Judgment :- Heard both parties. 2. The petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's right to quarry sand in 4.00.0 hectares in S.F. No. 135/7, Achammapuram Village, Karur Taluk and District and to direct the respondents to issue transport permit to the petitioner. 3. Admittedly the petitioner is having a valid lease till 27-5-1998 to carry on the mining operation in sand quarry in his patta land over an exent of 4 hectares out 7.44.5 hectares in S.F. No. 135/7 of Achammapuram Village, Karur Taluk and District. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been denied the transport permit by the respondents without any valid reason whatsoever. Hence the above writ petition. 4. The above writ petition came up for admission on 23-7-1997 and notice of motion was ordered. 5. After notice of motion, the matter came up for orders on 26-8-1997 when this Court has passed the followed order : "The respondents are directed to file the counter affidavit on or before 1-9-1997. Post the matter on 1-9 -1997. Even though it is stated by the learned Government Pleader that on 30-7-1997 the respondents have sanctioned transport permit for 300 loads, the learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the same and further contends that in spite of the orders for issuing transport permit of 300 loads, no transport permit was issued to the petitioner factually. In view of the above controversy I direct the respondents to issue transport permit for 300 loads immediately on the production of this order." * 6. In spite of the orders dated 26-8-1997 it was complained that the respondents have not issued the transport permit for 300 loads. Therefore, by order dated 4-9-1997 the respondents were called upon to explain to this Court for the non-compliance of the direction dated 26-8-1997. When the matter came up for further orders today, learned Additional Government pleader submits that the petitioner has not paid seigniorage fee for 300 loads. It is for that reason the transport permit was not given to the petitioner. When the matter came up for further orders today, learned Additional Government pleader submits that the petitioner has not paid seigniorage fee for 300 loads. It is for that reason the transport permit was not given to the petitioner. At this point I make it clear that no such reasons were placed before me when the matter came up on 4-9-1997, assuming the respondents were willing to issue the transport permit and the same could not be done for want of payment of seigniorage fee for 300 loads by the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show on the note file maintained by the respondents to show that the respondents were ready to give the transport permit but the same could not be done for want of payment of seignorage fee. In such circumstance, the respondents could have issued a notice to the petitioner demanding such payment of seigniorage fee, in order to comply with the directions of this Court. Having thus failed to place the correct facts before this Court on 4-9-1997 it is not open to for the respondents to shift the blame on the petitioner for non-compliance of the orders of this Court dated 26-8-1997. The act of the respondents in this regard could not be appreciated. 7. However, considering the grievance of the petitioner and in the interested of justice it is sufficient to direct the respondents to issue transport permit as and when the petitioner makes such application with necessary seignorage fee for the quantity demanded by the petitioner if such quantity and the number of loads fall within one metre from the surface level as required under the relevant rules. The respondents shall not deny such issue of transport permit without any valid reason. It is also made clear that since the relevant rule does not prescribe any period of time for issuing or utilising such transport permit the respondents are directed to comply with the above direction without reference to any time limit as long as the quantity required and the load demanded on payment of seigniorage fee falls within one metre depth from the surface level. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Order accordingly.