ORDER: Notice of motion was ordered in this matter and after service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance through Counsel and filed their counter. By consent the main writ petition itself is taken up. 2. The facts leading to the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner applied for grant of quarry lease of black granite over an extent of 1.14.5 hectares of patta lands in S.No.592/2 in Goodamalai Village, Gangavalli Taluk, Salem District, for a period of ten years under Rule 19-A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (herein after referred to as the Tamil Nadu Rules). The application was made on 15.7.1998. The formalities required were duly complied with. The owner of the land one Murugan had given the Power of Attorney in respect of the said lands to the petitioner to operate granite quarry business. The Special Deputy Tahsildar (Mines) along with the Village Administrative Officer inspected the lands on 25.1.1999. Land availability report was furnished to the District Collector, Salem. Even on 22.7.1998 the Assistant Geologist inspected the lands and furnished his technical report to the Collector. It would appear that the District Collector, Salem, the third respondent herein, had obtained the opinion and views from the Geo-Technical Cell, Coonoor, the Joint Director of Agriculture, Salem, the District Forest Officer at Attur and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Salem, for the proposed grant of quarry lease to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the authorities referred to above had recommended that the lease could be granted to the petitioner. The third respondent forwarded the mining lease application of the petitioner to the State Government through the Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Chennai, with his covering letter dated 20.4.1999 recommending the grant of lease in favour of the petitioner. The commissioner of Geology and Mining, the second respondent herein, without even considering the material properly, recommended to the Government for rejecting of mining lease application citing untenable reasons. Accepting this recommendation the first respondent Government rejected the application of the petitioner by order dated 5.8.1999 in G.O.(D) No.179, Industries (MMB-2) Department. The petitioner did not have an opportunity. There was no objective consideration of the materials before deciding the application. A reading of the order, according to the petitioner, would show that the first respondent Government had been carried away by the report of the Commissioner of Geology and Mining. The petitioner did not have an opportunity. There was no objective consideration of the materials before deciding the application. A reading of the order, according to the petitioner, would show that the first respondent Government had been carried away by the report of the Commissioner of Geology and Mining. The writ petition has, therefore, been filed for a certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent passed in G.O (D) No.179, Industries (MMB-2) Department, dated 5.8.1999, quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to grant lease to the petitioner to quarry black granite over the extent of lands already referred to. 3. The grounds of attack by Mr.N.R. Chandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.Sanjeevi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, are as under: The first respondent in its order has stated that the power of Attorney is unregistered. This is factually incorrect. The power of Attorney is a properly registered instrument and the second respondent has clearly overlooked this aspect. 4. The next objection relates to non-obtaining of the clearance from Hill area Conservation Authority and the consent from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. So far as these two aspects are concerned, according to the learned Senior Counsel, these things had to be done by the third respondent Collector and as per the records, these two things had indeed been done by the third respondent Collector and in any event, the petitioner cannot be faulted on this score. It is for the third respondent to apply for and secure the concurrence/ no objection from the various authorities concerned. If the same had not already been done and in fact, at no point of time did the third respondent apprise the petitioner that the consent/ concurrence/ no objection required was not available. 5. The next objection relates to the existence of a terraced house at a distance of 200 meters and as per the amendment issued in G.O.Ms.No.286, Industries (MMC.I) Department, dated 1.4.1999, there could be no quarrying of stones within a radial distance of 500 metres from any inhabited site and the permission for lease could not, therefore, be granted. 5. The next objection relates to the existence of a terraced house at a distance of 200 meters and as per the amendment issued in G.O.Ms.No.286, Industries (MMC.I) Department, dated 1.4.1999, there could be no quarrying of stones within a radial distance of 500 metres from any inhabited site and the permission for lease could not, therefore, be granted. In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the amendment to the relevant rule brought about on 6.8.1999 by G.O.Ms.No.647, which could exclude quarrying operation of granite stone from the operation of the rule, that is to say, there would be no prohibition for quarrying granite stone. Even the 200 metre distance rule is not satisfied. 6. Let us go to the last objection a little later after adverting to the counter on behalf of the respondents and also the arguments of the learned Additional Government Pleader in this regard. 7. It is conceded in paragraph 4 of the counter that the Power of Attorney executed by the land owner in favour of the petitioner is duly registered on the file of the Joint Sub Register IV Salem, dated 26.12.1998. But, the counter further states that there are no entries for registration in so far as the deed of agreement and instrument of partnership submitted by the applicant are concerned. This point raised in the counter is not so specifically stated in the order of the first respondent. It is now well settled that “the order of the authority concerned will have to be supported by the reasons contained in the order and not with any additional material outside the contents of the order by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise.” (Vide: M.s.Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 851: (1978)1 S.C.C. 405 ). 8. 8. So far as the second objection is concerned, the counter says that for obtaining clearance from the Hill Area Conservation Authority, the no objection certificates from the Geo-technical Cell, Forest Department, Agricultural Department and the Pollution Control Board, are pre-requisite based on which only the Hill Area conservation Authority will issue the necessary clearance and these authorities had furnished their opinion for the grant of quarry lease and that the District Collector, the third respondent herein, in his letter dated 20.4.1999 had addressed the Government through the Commissioner of Geology and Mining for passing suitable orders after obtaining clearance from the Hill Area Conservation Authority. It would appear from the counter that the consent of the Pollution Control Board had also been obtained and only the clearance from the Hill Area Conservation Authority remained and this was a matter to be taken care of by the respondents alone and not the petitioner, that is to say, the petitioner cannot be faulted for not obtaining the clearance/ concurrence/ no objection from the Hill Area Conservation Authority. In one breath, the counter says that the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Salem, had furnished its opinion for the grant of quarry lease, but in another breath it is attributed to the second respondent and that the petitioner had not produced the clearance from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. In my view, this has to be taken care of only by the respondents and not the petitioner. If indeed this had to be done by the petitioner, the third respondent ought to have put the petitioner on notice and directed it to get the concurrence from the Pollution Control Board. However, in the instant case, it does not appear to be necessary having regard to the respondents’ own stand that the Pollution Control Board had cleared the project. As regards the objection relating to the details stated to be lacking in the Power of Attorney, again the petitioner ought to have been put on notice where there is a valid registered Power of Attorney and there is a further arrangement between the petitioner and the owner of the property. Any clarification on this aspect could have been easily obtained from the petitioner. Any clarification on this aspect could have been easily obtained from the petitioner. After the application had been processed and had reached the hands of the second respondent and the second respondent had also raised certain objections, then the petitioner ought to have been informed and necessary clarification obtained. In other words, the petitioner should have been put on notice and heard before the second respondent recommended that permission should not be granted. 9. The next question relates to the distance rule. The application of the petitioner was rejected on 5.8.1999. The rule as it stood on that day was to the effect that there should be no quarrying of stone within a radial distance of 500 meters from any inhabited site. However, on 6.8.1999 there was an amendment to the definition of the word ‘stone’. ‘Stone’ shall mean rough stones including khandas, boulders, size reduced (broken or crushed) materials including metal jelly, ballasts, mill stones, hand chakais and building and road construction stones other than black, red, pink, gray, green, white or other coloured or multi-coloured granites or any other rocks suitable for use as ornamental and decorative stones. [Emphasis supplied] 10. It is the contention of Mr.N.R. Chandran, learned Senior Counsel, that this amendment is clarificatory in nature and should be read into the earlier unamended rule and the benefit should be extended to the petitioner. There is force in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel. No doubt, the amendment came into effect on 6.8.1999, one day after the impugned order was passed. But then the amendment must be deemed to have come into force on the date of the earlier rule, being clarificatory in nature and only the rule obtaining as on the date the matter comes up for hearing should apply. 11. The aforesaid discussion obliges me to interfere under Art.226 of the Constitution. The impugned order will stand quashed and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for consideration afresh. The application in the instant case having been made as early as 15.7.1998, it would be appropriate and proper to direct the first respondent to expeditiously consider and dispose of the application. The impugned order will stand quashed and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for consideration afresh. The application in the instant case having been made as early as 15.7.1998, it would be appropriate and proper to direct the first respondent to expeditiously consider and dispose of the application. Consequently, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh and decide the matter after affording an opportunity to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the order in the writ petition. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the injunction petition W.M.P.No.117 of 2000 is closed.