease under Rules 19A and (19)
(b) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules.
3.8. The petitioner company has applied for Multi colour granite quarrying lease in patta lands in S.F. Nos. 97/2B and 98/1B in
Devannagoundanur Village, Sankari Taluk, Salem District and details of ownership as per the revenue records are as follows:-
3.9. Multi colour quarrying lease in patta lands was granted to the above company in S.F. Nos. 97/2B and 98/1B over an extent of 2.94.5
hectares of Devannagoundannur Village, Sankari Taluk, Salem District, vide G.O.(3D) No. 137, Industries (MMB. 2) Department, dated
04.11.1998 for a period of ten years. The lease period was from 02.12.1998 to 01.12.2008. In connection with the renewal application
preferred, an inspection was conducted and it was found that the lessee had violated the lease condition that the lessee should not quarry in 7.5
metres along with the boundary of leased area.
3.10. Mere agreement between two lessees, who are having lease with a common boundary is not sufficient to quarry in the safety zone and the
Director of Mines Safety, Chennai is the authority empowered to decide on the method of mining/quarrying by adjacent lessees. Proper prior
permission should have been obtained from the Director of Mines Safety, Chennai for quarrying in the area prohibited under Regulation 111 of
Mettaliferous Mines Regulations, 1961.
3.11. Though the quarry was examined during inspection in connection with the renewal application preferred, it was found that the lessee had
violated the lease condition that he should not quarry in 7.5 metres along the boundary of the leased area. Hence, it became imperative for the
Government to issue show cause notice for the violation of the leased deed condition.
Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 1st respondent has failed to note that the subject lands
are patta lands of the petitioner and except the petitioner, no other person or persons have got right or interest over the subject lands. He would
further contend that the 1st respondent has failed to note that it is a settled law that having received the application with the alleged deficiency and
the same being processed by the 2nd respondent and forwarded to the 1st respondent for consideration, the 1st respondent cannot reject the
renewal application subsequently on the said ground of alleged deficiency.
Per contra, Mr. R. Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, would contend that during inspection of the
quarry in connection with renewal application, it was found that the lessee had violated the lease condition that he should not quarry in 7.5 metres
along the boundary of leased area and hence, it became imperative for the Government to issue show cause notice for the violation of the lease
deed condition.
I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
A close analysis of the case would reveal that the petitioner, who is the absolute owner of the patta lands measuring 0.07.5 hectares comprised
in Survey No. 97/2B, 2.87.0 hectares comprised in Survey No. 98/1B, totally measuring 2.94.5 hectares situated in Devanna Goundanur Village,
Sankari Taluk, Salem District, applied to the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent for granite quarry lease in respect of their said patta lands
to quarry colour granite. Considering the request of the petitioner, the 1st respondent vide G.O.(3D) No. 137, Industries (MMB-2) Department,
dated 04.11.1998, granted granite quarrying lease in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject quarry lands under the then existing Rule 19-
A of the Rules. Thereafter, necessary lease agreement for a period of ten years i.e. from 02.12.1998 to 01.12.2008 was executed on 02.12.1998
and duly registered. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner commenced quarry operations and transported the quarried mineral with valid transport
permits issued by the 2nd respondent on payment of necessary seigniorage and there was no violation whatsoever during the said lease period.
As per the existing rules, the petitioner filed an application for renewal on 06.11.2007. In the meanwhile, the petitioner moved this Court in
W.P. Nos. 17760 to 17762 of 2008 and this Court directed the Government to consider the renewal application submitted by the petitioner and
pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three weeks. Thereafter, the District Collector, Salem, the 2nd respondent
herein, forwarded the renewal application for quarrying colour granite, to the Government through the Director of Geology and Mining for
rejection. The 2nd respondent sent the quarry lease renewal application of the petitioner to the Commissioner of Geology and Mining,
recommending for rejection on the grounds, that the petitioner has not maintained the safety distance of 7.5 metres in the western boundary and
that he has not submitted valid mining plan/scheme along with the renewal application.
The Commissioner of Geology and Mining has requested the District Collector, Salem to clarify as to whether action has been initiated against
the ex-lessee during the course of quarry operation with regard to the violation of the conditions and if it is so, requested him to inform the penal
action if any, initiated against the ex-lessee. In the meantime, a legal notice was sent by the counsel for the petitioner to the respondents, informing
that if the orders of this Court passed in W.P. No. 30221 of 2008, dated 22.12.2008 are not complied with, they will be constrained to move
necessary contempt application. While so, the 1st respondent-Government requested the 2nd respondent and the Commissioner of Geology and
Mining, Chennai to send remarks to the Government urgently, since the issue involves contempt of this Court. In this connection, a show cause
notice was issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner for levying penalty for violating one of the conditions imposed in G.O.(3D) No. 137.
However, the quarry lease renewal application of the petitioner was rejected vide proceedings of the Government in G.O.(D) No. 20 (MMB 2)
Industries Department, dated 30.01.2012.
As regards the first ground of rejection of the petitioner''s Quarry Lease renewal application, the respondent has stated that the applicant
company has not obtained consent from the joint pattadars of the area applied for renewal of quarry area and hence, the applicant company has no
surface right over the renewal applied area. In this regard, the petitioner would state that he is the absolute owner of the subject patta land and
there is no other person having any right or interest over the subject lands and therefore, the question of obtaining permission from other co-owners
does not arise. A perusal of the records would show that the petitioner is the sole owner of the subject patta land and there is no joint pattadhar.
Therefore, this question is answered in favour of the petitioner.
With regard to the second ground of rejection of renewal application that the applicant company has violated one of the lease conditions
imposed in the order granting quarry lease i.e. the applicant company should leave 7.5 metres safety distance to the adjacent patta land situated on
the western side and 930 cubic metres of Granite blocks were quarried and removed from the safety zone, i.e. 7.5 metres on the western part of
the area granted on quarry lease, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and the adjacent lease holder have entered into a consent
agreement not to have any buffer zone between both the lease areas, since the said requirement of 7.5 metres buffer zone is only to prevent
encroachment over the adjacent land. The petitioner has taken a stand that quarry operations in the said buffer zone have been legally and lawfully
permitted by the 2nd respondent accepting the said consent agreement. In this regard, the 1st respondent has taken a stand that mere agreement
between two lessees who are having lease with a common boundary is not sufficient to grant quarry in the safety zone. It is his further stand that
proper prior permission should have been obtained from the Director of Mines Safety, Chennai for quarrying in the area prohibited under
Regulation 111 of Mettaliferous mines Regulation, 1961, which reads thus:
Working near mine-boundaries:
(1) The owner, agent or manager of every mine shall fix the boundaries of the mines. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-regulation (2), the
boundaries shall not be changed except with the permission of the Chief Inspector in writing and subject to such conditions as he may specify
therein.]
(2) No working shall be made within a distance of 7.5 metres of the boundary of any mine; and in case of a disputed boundary, no working shall
be made within a distance of 7.5 metres of the boundary claimed by the owner of an adjacent mine until such time as a binding agreement has been
reached as to the correct boundary or the question has been finally determined by a court of law:
[Provided that, where the workings of any seam, for any reason, are extended or get extended within any shorter distance than what is laid down
hereinabove, the Chief Inspector may, by an order in writing require the owner to construct such protective works within such time as he may
specify in the order.]
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-regulation (1), the Chief Inspector may, by an order in writing and subject to such conditions as he
may specify therein, permit the workings of any mine or part thereof to extend to within any shorter distance than 7.5 metres aforesaid, or may
require that the said workings shall not extend further than a specified distance, not exceeding 60 metres, of such boundary.
11b. In the Consent Agreement, dated 12.11.2001, the petitioner herein has entered into an Agreement with M/s. Everest Granites consenting to
quarry near the Western boundary lines as follows:
The area of quarrying operation are having a common boundary line in between Survey Nos. 98/2B and 98/1A.
It is mutually agreed upon and signed by the two parties (1) and (2) to operate in their respective mining areas within 7.5 metres of the boundary
line as permitted under Metalliferous Mines Regulation 111 for working near the boundary without any dispute.
The said Consent Agreement was accepted by the 2nd respondent at the time when the original quarry lease was granted. On a perusal of the
impugned order, it is not clear as to whether the 1st respondent has looked into this position and arrived at a decision to reject the petitioner''s
renewal application.
11c. It is true that under Regulation 111 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulation, 1961, the owner, agent or manager of every mine shall fix the
boundaries of the mines and no working shall be made within a distance of 7.5 metres of the boundary of any mine; and in case of a disputed
boundary, no working shall be made within a distance of 7.5 metres of the boundary claimed by the owner of an adjacent mine until such time a
binding agreement has been reached as to the correct boundary or the question has been finally determined by a court of law.
11d. Though the Consent Agreement entered into by the petitioner with the adjacent quarry owner was accepted by the 2nd respondent at the
time of granting quarry lease, in the impugned order, it is not mentioned as to whether the petitioner has obtained permission from the Chief
Inspector to carry out quarrying operations in his mining area within 7.5 metres of the boundary line. This aspect has been decided by the 1st
respondent without total application of mind and verification of records. Hence, Ground No. 2 of the impugned order requires re-consideration.
The third ground for rejection of the petitioner''s Quarry renewal application is that the petitioner had not produced the copy of the valid
approved Mining Plan/scheme of mining in respect of the area applied for renewal of quarry lease for colour granite, which is a mandatory one of
considering the application, for the renewal of quarry lease under Rules 19A and (19)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules. In
this regard, the petitioner would state that he had submitted five sets of mining plan vide a covering letter dated 05.12.2002 to the Assistant
Director of Geology and Mining, since the said requirement of submission of mining plan came into force with effect from 01.06.1999 by Granite
Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 and since the said requirement was applicable even for the then existing leases prospectively.
According to the petitioner, the said mining plan was valid on the date of submission of the renewal application.
12a. As per clause 16(A) and 16(B) of Appendix XV of Rule 19A of the Rules, it is provided that in case of renewal, whether a report on the
prospecting work carried out already is furnished and under 16(B), it is contemplated that whether a copy of scheme of prospecting has been
enclosed for the prospecting work to be carried out in the renewal period.
12b. Rule 18 provides for review of mining plan. Under sub-section (1), every mining plan duly approved under this Rule shall be valid under the
entire duration of the lease. Sub-section (3) provides that the scheme of mining shall be submitted to the State Government or any person
authorised in this behalf by the Government atleast 120 days before the expiry of five years period for which, it was approved on the last occasion.
12c. A comprehensive and combined reading of the above provision makes it clear that there must be a mining plan/scheme and any plan
submitted for the lease period shall be valid for the entire period of lease and in case of renewal, a copy of the scheme of prospecting has to be
enclosed for the prospecting work to be carried out in the renewal period. Therefore, it can be clearly construed that for the renewal period also,
mining scheme/plan has to be submitted.
12d. In this case, the petitioner claims that he has submitted the mining plan at the time of original lease and therefore, his contention that it is not
required at the time of renewal, cannot be accepted for the reason that even for the renewal period, there must be a scheme of prospecting licence.
Therefore, as regards this point, the authorities have rightly rejected the petitioner''s renewal application. In the light of the above stated position,
this court is of the view that the first ground of rejection of the petitioner''s renewal application is not satisfied by the 1st respondent in the manner
as contemplated and in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The impugned order in respect of Ground No. 1 of rejection of
the petitioner''s renewal application is set aside. In respect of Ground No. 2, the matter requires re-consideration by verifying the records. Hence,
the matter in respect of Ground Nos. 1 and 2 is remanded back to the authorities concerned to consider afresh with due diligence to the Rules in
question, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and decide the same in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As far as Ground No. 3 of the impugned order is concerned, the authorities have rightly decided
and the same is upheld.
In fine, the Writ Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated, with the above direction and observation. No costs.