Judgment :- The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in NA.Kv.1/2623/2004 dated 012. 2004 and quash the same and direct respondents 1 to 3 to permit the petitioner herein to quarry in S.No.853/1 of Viluppanoor Village, Srivilliputhur Taluk. .2. The case of the petitioner is that he was a successful bidder in the tender cum public auction for lease of mining of rough stone jelly. Necessary lease agreement was executed on 20.04.1988 and the same was registered on 24.04.1988. The period of lease was five years, from 20.04.1988 to 19th April, 2003. Due to certain reasons, the petitioner could not quarry the mineral prior to 012. 1999. However, the petitioner started quarry operations on 012. 1999 and paid necessary fees to the Government. On 211. 1999, the petitioner filed a petition before the Assistant Director of Mining, Virudhunagar, to take note of the situation. By representation dated 30.12.2002, the petitioner requested the District Collector, Virudhunagar, to permit him to quarry beyond the period stipulated in the agreement. Without taking into consideration, the representation of the petitioner in proper perspective, the District Collector, Virudhunagar, by his communication dated 02.01.2003, rejected the request of the petitioner, as there is no provision in the Minor Mineral Concessional Rules, for extending the lease period. Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.7707 of 2003 before this Court and by an order dated 13.08.2003, the said writ petition was dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to file an appeal. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Director of Mining, Chennai, was dismissed and hence, against that order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the first respondent on 02.07.2004. Along with the appeal, the petitioner has filed two petitions for stay and injunction, but no orders have been passed. Since the second respondent has called for tenders on 02.08.2004 for the quarry in question (2.02.5 hectare in survey 853/1 part north and 853/1 south), the petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.08.2004 bringing to the notice of the second respondent that the appeal before the Government is pending for consideration and therefore, no order should be passed granting lease to third parties. However, the second respondent viz., the District Collector, Virudhunagar, considered the application of the fourth respondent and by an order dated 012. However, the second respondent viz., the District Collector, Virudhunagar, considered the application of the fourth respondent and by an order dated 012. 2004, granted lease in his favour. Therefore the petitioner submitted a petition dated 112. 2004, and requested respondents 2 and 3 to cancel the lease. Since no order has been passed on his petition, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. The fourth respondent in his counter affidavit has submitted that the petitioner was granted lease for a period of five years from 20.04.1998 to 19.04.2003. There is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules for extending the period of lease beyond the stipulated period of five years. The lease has been terminated after following the procedure and fresh lease has been granted in her favour. The fourth respondent has further submitted that she made an application on 27.08.2004 and since there was no stay of the orders of the Director Mining, Virudhunagar, her application was considered on merits and the second respondent has passed an order on 012. 2004 granting lease in her favour. The fourth respondent has further submitted that there is only one quarry in S.No.853/1 in Vizhuppanur Village measuring an extent of 2.02.5 hectares and denied the contention that there are two quarries, on the northern and southern portion, in the above survey number. It is also the contention of the fourth respondent that the petitioner ought to have been diligent in registering the lease deed as expeditiously as possible, on the execution of the lease deed and delay, if any in registering the lease deed, does not confer any right on the petitioner to quarry beyond the lease period. .4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that before passing orders on the petition filed by the petitioner, the second respondent ought to have given an opportunity to him to explain the situation. Though the lease deed executed in favour of the petitioner was for a period of five years, i.e., from 20.04.1998, the lease deed itself was registered only on 24.04.1998 and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to quarry for the delayed execution of the lease deed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the second respondent has granted extension of lease in some cases, on account of delay in executing the lease deed, he cannot take a different stand. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the second respondent has granted extension of lease in some cases, on account of delay in executing the lease deed, he cannot take a different stand. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted the District Collector, Virudhunagar, the second respondent herein should have waited for the outcome of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, before the first respondent. 6. Mr. Adhithya Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, reiterating the contentions made in the counter affidavit, submitted that during the pendency of the appeal before the first respondent, there was no stay of the order of rejection for extension of the lease period and therefore, the second respondent has considered the application dated 27.08.2004 on its merits and granted the lease in favour of the fourth respondent. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Govindasamy, R v. The Dist. Collector, Erode Dist – ( 2004 (1) CTC 139 ), learned counsel further submitted that unless there is provision in the minor minerals rules or in the agreement for extension of lease period, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for extension of period to compensate the non-operating period. 7. Heard Mr. K. Dhananjayan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. A. Arumugam, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. Adithya Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and perused the materials available on record. 8. In the case on hand, the petitioner has executed a lease agreement for the period between 20.04.1998 to 19.04.2003 for five years. For the reasons stated in his application, the petitioner sought for an extension of lease, which was rejected by the District Collector on 02.01.2003. Against the said order, when the petitioner filed W.P.No.7707 of 2003, the same was not entertained by this Court and the petitioner was only directed to file a statutory appeal. The first appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. Hence, the petitioner has filed the second appeal before the first respondent. During the pendency of the second appeal, no stay was granted against the rejection order, enabling the petitioner to continue the quarry operation. Considering the application of the fourth respondent dated 27.08.2004 on merits, the second respondent has granted lease to her on 012. 2004. Hence, the petitioner has filed the second appeal before the first respondent. During the pendency of the second appeal, no stay was granted against the rejection order, enabling the petitioner to continue the quarry operation. Considering the application of the fourth respondent dated 27.08.2004 on merits, the second respondent has granted lease to her on 012. 2004. In the decision cited supra, this Court has held as follows:- " ... it is not in dispute that there is no specific provision under the lease agreement enabling the petitioner to seek extension of lease period to compensate the non operating period nor a duty is cast on the respondent either to consider the request of the petitioner to extend the lease period or to compensate the non operative period. In the absence of any such provision either in the lease agreement or under the Rules, it may not be proper for this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus as prayed for." The decision relied on by the fourth respondent is applicable to the facts of the case. Since the period of lease granted to the petitioner had already expired, the action of the second respondent in granting lease to the fourth respondent cannot be termed as arbitrary. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected petition is closed.