Judgment :- By consent of all parties, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. The prayer in WP.No.12185 of 2007 is to quash the order of the District Collector, Kancheepuram, dated 11. 2006, denotifying the Pammal Shengazhuneerkundram Hill from the quarrying list of Kancheepuram District. 3. W.P.No.18625 of 2007 is filed to quash the order dated 14. 2007 passed by CMDA to process the planning permission applications of Pammal Shengazhuneerkundram Hill by the Pammal Municipality as the said area is deleted from the quarrying list of Kancheepuram District. 4. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petitions are as follows: (a) Petitioner in both the writ petitions, which is an association of women self-help group registered association/Sangam, which is having more than 200 families, engaged in Stone quarrying applied for the grant of quarry lease when the District Collector, the third respondent herein invited applications for the grant of quarry lease in Shengazhuneerkundram Hill on 112. 2002. Petitioner is the only Sangam applied for the grant of quarrying lease. (b) Third respondent rejected the said application of the petitioner on 2. 2003 stating that the quarry is not located within the village limits of the area of operation of the petitioner Society; that the experience certificates for the members of the Society have not been produced; and that the area of operation of the Society had not been indicated in the bye laws of the Society. (c) Aggrieved by the said rejection of quarrying lease, petitioner applied for experience certificate before the third respondent and in spite of production of the same, it was again rejected. Against the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director of Geology and Mining, Chennai, the second respondent herein, who is the appellate authority. The ground raised in the appeal was that even though the petitioner Sangam applied for issuing experience certificate by their letter dated 18. 2001 followed with reminder to the District Collector through telegram dated 21. 2003, no experience certificate was issued and therefore non-production of the experience certificate cannot be put against the petitioner Sangam and the petitioner also produced experience certificate from the Tahsildar, Tambarm, dated 210. 2002. The change of name and title of the Society was approved by the Registrar of Society on 21. 2003, no experience certificate was issued and therefore non-production of the experience certificate cannot be put against the petitioner Sangam and the petitioner also produced experience certificate from the Tahsildar, Tambarm, dated 210. 2002. The change of name and title of the Society was approved by the Registrar of Society on 21. 2003 and the Chairman of the District Panchayat and the Chairman of the Panchayat Union have recommended the grant of lease to the petitioner on 14. 2003. (d) The appellate authorityviz., the second respondent allowed the appeal of the petitioner and set aside the order of the third respondent dated 2. 2003, by his proceedings dated 20.10.2003 and remitted the matter back to the District Collector, Kancheepuram, the third respondent herein, with a direction to issue experience certificate and pass fresh orders. (e) The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 21. 2002 and ordered to adopt uniform distance of 300 metres between the inhabited site and quarries and crushers and no layout, building plans falling within 300 metres in any quarry be given approval by any agency, unless prior clearance of the Director of Geology and Mining is obtained. (f) The 4th respondent herein viz., the Executive Officer, of the Pammal Municipality, on 33. 2003 passed a resolution bearing resolution No.70 of 2003 and restricted any structure within 300 metres of the Shengazhuneerkundram Hill. Aggrieved by the said resolution Sankara Nagar Welfare Association and Sri Dharma Sastha Trust filed Public Interest writ petitions in W.P.Nos.12970 and 12971 of 2004 before this Court and the said writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 30.4.2004 holding that these matters could not be decided by this Court straight away and the matter should be decided only by the District Collector and the 3rd respondent was directed to consider the representation of the petitioners, if filed within two weeks from the date of the order and the 3rd respondent was directed to pass appropriate orders after affording opportunity to the parties affected and until then status-quo was ordered to be maintained. Thereafter a representation was sent by the 8th respondent on 35. 2004. (g) The said Sri Dharma Sastha Trust tried to construct super-structure within the radius of 300 metres of the notified hill, with a view to convert the same into residential zone. Thereafter a representation was sent by the 8th respondent on 35. 2004. (g) The said Sri Dharma Sastha Trust tried to construct super-structure within the radius of 300 metres of the notified hill, with a view to convert the same into residential zone. Hence the petitioner filed W.P.No.36756 of 2004 and prayed for directing the third respondent to pass orders with regard to petitioners application dated 112. 2002 for the grant of minor mineral stone quarrying lease with a further direction to the respondents 1 to 7 to ensure that within 300 Metres from the notified hill, no construction is allowed to be put up. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 14. 2005 by giving direction to the third respondent to dispose of the petitioners application for the grant of quarry lease, dated 112. 2002, within a period of four weeks and till orders are passed, respondents were directed to maintain status-quo with regard to construction. (h) Since the third respondent/District Collector, Kancheepuram, failed to dispose of the petitioners application within the stipulated time, the 8th respondent in the writ petition moved a clarification before this Court in WPMP.No.28920 of 2005 in W.P.No.36756 of 2004 and this Court deleted the order of status-quo with regard to construction and further direction was given to the third respondent to dispose of the petitioners application dated 112. 2002 expeditiously. The said order of clarification was challenged by the petitioner Sangam in W.A.No.1806 of 2005 and a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ appeal with a direction to the third respondent to dispose of the representation of the 9th respondent and the petitioners application dated 112. 2002 as expeditiously as possible on merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made by the learned single Judge. (i) Third respondent issued a circular on 3. 2006 and stated that no construction shall be allowed within 300 metres radius from the notified hill area. The said circular was challenged by Sri Dharma Sastha Trust in W.P.No.10698 of 2006 and this Court set aside the said order by recording a statement of the third respondent that third respondent would pass final orders on the application of the Petitioner dated 112. 2002 and also the representation of the Sri Dharma Sastha Trust, within a period of three weeks. (j) The third respondent convened a special meeting on 10. 2006. 2002 and also the representation of the Sri Dharma Sastha Trust, within a period of three weeks. (j) The third respondent convened a special meeting on 10. 2006. In the mean time as per the orders of the second respondent, in the appeal dated 20.10.2004, third respondent issued necessary experience certificates to the members of the petitioner Sangam on 1. 2006. According to the petitioner, on 13. 2005, the District Collector sent a letter to the Tahsildar, Tambaram, to inspect the hill and to ascertain the extent of hill that may be given for quarrying. Subsequently the District Collector also on 14. 2005 wrote a letter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, to inspect the hill and ascertain the extent of hill that may be given for quarrying. The Tahsildar, Tambaram, and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpat, submitted a report to the District Collector stating that an extent of 3.00.00 H may be given for quarrying operation. (k) On 110. 2006, the District Collector again rejected the petitioners application for minor and mineral stone quarrying lease with a liberty to file appeal before the second respondent viz, the Director of Geology and Mining, Chennai. On 110. 2006, the third respondent/ District Collector, Kancheepuram deleted the Shengazhuneerkundram hill from the quarrying operation list of Kancheepuram District. The said order is challenged in W.P.No.12185 of 2007. (l) In the meanwhile, petitioner filed appeal before the second respondent against the rejection of quarrying lease. The District Collector on 11. 2007 sent a communication to the CMDA stating that Pammal Shengazhuneerkundram Hill has been deleted from the quarying list of Kancheepuram District, by deletion order dated 110. 2006 and consequently CMDA gave direction on 14. 2007 to the Pammal Municipality to process the planning permission as the area is deleted from the quarrying list. The said order is challenged in W.P.No.18625 of 2007. (m) The second respondent dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner rejecting the claim of granting quarry lease, as against which the petitioner field second appeal before the first respondent viz., Government on 26. 2007 and that appeal is pending. 5. The 4th respondent filed counter affidavit by stating that Sankara Nagar layout was formed in the year 1975, prior to the formation of CMDA and the said layout was approved by the Town Panchayat and the buildings have already been constructed. 2007 and that appeal is pending. 5. The 4th respondent filed counter affidavit by stating that Sankara Nagar layout was formed in the year 1975, prior to the formation of CMDA and the said layout was approved by the Town Panchayat and the buildings have already been constructed. Based on the Government order issued, the Municipal Council passed resolution No.70 of 2003 stating that within a radius of 300 metres, no construction is to be built. The quarrying lease applied for by the petitioner Sangam was rejected by the District Collector in exercise of his statutory powers and on 110. 2006 the Collector has eliminated the land in S.No.144/1 in Pammal village from the quarrying list. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that Sankara Nagar Kudiyirupu was formed in the year 1975 and in almost all the plots, buildings are constructed and people are living there, which was approved by the Town Panchayat. Taking into consideration of the said fact, District Collector passed orders eliminating the land from the quarrying operation since it is within the radius of 300 metres of the residential area. Since the quarrying area is eliminated by the District Collector as above stated, there is no bar on the part of the respondent Town Panchayat to grant building permission to Sankara Nagar layout plots. The Member Secretary, CMDA, in letter dated 14. 2007 has granted permission to grant building permit to the Sankara Nagar layout plots. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that since the area is removed from the quarrying list, petitioner has no locus standi to maintain these writ petitions since the right, if any, is only to pray for the grant of quarrying lease. If the quarry site itself is de-notified petitioner Sangam have no right to demand for quarry lease. 6. The 8th and 9th respondents also filed counter affidavit stating that quarrying lease or permission can be granted only as per the rules and regulations that are in force, that is on the date of consideration of lease and not on the date of application. Hence the respondents 8 and 9 prayed for dismissal of these writ petitions as the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the de-notification of the quarry site and the order issued by CMDA is only in consequence of de-notification. 7. Hence the respondents 8 and 9 prayed for dismissal of these writ petitions as the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the de-notification of the quarry site and the order issued by CMDA is only in consequence of de-notification. 7. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Sangam submitted that since the quarry site was notified for the grant of lease and the petitioner Sangam, as self-help group is entitled to get quarrying lease under section 10-A of the Tamil Nadu Mineral Concession Rules, they are entitled to get quarrying lease in their favour. The rejection order passed on the ground of non-production of experience certificates having been set aside, petitioner Sangam is entitled to get grant of quarrying lease and the action of the District Collector in deleting the said area from the quarry site has virtually defeated the rights of the petitioner Sangam in getting quarrying lease and thereby the right of livelihood of the members of the petitioner Sangam is very much affected. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that even though the appeal was dismissed by the Director of Geology and Mining, the second appeal has been preferred before the Government by the petitioner Sangam on 26. 2007 and unless the de-notification order is set aside and the order passed by the CMDA permitting the Municipality to consider the planning permission are set aside petitioners right to get quarry lease will be defeated. 8. Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 10th respondent in W.P.No.18625 of 2007 submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order of the District Collector as well as CMDA and their rights having not been cristalised due to non-grant of quarrying lease, the District Collector, Kancheepuram, is empowered to de-notify the area as non-quarrying area and petitioners have not been given any vested right by merely applying for the grant of quarrying lease. 9. Mr.Satish Parasaran, learned counsel appearing for respondents 8 and 9 in both the writ petitions also submitted that the petitioner having applied for the grant of quarrying lease and the same having not been granted and during pendency of the appeal the area already notified has been de-notified and removed from the list of quarrying area by the District Collector, the appeal/second appeal filed by the petitioner had become infructuous and it has no right to maintain these writ petitions. 10. 10. The learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3, 5 and 7 produced the original file in connection with the above two cases and submitted that the petitioner Sangams application seeking grant of quarrying lease having been rejected and the area of the said quarry having been de-notified, which is a policy decision taken by the department, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the same and even if the lease is granted in favour of the petitioner only during the period of lease petitioner will be getting any right and in these cases the lease having not been granted, petitioner cannot maintain the writ petitions challenging the decision of the District Collector as well as the communication issued by CMDA. 11. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner Sangam as well as the respective counsel and Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 12. The point in issue is whether the petitioner has got any right to challenge the order of the District Collector de-notifying the area from quarrying list of Kancheepuram District and the consequential order of the CMDA granting permission to process the planning permission for the construction of building. 13. The notification issued by the District Collector, Kancheepuram, inviting applications for the grant of quarrying lease is published in the Kancheepuram District Gazette dated 211. 2002. In the said notification it is clearly stated that the lease period will be for a period of five years and that period can also be reduced by the District Collector. The application submitted by the petitioner for the grant of quarrying lease was considered by the District Collector and it was rejected by stating certain reasons. 14. The appeal filed before the Director of Geology and Mining was also rejected on 16. 2007 and the petitioner filed second appeal before the first respondent on 26. 2007 for the grant of quarrying lease. Even though the pendency of appeal is to be treated as continuation of the original application submitted pursuant to the Gazette notification dated 211. 2002, the fact remains that the said quarrying area is de-notified by the District Collector by order dated 110. 2006 from the quarrying list of Kancheepuram District. Following are the reasons stated by the District Collector in the de-notification order dated 110. 2006. "1. 2002, the fact remains that the said quarrying area is de-notified by the District Collector by order dated 110. 2006 from the quarrying list of Kancheepuram District. Following are the reasons stated by the District Collector in the de-notification order dated 110. 2006. "1. The Village Natham in S.No.305 of Anakaputhur village is situated at a distance of 250 metres on the north of the proposed stone quarry area in S.No.144/1 part to an extent of 5.00.0 hect. 2. There are residential units about 50 in numbers duly approved within the radial distance between the 150-300 metres on the eastern side. 3. On the Eastern side of the quarry, VKK Ammaniamman Matriculation school is being constructed with approval (MMDA No.ES.3/19314/5 dated 8. 2005 at a distance of 270 metres. Apart from this there is a meditation centre "Satsang Vihar, Chennai" and Meenakshi Krishnan Polytechnic in the vicinity within 350 metres. 4. There is a approved site at a distance of 150 metres on the eastern side from the quarry site owned by Dharma Sastha Trust. 5. The stone quarry has already been exploited to the maximum, upto the depth of 10 metres in the central portion. Therefore, it is technically not suitable for quarry operation by adopting safety measures. Considering the above facts in pursuance of the directions of the Supreme Court, the Government have introduced the rule 36(1A)(a) that no stone quarry within 300 metres from any inhabited site shall be granted. Therefore, the stone quarry situated in S.No.144/1 of Pammal Village, Tambaram Taluk, is hereby ordered to be deleted permanently from the quarry list of Kanchipuram District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu and the Tahsildar, Tambaram, will ensure that the above order is given effect to immediately and no quarry operation is done in the above area." 15. Therefore, the stone quarry situated in S.No.144/1 of Pammal Village, Tambaram Taluk, is hereby ordered to be deleted permanently from the quarry list of Kanchipuram District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu and the Tahsildar, Tambaram, will ensure that the above order is given effect to immediately and no quarry operation is done in the above area." 15. The present status of the quarry having been ordered to be verified by this Court in W.P.No.10698 of 2006 dated 20.9.2006 and the District Collector having found that the said quarry is situated within a distance of 250 metres from the Anakaputhur village and residential units of about 50 in numbers duly approved within the radial distance between 150 to 300 metres on the eastern side and V.K.K.Ammani Ammal Matriculation School is being constructed with the approval of CMDA at a distance of 270 metres and other mediation centres in the vicinity of within 350 metres and there is an approved site at a distance of 150 metres on the eastern side, owned by Sri Dharma Sastha Trust, and that the Stone quarry had already been exploited to the maximum of upto 10 metres in the central portion, the said quarry site is not suitable for further quarrying and therefore ordered deletion permanently from the quarrying list of Kancheepuram District. The said action of the third respondent cannot be treated as perverse finding. In the Public Interest writ petition filed in W.P.Nos.12970 and 12971 of 2004 order dated 30.4.2004 this Court already gave a direction to decide the matter by the District Collector, as this Court cannot decide the issue directly. 16. Hence I am of the view that the petitioner Sangam is not entitled to challenge the order of the District Collector dated 110. 2006, which decision was taken on spot inspection and on public interest. This Court sitting in Article 226 of Constitution of India, cannot give a finding as to which quarry site should be deleted or which areas are fit for quarrying operation. Under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, the District Collector is competent to identify the quarrying site. In exercise of that power the quarry site having been deleted, the petitioner Sangam cannot make any grievance against the District Collector merely on the ground that the second appeal is pending. Further, the notification dated 211. Under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, the District Collector is competent to identify the quarrying site. In exercise of that power the quarry site having been deleted, the petitioner Sangam cannot make any grievance against the District Collector merely on the ground that the second appeal is pending. Further, the notification dated 211. 2002 was issued inviting applications for the grant of quarrying lease for a period of five years and the said period is also over as of now. Therefore on any account petitioner is not entitled to get quarrying lease on merits due to the expiry of the period of lease. 17. In the light of the above findings, I do not find any merit in the writ petition challenging the order of the District Collector dated 110. 2006. Since the order passed by the CMDA is the consequential to the order passed by the District Collector dated 110. 2006 and that order of the District Collector having been upheld by this Court, there is no merit in the challenge made with regard to the order passed by the CMDA dated 14. 2007 also. There is no merit in the above writ petitions and consequently both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.