ORDER 1. THESE APPEALS ARE FILED AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT PASSED IN A SERIES OF WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS. THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN THESE WRIT PETITIONS IS THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT WAS GIVEN LEASE IN THE YEAR 1996 FOR QUARRYING SAND. THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT LEASE WAS FOR 25 HECTARES BUT THERE IS AN ALLEGATION TO THE EFFECT THAT ORIGINAL LEASE WAS FOR 10 HECTARES AND LATER IT WAS INTERPOLATED AND MADE AS 25 HECTARES. THE APPELLANT STARTED QUARRYING OPERATIONS IN 1996. SOME OF THE LOCAL RESIDENTS RAISED OBJECTIONS AGAINST QUARRYING OF SAND AND THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MUSIRI SUGGESTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE OBJECTIONS OF THE LOCAL RESIDENTS THE AREA FOR QUARRYING BE SHIFTED TO 25 HECTARES AT PLOT B AND A FRESH LEASE COULD BE EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS ALLEGED THAT THE APPELLANT FILED WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AND OBTAINED INTERIM ORDERS AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE INTERIM ORDERS PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT, HE STARTED THE MINING OPERATION EVEN BEFORE ANY LEASE WAS GRANTED IN HIS FAVOUR IN RESPECT OF PLOT B AND IT IS ALSO ALLEGED BY THE RESPONDENT-WRIT PETITIONERS THAT THE APPELLANT OBTAINED VARIOUS OTHER INTERIM ORDERS FROM THE HIGH COURT FOR LORRY PERMITS FOR TRANSPORTING THE SAND AND THIS CONTINUED TILL 25-3-1999. 2. THE PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITIONS ALLEGED THAT BECAUSE OF THE LARGE SCALE MINING THERE WAS SERIOUS THREAT TO ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT AND THE WATER LEVEL OF THAT AREA HAD GONE DOWN AND SEVERAL IRRIGATION SCHEMES FAILED BECAUSE OF THE LOSS OF WATER DUE TO EXTENSIVE EXCAVATION CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT. IN THE WRIT PETITION IT IS ALSO ALLEGED THAT THE QUARRYING OPERATION WAS WITHOUT A PROPER LEASE AND THE APPELLANT HEREIN HAD NO VALID LEASE AND THE LEASE ITSELF WAS NOT REGISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND RULES. THE HIGH COURT ELABORATELY CONSIDERED THE MATTER AND FINALLY IN PARA 77 THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION WAS GIVEN: "77. IN THE WRIT PETITION IT IS ALSO ALLEGED THAT THE QUARRYING OPERATION WAS WITHOUT A PROPER LEASE AND THE APPELLANT HEREIN HAD NO VALID LEASE AND THE LEASE ITSELF WAS NOT REGISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND RULES. THE HIGH COURT ELABORATELY CONSIDERED THE MATTER AND FINALLY IN PARA 77 THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION WAS GIVEN: "77. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS AS REFLECTED FROM THE NOTE FILE AS WELL AS THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEING ARBITRARY, IT IS DEMONSTRABLE NON-APPLICATION OF MIND AND CALLOUS INDIFFERENCE TO RULE 39, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE GRANT IN FAVOUR OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DESERVES TO BE QUASHED AND A FURTHER DIRECTION HAS TO BE ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO ESTIMATE THE LOSS CAUSED TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT BY THE ILLEGAL QUARRYING OF SAND BY THE SAID RESPONDENT, ASSESS THE DAMAGE AND ESTIMATE THE LOSS CAUSED TO THE PUBLIC EXCHEQUER AFTER ISSUE OF NOTICE, PASS ORDERS AND RECOVER THE SAME FROM THE SAID RESPONDENT OR INITIATE APPROPRIATE ACTION WITHOUT DELAY." 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS, THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE FILED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT, COUNSEL FOR THE STATE AND ALSO THE COUNSEL FOR THE WRIT PETITIONERS. 5. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS GIVEN A VALID LEASE IN 1996 BY THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS AND IT WAS ON THE BASIS OF THAT LEASE THAT, THE APPELLANT DID THE QUARRYING OPERATION AND MERELY BECAUSE LEASE WAS LATER QUASHED BY THE HIGH COURT THE ENTIRE QUARRYING OPERATIONS WOULD NOT BECOME ILLEGAL, THE STATE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT BE ALLOWED TO RECOVER THE ENTIRE VALUE OF THE SAND QUARRIED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE ENTIRE MINING WAS DONE UNDER ILLEGAL OPERATION. THE COUNSEL FOR THE CONTESTING RESPONDENT AND COUNSEL FOR THE STATE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEASE ITSELF WAS NOT REGISTERED AND THERE WAS NO PROPER LEASE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT QUARRIED SAND FROM PLOT B WITHOUT THERE BEING A FURTHER LEASE AND THE ENTIRE OPERATION WAS ILLEGAL. 6. COUNSEL FOR THE WRIT PETITIONER SUBMITTED THAT BECAUSE OF THE MINING OPERATION THERE WAS LARGE-SCALE DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY OF THAT REGION. 7. THE APPELLANT HEREIN WAS GRANTED A LEASE AND THAT IS EVIDENT AND SAME HAS BEEN PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE P-1 DATED 2-3-1996. 6. COUNSEL FOR THE WRIT PETITIONER SUBMITTED THAT BECAUSE OF THE MINING OPERATION THERE WAS LARGE-SCALE DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY OF THAT REGION. 7. THE APPELLANT HEREIN WAS GRANTED A LEASE AND THAT IS EVIDENT AND SAME HAS BEEN PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE P-1 DATED 2-3-1996. THERE IS DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER THE LEASE WAS IN RESPECT OF 10 HECTARES OR FOR 25 HECTARES OF LAND. THE DIVISION BENCH ALSO NOTICED THAT THERE WAS CERTAIN INTERPOLATION IN OFFICIAL RECORDS AND IT IS NOT KNOWN AS TO WHO MADE THESE CORRECTIONS. ANYWAY THE APPELLANT WAS GRANTED MINING LEASE AND HE STARTED QUARRYING THE SAND AND IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT LEASE WAS GRANTED ON THE BASIS OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY A HIGH-LEVEL COMMITTEE AND THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE INSPECTED THE SITE BEFORE THE LEASE WAS GRANTED. THE DISPUTE IN QUESTION IS WHETHER THE APPELLANT WAS GRANTED ANY LEASE IN RESPECT OF PLOT B. APPARENTLY NO LEASE WAS GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF PLOT B FOR QUARRYING OPERATION. THE HIGH COURT PASSED THE INTERIM ORDER AFTER HEARING THE COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE SECOND RESPONDENT WAS DIRECTED TO ESTIMATE THE LOSS SUSTAINED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT BY THE ILLEGAL QUARRYING AND ALSO THE LOSS, IF ANY, CAUSED TO THE PUBLIC EXCHEQUER AND OBVIOUSLY THE AMOUNT OF SEIGNORAGE OR FEE, IF ANY, PAYABLE BY THE LESSEE. 8. HAVING DUE REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD THAT THE SECOND RESPONDENT WILL PROCEED WITH THE ESTIMATION OF LOSS SUSTAINED BY THE STATE. IT IS OPEN TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER WHETHER THERE WAS ILLEGAL MINING AND WHETHER ANY MINING OPERATIONS WERE DONE IN VIOLATION OF THE LEASE GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT. THE SECOND RESPONDENT SHALL NOT FIX THE DAMAGES AS IF THE ENTIRE OPERATION WAS ILLEGAL AS IF THERE WAS NO LEASE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, THE 2ND RESPONDENT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO DETERMINE THE QUANTUM OF DAMAGES SUFFERED BY THE STATE ON ACCOUNT OF ILLEGAL MINING DONE CONTRARY TO THE TERMS OF THE LEASE GRANTED TO HIM. THE 2ND RESPONDENT SHALL GIVE NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT HEREIN AND THE APPELLANT SHALL BE GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE ANY DECISION IS TAKEN IN THE MATTER. 9. THE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY.