Judgment :- Heard Mr.M.Muthappan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.R.Veeraraghavan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents herein wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 110. 2004, in W.P.No.25356 of 2003. 3. It is stated by the petitioner that the District Collector of Coimbatore District had notified certain poramboke lands for leasing out the same for the purpose of quarrying stones and sand by way of publication in the District Gazette No.24, dated 11. 1996. The petitioner had submitted a tender application, on 211. 1996, for quarrying of stones in S.No.1133/1 Bit-I, in an extent of 5.00.0 hectares in Pilichi Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District. The petitioner had quoted the amount of Rs.34,442/-for the lease of the land for the first year. The public auction had been conducted on 211. 1996. The petitioners bid was higher than the upset price fixed by the Government. Even though the petitioner was the only applicant for the quarrying of stones in the said land, the respondent had not passed any order granting the lease to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.8020 of 1999, seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to issue work order to the petitioner to quarry stones/jelly from the notified area. However, while the writ petition was pending the respondent had passed an order in Na.Ka.No.152996/96/XI, dated 8. 1999, rejecting the petitioners tender stating that there was a need for getting technical details about the nature of rock in the area and that Rule 8 of the Tamilnadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959, has been amended by the Government. 1. Challenging the said order of the District Collector the petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.18933 of 2001. By an order, dated 210. 2001, this Court had directed the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority, namely, the Director of Geology and Mining. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed an appeal within the time prescribed by this Court. 1. Challenging the said order of the District Collector the petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.18933 of 2001. By an order, dated 210. 2001, this Court had directed the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority, namely, the Director of Geology and Mining. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed an appeal within the time prescribed by this Court. The Director of Geology and Mining had allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner, directing the District Collector to pass fresh orders, taking into consideration the points discussed in the order passed by him and by imposing a condition to get necessary clearance from the Hill Area Conservation Authority. 2. Aggrieved by the condition imposed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.12116 of 2002, stating that there was no such condition in the original notification and that it would take considerable time for the petitioner to obtain the clearance of the Hill Area Conservation Authority. This Court by its order, dated 12. 2003, had directed the Hill Area Conservation Authority to consider the proposal given by the District Collector, Coimbatore District, for clearance, in accordance with the rules, within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the said order. 3. On receipt of the order passed by this Court, the Hill Area Conservation Authority had communicated its clearance in proceedings Roc.No.6794/2003/GR, dated 19.04.2003, stating that there was no requirement for getting the clearance of the Hill Area Conservation Authority in view of G.O.Ms.No.49, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 24.03.2003. Since the District Collector had not passed any order, representations were made requesting him to pass necessary orders to implement the order passed by the Appellate Authority, dated 23. 2003. Since no orders were passed by the District Collector, Coimbatore District, even after the representations had been made, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.18433 of 2003. This Court, by an order, dated 7. 2003, had directed the District Collector to pass appropriate orders within a specified period of time. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the District Collector had passed an order rejecting the grant of stone quarry lease, without considering the directions issued by the Appellate Authority in his proceedings reference No.957/99/MM1, dated 06.08.2003. 4. Challenging the said order, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.25356 of 2003. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the District Collector had passed an order rejecting the grant of stone quarry lease, without considering the directions issued by the Appellate Authority in his proceedings reference No.957/99/MM1, dated 06.08.2003. 4. Challenging the said order, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.25356 of 2003. The said writ petition had been allowed by this Court, by its order, dated 110. 2004, remanding the matter back to the Collector to pass fresh orders. However, the District Collector had rejected the petitioners claim by his order, dated 211. 2004, in Reference No.957/99/MM1. In passing the said order, the District Collector had committed contempt of Court by wilfully disobeying the order passed by this Court, on 110. 2004, in W.P.No.25356 of 2003. The District Collector, instead of passing the order, considering the directions issued by the Appellate Authority in its order, dated 26.03.2003, had stated that the Appellate Authority had overlooked certain facts in its order, dated 26.03.2003, and he had also stated that it is not desirable to grant the lease to the petitioner. Thus, the respondent had committed contempt of Court. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, he had tendered his unconditional apology, in case, this Court finds that he has committed contempt of Court by his act or omission. The respondent had also submitted that tender cum auction had been held, on 211. 1996, for the stone quarry in S.F.No.113/1, O.A.E.5.00 Hectares in Pilichi Village of Coimbatore North Taluk, for a lease period of five years from 01.04.1996 to 31.03.2001. There was no other bidder in the public auction and only one tender had been received from the petitioner for a sum of Rs.34,443/- from the petitioner. However, since it was found that the quarry was not a mere rough stone quarry, as it had colour granite stones, the confirmation of the lease had been delayed. Subsequently, the Government of Tamil Nadu had issued G.O.Ms.No.235, Ind (MMC1), Department, dated 112. 1996, changing the policy for grant of stone quarry lease. Several amendments had also been introduced to the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Subsequently, the Government of Tamil Nadu had issued G.O.Ms.No.235, Ind (MMC1), Department, dated 112. 1996, changing the policy for grant of stone quarry lease. Several amendments had also been introduced to the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. According to the amended Rule 8(10) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, the Collector had been empowered to reject the application for the grant of lease for quarrying stones, if he is not satisfied that it is in the interest of mineral development. Since the respondent had found that the colour granite blocks in the stone quarry could fetch several lakhs of rupees to the state exchequer, if it was granted to Tamilnadu Minerals Ltd., under Rule 8C of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, he had rejected the application of the petitioner and the earnest money deposit of Rs.10,000/-had been returned to the petitioner, vide Collectors proceeding RC.No.152996/96/XI, dated 8. 1999. 1. The respondent had also stated that the Director of Geology and Mining, Chennai, without considering the merits of the case, had passed orders setting aside the order of the District Collector, Coimbatore, dated 8. 1999, remitting the matter back to the District Collector, Coimbatore, to pass fresh orders, after obtaining necessary clearance from the Hill Area Conservation Authority. Further, the lease period for the said quarry was from 01.04.1996 to 31.03.2001 only. Therefore, the petitioners request for grant of lease accepting the tender amount offered by him is not in the interest of the Government. Therefore, the lease could not be granted to the petitioner. Since the rejection of the request of the petitioner has been done in good faith and in the interest of the State Government, in order to prevent public money being wasted, there has been no intention of disobeying the order passed by this Court, on 110. 2004. 5. The petitioner had also filed a sub application to implead the proposed respondent, namely, Sakthi Kantadar, Secretary to Government, Industries Department, as the second respondent in the contempt petition, stating that he had invoked Rule 40 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, to set aside the order of the Director of Geology and Mining, dated 26.03.2002. The said order of the Appellate Authority was the basis on which this Court had passed an order. The said order of the Appellate Authority was the basis on which this Court had passed an order. The District Collector, namely, the respondent in the contempt petition was directed to follow the order of the Appellate Authority, while passing fresh orders with regard to the request of the petitioner for grant of stone quarrying lease. Due to the order passed by the proposed respondent, the order passed by this Court, on 110. 2004, cannot be implemented. Thus, the proposed respondent had committed contempt of Court as alleged by the petitioner. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the proposed respondent. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit reads as follows: "4. With regard to the averments contained in paragraph 4 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the site for which the tender was called for in the present case cannot be granted because it contains granite, which is a valuable mineral and not a rough stone as it was originally though of. If any lease is to be granted in respect of stone quarry, then regular procedure of calling tenders has to be resorted to. Rule 40 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, contemplates the revision which reads as follows: "Power of revision of the State Government-The State Government may of their own motion or other wise, for good and sufficient reasons, revise any order of any authority subordinate to them made in exercise of the powers conferred on the authority under these rules. Provided that no order in exercise of the above power shall be passed by the State Government without giving an opportunity of being heard to the person who will be considered to be adversely affected by such an order". In exercise of the said powers conferred under Rule 40 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, the Government suo-mottu reviewed the order issued in the proceedings of the Director of Geology and Mining, Chennai in R.C.No.15969/MM5/2001, dated 23. 2002, and set aside the said roder, dated 26.03.2002, for the reasons mentioned in G.O.(D) No.82, Industries (MMC1) Department, dated 19. 2006. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed W.P.No.36690 of 2006 before the Honble Court challenging the said Government order, dated 14.09.2006 and the petitioner has obtained an order of interim stay in M.P.No.1 of 2006. It is incorrect to state that the order, dated 19. 2006. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed W.P.No.36690 of 2006 before the Honble Court challenging the said Government order, dated 14.09.2006 and the petitioner has obtained an order of interim stay in M.P.No.1 of 2006. It is incorrect to state that the order, dated 19. 2006, passed by the Government amounts to disobedience of the earlier order passed by this Honble Court. It is incorrect to state that the proposed respondent is liable to be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is submitted that I am a neither necessary party nor proper party in the above contempt petition. I am also advised to submit that this Contempt Application is barred by limitation." 7. Based on the averments made on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner in the contempt petition has not shown sufficient cause or reason for punishing the respondent for Contempt of Court. It is seen that the respondent had passed orders considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law applicable, as directed by this Court. Even though the said order passed by the respondent is subject to challenge, it cannot be said that by passing such an order, the respondent had committed contempt of Court by willfully disobeying the order passed by this Court, on 110. 2004. The respondent had passed the order, dated 211. 2004, in Roc.No.957/99/MM1, rejecting the request of the petitioner for stone quarrying lease in accordance with his power, as provided under law. However, it cannot be said that he had passed such an order in wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 110. 2004. 8. Further, it is seen from the records available before this Court that the order passed by the respondent, on 211. 2004, had not been challenged by the petitioner and that it has become final. While so, the proposed respondent had invoked the power of revision provided under Rule 40 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, to set aside the order of the Appellate Authority, dated 26.03.2003. It is also found that the said order of the proposed respondent, dated 19. While so, the proposed respondent had invoked the power of revision provided under Rule 40 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, to set aside the order of the Appellate Authority, dated 26.03.2003. It is also found that the said order of the proposed respondent, dated 19. 2006, has been challenged before this Court in W.P.No.36690 of 2006 and he had obtained an order of interim stay of the said order in M.P.No.1 of 2006. 9. In such circumstances, it is seen that there is no willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, either by the respondent or by the proposed respondent. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed. Since it is found, prima facie that the proposed respondent has not committed contempt of Court, as alleged by the petitioner, the sub application is also closed. No costs.