Judgment :- 1. In W P. No. 6385 of 1990 filed by the petitioner herein, it was alleged that the petitioner had been granted permits from time to time by the Tahsildar or by the Collector for cutting and removing rough stones, jelly etc., from the poramboke lands in Melur Taluk from July, 1989 onwards. But, suddenly without anv justification, such permits have not been given beyond March, 1990 in spite of applications made in that behalf, one on 25-3-1990 and another on 9-4-1990. Orders were made on 29-5-1990 in the writ petition directing the District Collector, Madurai, as well as the Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Madurai, to consider the applications of the petitioner dated 25-3-1990 and 9-4-1990 and pass orders thereon giving reasons in support of the order on or before 15th June, 1990. Thereafter, the impugned orders had been passed by the District Collector in his proceedings in Roc. No. M/411/90 dated 14-6-1990. 2. The District Collector has stated that there was no application of the petitioner dated 25-3-1990. However, he dealt with the applications dated 9-4-1990 and 30-4-1990 given to him. He rejected the applications giving several reasons. It is enough to notice two of such reasons to support the order of the Collector dated 14-6-1990. The first reason given is that temporary permits can be given only for small quantities and for occasional and special requirements and not for continuous and repeated spells and that too for commercial purposes. He would also rely on the proceedings of the Director of Geology and Mining in Roc. No. 17276/E1/86 dated 9-1-1987 wherein the Director of Geology and Mining has stated that issue of temporary permits do not conform to the provisions of rules. 3. When the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked how the reasons given by the Collector are wrong and whether there is any provision in the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 regarding the grant of temporary permits, he is not able to cite any provision of law under which issuance of temporary permit is contemplated but only states that for over a period of time the Collector has been granting temporary permits from time to time to the petitioner. The very issuance of temporary permits for over a course of time would not create a new law in support of the plea of the petitioner for grant of temporary permits. The very issuance of temporary permits for over a course of time would not create a new law in support of the plea of the petitioner for grant of temporary permits. When a person comes to Court and seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the Collector to grant temporary permits, he must be able to place his fingers on a provision of law and that has not been done here. Another reason given by the Collector is that an applicant who requires continuous supply of any miner also through temporary permits should apply for a regular lease under the provisions of Rr. 8, 8A and 8B of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Here again, it has not been pointed out how this reasoning of the Collector is erroneous. Since the above reasons given by the Collector are found to be acceptable, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.