Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : The prayer in the writ petition is as follows : "to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to give effect to the 1st respondent's order in G.O. 4(D) No. 11 dated 2-4-1996 by executing the lease deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of 15 hectares situated in Survey No. 255, Malaipattu Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chengai Anna District." 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder : The petitioner is a leading Engineering and Construction Company engaged in executing major civil works for several Government Departments, Public Corporations and Private Bodies. It has been continuously enjoying stone quarrying rights over the land situate in Survey No. 255 of Malaipattu Village, Sriperumbudhur Taluk over an area of 27.88 hectares ever since 1967. The petitioner submitted an application dated 17-8-1995 to the respondents seeking grant of lease in respect of the said quarry lands measuring 27.88 hectares for a period of 10 years. However the first respondent by its order dated 2-4-1996 granted lease over an extent of 15 hectares as against 27.88 hectares for a period of five years and the second respondent was requested to fix the lease amount and execute the lease agreement. The petitioner by letter dated 8-4-1996 requested the second respondent regarding the lease amount fixed and the value of the stamp papers to be purchased to enable them to commence quarrying operations. Since there was no reply from the respondents the petitioner constrained to send several reminders thereon. The petitioner came to know that the respondents are being guided by recent G.O. Ms. No. 91 Industries Department dated 27-6-1996, by which Rule 39 of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") was omitted with effect from 27-6-1996 for not executing the lease agreement in favour of the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that the grant of lease in favour of them under Rule 39 was made by order dated 2-4-1996 much earlier to the date of issue of the above Government Order. Inasmuch as Rule 39 as it stood was upheld by the Apex Court in Premium Granites v. State of Tamilnadu, the subsequent omission of Rule 39 cannot stand in the way of respondents to execute the lease deed. Inasmuch as Rule 39 as it stood was upheld by the Apex Court in Premium Granites v. State of Tamilnadu, the subsequent omission of Rule 39 cannot stand in the way of respondents to execute the lease deed. The Government's Order dated 2-4-1996 granting the lease in favour of the petitioner vested with a valuable legal right to obtain a lease agreement executed by the respondents. Since several representations proved futile, the petitioner filed the above writ petition before this Court. 3. The second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that the application of the petitioner for grant of lease for rough stone under the then Rule 39 was forwarded to the Government along with the other applications by the second respondent. The Government in their order dated 2-4-1996 have issued permission for quarrying rough stone to the petitioner over an extent of 15 hectares in Malaipattu village, Sriperumbudur Taluk for a period of five years after executing the necessary lease deed and consequential compliance of the order. The Government in telex dated 24-5-1996 have issued instructions that the lease granted after 19-3-1996 in respect of sand, stone and granite under Rule 39 need not be executed. Hence, the lease granted under Rule 39 was not executed and the above fact was intimated to the Government. Simultaneously, action was being taken to notify the said quarry through tender cum auction. Subsequently the Government have issued G.O. Ms. No. 91 Industries Department dated 27-6-1996 deleting Rule 39. Inasmuch as the petitioner has not executed the lease deed and it is not a formality, but it is a mandatory. In view of deletion of Rule 39 the petitioner cannot compel this Court to execute the lease pursuant to the earlier order dated 2-4-1996. With these averments the second respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as respondents. 5. The only point for consideration is whether in view of deletion of Rule 39 any direction has to be issued to the respondents 1 and 2 to give effect to the order of the first respondent in G.O. 4(D) No. 11 dated 2-4-1996 by executing the lease deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of 15 hectares situate in S. No. 255. Malaipattu village, Sriperumbudur Taluk. 6. There is no dispute that the petitioner submitted an application on 17-8-1995 to the respondents seeking grant of lease to quarry the lands measuring 27.88 hectares for a period of 10 years. However, by the said Government Order dated 2-4-1996, the first respondent granted lease over an extent of 15 hectares for a period of five years. By drawing my attention to the said order, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that, inasmuch as the Government granted lease over an extent of 15 hectares for a period of five years in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 39 of the Rules and the same having been issued in the name of the Governor, it is, but proper for the respondents to honour the said order and execute the lease deed. It is not disputed that even though the Government have granted lease by the said Government Order, admittedly the second respondent Collector has neither fixed any lease amount nor executed lease agreement and intimated the date of execution of agreement to the Government and Director of Geology and Mining. In other words, though the petitioner was granted permission to quarry by the first respondent even on 2-4-1996, the subsequent action viz., fixing the lease amount and execution of lease agreement were not completed by the second respondent. In the meanwhile, the first respondent, after taking a policy decision, have issued G.O. Ms No. 91 Industries (MMC I) Department dated 27-6-1996 deleting Rule 39 of the Rules from the statute book. It is also brought to my notice that the deletion of the said Rule has been upheld by this Court. It is clear that as Rule 39 of the Rules was not in existence from 27-6-1996, the only course open to the Government is to resort to public auction/tender. In such circumstance, I am of the view that though the petitioner had secured a valid order from the Government even on 2-4-1996, in view of the fact that based on the said order lease amount was not fixed and lease deed was not executed by the second respondent, it is not open to this Court to compel the respondents, particularly the second respondent to give effect to the order of the first respondent dated 2-4-1996 by executing lease deed in favour of the petitioner, when Rule 39 is not in force from 27-6-1996. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by pointing out the following decisions viz.,- (i) State of Tamilnadu v. M/s. Hind Stone (ii) The State of Tamilnadu etc. v. Tvl., Mineral and Minerals Product of India, etc. (1997 Writ LR 607 : and (iii) Judgment in W.P. No. 11951 of 4996 etc., batch dated 1-7-1999, would contend that inasmuch as the petitioner was granted lease under Rule 39 when the Rule was very much in force, the deletion of the said Rule on a subsequent date viz., on 27-6-1996 and in view of the delay in execution of the lease deed on the part of the Officers of the Government, the right of the petitioner to quarry the mineral cannot be taken away. There is no dispute that the Rule prevailing on that date alone has to be considered while granting lease. I have already stated that though petitioner had secured grant under Rule 39 even on 2-4-1996, admittedly lease agreement was not executed by the second respondent till the deletion of Rule 39 i.e., on 27-6-1996. In such circumstance, the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for petitioner are not helpful to her case. On the other hand, the perusal of Rules 8(a) and 9(a) clearly shows that, "The date of commencement of the period for which the quarrying lease is granted under the Rule shall be the date on which the lease deed is executed." 8. In the light of the above factual and legal position and also of the fact that deletion of Rule 39 has already been upheld by this Court, (W. P. No. 11951 of 1996 etc., batch dated 1-7-1999) there is no merit in the claim made by the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. 9. In view of the dismissal of the main writ petition, connected WMPs, are also dismissed. Petition dismissed.