Judgment : 1. Heard. 2. In the above writ petition, the petitioner seeks for issue of a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to issue transport permit, enabling the petitioner to transport the clay from Survey No. 583/3 in Kara (East) Village, perambalur Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District, during the currency of the lease. 3. In brief, the petitioner was granted a lease to mine fire clay over an extent of 2.71 acres in S. No. 583/3 of Karai (East) Village, Perambalur Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District by G.O.Ms. No. 220 Industries (MMA-2) Department dated 22. 1990. 4. Clause 8 of the above G.O. contemplates the petitioner to set up his own industry within two years from the date of the above G.O., failing which, the lease would lapse. Clause 11 of the G.O. makes it clear that the terms and conditions stated in the above G.O. dated 22. 1990 are subject to further modification, addition or alteration, as may be included in the lease deed and finalised. In pursuance of the said G.O., a lease deed was also entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent on 14. 1990. which do not contain the condition imposed under Clause 8 of the G.O. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner had not set up his industry within two years from the date of the said G.O. Therefore, the first respondent passed the proceedings dated 2. 1993 and requested the petitioner to inform whether he had set up an industry as per the said G.O dated 22. 1990. Apprehending refusal of the transport permit, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 6. Mr. V. Sanjeevi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the conditions imposed in the said G.O. dated 22. 1990 is subject to alteration that would be finalised in the lease deed. The learned counsel for the petitioner, also contends that once the conditions mentioned in the G.O. is subject to alterations which was finalised in the lease deed dated 14. 1990, the condition requiring the petitioner to establish a factory within two years from the date of the G.O. was not incorporated in the lease deed, the respondents are not entitled to insist the petitioner to establish a factory of their own within two years from the date of the G.O. In this regard, Mr. 1990, the condition requiring the petitioner to establish a factory within two years from the date of the G.O. was not incorporated in the lease deed, the respondents are not entitled to insist the petitioner to establish a factory of their own within two years from the date of the G.O. In this regard, Mr. Sanjeevi places reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in P. Radhakrishnan v. The District Collector, Dindigul, 1993 (1) MLJ 50 . 7. Mr. Sanjeevi, learned counsel for the petitioner, further contends that it is not open for the respondents to impose any permit or condition, which is not permissible under the statutory rules. In this regard, he places reliance on the decision in Ramlal & Sons v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1976 SC 54 . 8. Mr.A. Paramasivam, learned Government Advocate, is not disputing the above principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Apex Court, referred to above. 9. I have given a careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. .10. In this regard, I am obliged to refer the decision in P. Radhakrishnan v. The District Collector, Dindigul, 1993 (1) MLJ 50 , which reads as follows: ."The parties settled all their rights and obligations in the lease deeds and they must ultimately speak. The appellant never demurred earlier on the other hand accepted the terms. It is not possible to enlarge the rights secured to the appellant under the lease deeds." .11. In Ramlal & Sons v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1976 SC 54 the Apex Court has held as follows: ."It could not exercise a power in the matter of grant of mining lease unknown to these Rules. The State Government could not impose terms and conditions according to its own whims ignoring or disregarding the statutory rules which are binding on it." 12. Since it is not in dispute that the lease deed do not contain the condition that the petitioner should establish a factory within two years from the date of the said G.O., and in any event, the statutory rules in the lease deed granted do not permit the respondents to impose such a condition, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents are not entitled to insist the petitioner to establish a factory. Consequently, they cannot refuse the transport permit to the petitioner on that account. Hence, there shall be a direction to the respondents to issue transport permit to the petitioner to enable him to transport the fire clay from his quarry over an extent of 2.71 acres in S. No. 583/3 of Karai (East) Village, Perambalur Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District during the currency of the lease, which ends on 14. 2000. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.