Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1326 (MAD)

S. Murugiah Reddiar v. The District Collector

2003-08-22

P.SATHASIVAM

body2003
Judgment :- The petitioner has approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to permit him to continue quarry operations on payment of necessary seigniorage in the stone quarry measuring 1-23-5 hectares, comprised in S.No.163/2 situated in Navaneethakrishnapuram Village, V.K. Pudur Taluk, Tirunelveli District for the full period of five years calculated from the date of execution of the lease deed i.e., from 12.03.2001 till 11.03.2006 irrespective of the date of expiry mentioned in the lease deed dated 12.03.2001. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: According to him, as per Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (in short "the Rules"), the respondent by a District gazette notification has invited tenders in respect of stone quarries. The petitioner submitted his tender document and also participated in the stone quarry measuring 1-23-5 hectares comprised in S.No.163/2 situated in Navaneethakrishnapuram Village, V.K. Pudur Taluk, Tirunelveli District. His bid amount for the said extent for five years is Rs.1,51,000/-. He was declared as a successful bidder in respect of the said quarry and the respondent has confirmed the same in his favour. As per the procedure, he purchased required non-judicial stamp paper and handed over the same to the then Assistant Director of Geology and Mining. A lease deed was prepared and the signature of the petitioner and respondent was obtained on the said lease deed on 22.09.1997. Though the Assistant Director has promised that he will fix a date for registration, the respondent has not completed the registration of lease deed and on some other aspects, the same was postponed. 3. After verification and at the intervention of the respondent it was found that the lease agreement dated 22.09.1997 and the time limit for registration of the same was expired, the respondent has requested the petitioner to type the fresh agreement on fresh stamp papers. As per the said direction, the petitioner purchased fresh stamp papers and handed over the same to the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining for preparing the lease deed. The lease deed was prepared on 12.03.2001 as per the existing Rules on the date of grant fixing five years lease period from the date of execution of the lease deed i.e. from 12.03.2001. The lease deed was prepared on 12.03.2001 as per the existing Rules on the date of grant fixing five years lease period from the date of execution of the lease deed i.e. from 12.03.2001. On receipt of the registered lease agreement, it was found that the lease period has been changed by inserting an additional typed matter in para 4 of the lease agreement stating that the lease period shall be from 22.09.1997 to 21.09.2002. Immediately, the petitioner approached the respondent and pointed out the mistake in the lease period. In turn, the respondent directed the petitioner to approach the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining. When the petitioner approached the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, he informed the petitioner that at the time of expiry of the lease period mentioned in the lease deed, i.e., on 21.09.2002, he has to approach this Court and get necessary orders for extension. The action of the respondent is totally without jurisdiction, per-se illegal, contrary to the decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court, hence, the present writ petition. 4. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the lease has been granted to the petitioner for a period of five years in their proceedings dated 10.06.1997. The lease deed was executed on 22.09.1997 and as such the lease period commences from 22.09.1997 and expired on 21.09.2002. After the execution of the lease deed, the petitioner did not register the lease deed and not responded to their request. Finally, the deed was registered only on 28.03.2001. But in the meantime, he obtained despatch slips for the transportation from 19.01.1998 itself to till the expiry of lease period i.e., 21.09.2002. After enjoying the full 5 years lease period, the petitioner has requested to continue the quarry operation upto 11.03.2006, i.e., up to full five years period from 12.03.2001. The date of execution of lease deed for registration purpose, as if the petitioner started quarrying operation starts from 12.03.2001 and there is no merit in the claim of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit stating that it is true that on 19.01.1998, he had paid seigniorage for 15 units, but the respondent has declined to permit him to do the quarry operations. 5. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit stating that it is true that on 19.01.1998, he had paid seigniorage for 15 units, but the respondent has declined to permit him to do the quarry operations. Subsequently, after a period of 1 year and 7 months, i.e., on 22.07.1997 and on several dates thereafter, he paid seigniorage as per the instructions of the then Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, threatening that if quarry is not operated continuously for a period of two years, the lease will be lapsed. Except for keeping alive of the lease, he had not utilised the said seigniorage till 16.02.2001, on which date for the first time the bulk permit was utilised and the quarry operations have been commenced after 16.03.2001, on which date the lease deed was registered. The petitioner is entitled for the lease of period of three years and six months, even if the payment of seigniorage is taken as proof of quarry operations, which is not factually correct, atleast, he is entitled to one year and ten months, considering the date of original lease deed i.e. 20.09.1997, issuance of first permit, i.e., 19.01.1998 and the second permit dated 22.07.1999. 6. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Special Government Pleader for the respondent. 7. In the light of the narration of the case of both parties, it is unnecessary for me to refer the same once again. There is no dispute that the offer of the petitioner, who quoted an amount of Rs.1,51,000/- as the highest bid was confirmed in respect of sale of stone quarry located in Government Poramboke SF.No.163/2 measuring an extent of 1.23.5 hectares of Navaneethakrishnapuram Village, V.K. Pudur Taluk. Accordingly, the lease has been granted to him for a period of five years in the respondent's proceedings dated 10.06.1997. It is the case of the petitioner that though he has furnished required stamp papers, the lease deed has not been registered in time and on further direction and request, he purchased fresh stamp papers and handed over the same to the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining for preparation of the lease deed. The lease deed was prepared on 12.03.2001 as per the existing Rules. The lease deed was prepared on 12.03.2001 as per the existing Rules. It is the case of the respondent that though the deed was registered on 28.03.2001, in the meantime, the petitioner had obtained despatch slips for the transportation from 19.01.1998 itself to till the expiry of the lease period i.e., 21.09.2002. 8. In respect of the said claim, the respondent - Collector, Tirunelveli District has furnished the details of transport permit issued in favour of the petitioner in para 10 of his counter, which contains serial number, date of permit applied, bulk permit number, despatch slip numbers, number of units, seigniorage fee remitted and period of validity. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, explaining his position with reference to the above information furnished by the respondent. In the reply it is stated that though on 19.01.1998 he had paid seigniorage for 15 units, it is asserted that the respondent had declined to permit him to do quarry operations. It is further stated that subsequently, after a period of one year and seven months, i.e., on 22.07.1999 and on several dates thereafter he had paid seigniorage as per the instruction of the then Assistant Director of Geology and Mining on the ground that if the quarry is not operated continuously for a period of two years, the lease will be lapsed. In the light of the statement made in the reply affidavit, I have carefully perused the details of transport permit issued as averred in para 10 of the counter affidavit. It is clear that though the petitioner had paid seigniorage for 15 units on 19.01.1998, bulk permit was utilised and quarry operations have been commenced only after 16.03.2001, on which date the lease deed was registered. Inasmuch as from 22.07.1999, the petitioner had paid seigniorage fee for various number of units and secured despatch slips, though not availed bulk permit, the request of the petitioner cannot be granted as claimed. 9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even as per the statement of the respondent (vide para 10 of the counter affidavit), there was a gap of 4 months from the date of original lease deed i.e., 20.09.1997 to the date of issuance of first permit, i.e., 19.01.1998 and the second permit is dated 22.07.1999. 9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even as per the statement of the respondent (vide para 10 of the counter affidavit), there was a gap of 4 months from the date of original lease deed i.e., 20.09.1997 to the date of issuance of first permit, i.e., 19.01.1998 and the second permit is dated 22.07.1999. In the light of the information furnished, materials placed, relevant Rules, i.e., Rule 8 (8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959, I am satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to operate the stone quarry for the lease period from 20.09.1997 to 22.07.1999, which comes to about 1 year and 10 months. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Apex Court in the case of V. Karnal Durai vs. District Collector, Tuticorin and another reported in JT 1999 (8) SC 301. In similar circumstance, the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted the highest bidder to continue to run the quarry for further period of 2 years on payment of increased amount by 40% of the offer and subject to the demand of seigniorage fee etc., as per the amended Rules, in addition to the lease amount. Following the said decision, the Supreme Court in the subsequent case of S. Ganesan vs. District Collector, Tiruchirapalli reported in 2002 (6) Supreme 475 , the appellant therein was allowed to quarry subject to payment in respect of the lease amount per year by enhancing the same by 50% of the earlier bid. Considering the above orders of the Supreme Court, in the light of the statement furnished by the respondent and the explanation offered by the petitioner, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to operate the stone quarry for the lease of period from 20.09.1997 to 22.07.1999, which comes to one year and ten months. In the light of what is stated above, direction is issued to the respondent to permit the petitioner to continue stone quarry operation in the stone quarry measuring 1.23.5 hectares in S.NO.163/2 situated in Navaneethakrishnapuram Village, V.K. Pudur Taluk, Tirunelveli District for a period of 1 year and 10 months subject to the condition the petitioner making further payment in respect of the lease amount per year by enhancing the same by 40% of the earlier bid. In addition to this, the petitioner is to pay the seigniorage fee as per the amended Rules. All other terms shall be governed by the new Rules. Time for payment of enhancement in the lease amount and other amount dues if any will be one month from today. The writ petition is allowed to this extent. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected WPMP., is closed.