Judgment :- The petitioner has sought a Writ of Ceriorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the third respondent, dated 20.04.2004 made in Na.Ka.No. 14675/03-X.2 and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to conduct quarrying operation for a period of 11 months in S.F.No.200/1, Patiur Village, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District and for further orders. .2. Brief facts leading to the Writ Petition are as follows: .The petitioner was granted lease in respect of stons quarry in the above said la-ids for a period of five years from 24.06.1999 to 24.06.2004 and a iease agreement was executed by the District Collector, Erode, on 01.04.1999. The petitioner has paid the tender amount of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.6,000/- towards security deposit. According to the petitioner, the work order was issued on 24.06.1999 and since then,- he was quarrying stones adhering to the Rules. During the year 2001, one Mrs.Thangammal has given a false representation to the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Gopichettipalayam, alleging that the petitioner had violated the Rules and Regulations of the Tamil Madu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. On the basis of the said allegation, the Assistant Director of Geology and Mines, Erode, the fourth respondent, abruptly stopped issuing transport permits from 05.02.2001, without passing any orders to that effect. The petitioner has offered proper explanation to the queries raised in the complaint. Despite petitioners repeated request, the fourth respondent has not issued any transport permit for a period of 11 months from 05,02.2001 to 012. 2001. Since the respondents 3 and 4 have prevented the petitioner from quarrying stones for 11 months, the petitioner has made an application on 23.02.2004, setting out his grievance and sought for an extention of lease for a period of 11 months. The District Collector, Erode, the third respondent, by order dated 20.04.2004, without considering the genuine request of the petitioner, rejected the application for extension of time, stating that there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 to extend the lease period. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition. .3. The District Collector, Erode, the third respondent, by order dated 20.04.2004, without considering the genuine request of the petitioner, rejected the application for extension of time, stating that there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 to extend the lease period. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition. .3. Mr.D.Selvaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent has failed to consider that the non-issuance of transport permits without passing any administrative orders on the complaint preferred by Mrs.Thangammal and abruptly stopping the issue of transport permits has resulted in deprivation of the petitioners right to quarry stones for a period of 11 months. He further submitted that non-issuance of transport permits for the above said period is purely the fault of the respondents 3 and 4 and in the absence of any rebuttal to the averments made in the Writ Petition in the form of counter affidavit, this Court should grant the relief and direct the respondents to extend the period of lease for 11 months. .4. Referring, to Clause 6(G)(ii) of the Lease Agreement, dated 24.06.1999, Mr.A.Arumugam, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the permit holder or the lessee shall be permitted to transport ordinary rough stone/Jelly, only after obtaining bulk transport permits and facsimiled despatch slips in the prescribed format. He further submitted that in the absence of any specific complaint or representation regarding non-issuance of transport permits, during relevant period from 05.02.2001 to 012. 2001, the Writ Petition is totally misconceived. He further submitted that no details have been furnished in the affidavit as to when the petitioner had applied for transport permits to the competent authority and the reasons for rejection, if any. He further submitted that there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 for extension of lease period and therefore, the petitioner has no statutory right to seek for extension. Heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. .5. He further submitted that there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 for extension of lease period and therefore, the petitioner has no statutory right to seek for extension. Heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. .5. In Paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has averred that one Mrs.Thangammal had given a false representation to the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Gopichettipalayam, alleging that he had violated the Rules and Regulations of the Tarnil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and on the basis of such representation, the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Erode, had abruptly stopped issuing transport permits, without passing any orders on the petition. In the typed set of papers, the petitioner has enclosed only the copy of the Lease Agreement, dated 24.06.1999 and the Impugned Order. Contents of the affidavit does not disclose as to when Mrs.Thangammal has made the, petition/representation against he petitioner to the fourth respondent, for the alleged violations. There are no details as to when the petitioner had applied for transport permits. Though the petitioner has contended that he has made repeated representations and offered proper explanation to the queries raised on the alleged complaint, neither the copy of the complaint nor the notice issued by the authorities calling upon him to submit his explanation is appended, in the typed set of papers to support his contentions. Therefore, the allegation that the fourth respondent has abruptly stopped issuing transport permits on the basis of the petitioner submitted by Mrs.Thengonnrnal is not supported by any valid materials and the said contention is rejected. 6. Reading of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, does not indicate any provision for extension of lease for the conduct of omission on the part of the petitioner and therefore, the reasons stated by the petitioner in rejecting the application is in accordance with the Rules. 7. As regards the next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition has to be accepted on the face of it, in the absence of any rebuttal, this Court is of the opinion that while dealing with a Writ of Certiorari, the Court can call for the records and set aside, modify, or pass appropriate orders. Counter affidavit is required only in a case where there is a factual dispute. As the dispute in this case, has not been substantiated by any valid materials, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced. 8. For all the reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.