Judgment :- Petitioners seek writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings in No.278/MM5/2005 dated 29.07.2005, passed by the 2nd Respondent which was confirmed by the 1st Respondent vide G.O.(2D)No.126 dated 012. 2006, quash the same and forbearing the Respondents from interfering with the quarrying operation for the lease period of 5 years granted from 212. 2004 to 212. 2009 with regard to stone quarry in S.No.853/1 part admeasuring 2.02.5 hectares at Villuppanur Village, Virudhunagar District. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: (i) In the Virudhunagar District Extraordinary Gazette issue No.23 dated 02.08.2004 applications were invited for grant of quarry lease to quarry rough stone from Swarna Jayanthi Gram Swarozgar Yojana Groups (SGSY Groups) or societies formed by released bonded labourers under Rule 8(10-A) of Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959. Petitioner Mandram had applied for the grant of quarry lease for quarrying rough stone and jelly from stone quarry in SFNo.853/1 (North and South Portion) having an extent of 2.02.5 hectares of Government land, Viluppanur Village of Srivilliputhur Taluk. The Special Committee has recommended the quarry lease application of Solai Kuyil Mahalir Mandram for the grant of quarry lease. Based on the recommendations of the Special Committee, the District Collector has granted the quarry lease in favour of Solaikuyil Mahalir Mandram for a period of five years vide proceedings No.2623/2004 dated 012. 2004. The lease period is from 212. 2004 to 212. 2009. (ii) 4th Respondent -the then treasurer of Petitioner Mandram filed W.P.No.4364/2004 seeking to quash the proceedings of the District Collector, virudhunagar dated 012. 2004. The said writ petition was disposed directing the 4th Respondent to file an appeal before the Director of Geology and Mining after hearing the Petitioner the 2nd Respondent has passed an order cancelling quarry lease granted in favour of Petitioner Mandram by impugned proceedings dated 29.07.2005. Aggrieved by the order of 2nd Respondent, Petitioner preferred appeal before the Government. By impugned Government Order vide G.O.(2D) No.126 Industries (MMC2) Dept. dated 012. 2006 the Government have rejected the appeal preferred by Petitioner, which is challenged in this writ petition. 3. Opposing the Petition, the 2nd Respondent has filed counter stating that the Petitioner Mandram had produced false certificate for 2 years stone quarry work experience while applying for the grant of lease for stone quarry. dated 012. 2006 the Government have rejected the appeal preferred by Petitioner, which is challenged in this writ petition. 3. Opposing the Petition, the 2nd Respondent has filed counter stating that the Petitioner Mandram had produced false certificate for 2 years stone quarry work experience while applying for the grant of lease for stone quarry. The President, Solai Kuyil Mahalir Mandram had removed some of the members and included some members. These events were not intimated to the District Collector, Virudhunagar. After having gone through the records and conducting personal enquiry, the rough stone quarry lease granted to the Petitioner was cancelled by the Director of Geology and Mining in Proc.No.278/MM5/2005 dated 29.07.2005. 4. Challenging the impugned order the learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr.P.Gunaraj, contended that 2nd Respondent erred in saying the experience certificate was given by the Tahsildar and not by the District Collector. Drawing courts attention to information furnished to the Petitioner Mandram under Right to Information Act, the learned counsel would further submit that the experience certificate was issued by the District Collector on the basis of certificate issued by the Tahsildar which was not kept in view by the 2nd Respondent. It was further argued that the impugned order is a non speaking order and it does not indicate any reason for cancellation of quarry lease granted in favour of the Petitioner. 5. On behalf of 2nd Respondent the learned Government Advocate Mrs.Geetha Thamarai Selvan, would submit that the District Collector has not granted the certificate which is in violation of Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (MM Rules) therefore the 2nd Respondent has rightly cancelled the stone quarry lease granted to the Petitioner. 6. Drawing Court attention to the representation of the 4th Respondent, learned counsel for the 4th Respondent, Mr.K.Premkumar, submitted that since stone quarry lease was obtained by furnishing false information the 2nd Respondent rightly cancelled the same and the same cannot be interfered with. 7. Whether the impugned order of 2nd Respondent dated 29.07.2005, cancelling the stone quarry lease granted to the Petitioner Mandram is unreasonable. 8. 7. Whether the impugned order of 2nd Respondent dated 29.07.2005, cancelling the stone quarry lease granted to the Petitioner Mandram is unreasonable. 8. The 2nd Respondent has ordered to cancel quarry lease granted in favour of Petitioner Mandram on the following grounds: " Members of Petitioner Mandram have not obtained the work experience certificate for a period not less than two years in a quarry from the District Collector as required under Rule 8(10-A)(a)(VII) of Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. " Five members had been removed from the Petitioner Mandram and four members, who have not been quarry workers have been included on 011. 2004 and these events were not reported by the Petitioners of the said Solai Kuyil Mahalir Mandram to the District Collector before the issue of the orders granting the quarry lease. " The District Collector is the only authority to issue work experience certificate to the members of the SGSY groups. But in this case Petitioner Mandram has applied for quarry lease without obtaining experience certificate from the District Collector. " 4th Respondent-Saravanakumari has brought to the notice of the authority about lack of experience of members of Petitioner Mandram in quarrying work. 9. Whether the impugned order of 2nd Respondent passes the test of fairness and reasonableness is the point falling for consideration. 10. By the reading of Rule 8(10-A)(a) of Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, it is seen that before grant of quarry lease there are several preceding steps. As per Rule 8(10-A)Exp..3(b)(i). The District Collector shall examine all the applications received within the time limit fixed in the Gazette notification published under clause (a) of the Sub-rule, within fifteen days from the last date fixed for receipt of applications. Where it appears that an application is not complete in all material particulars or is not accompanied by the required documents, the District Collector may require the applicants to supply or furnish the document as the case maybe. As per Rule 8(10-A) Exp..3(b)(ii). The District Collector shall place all the applications made in response to the notification published and received within the time-limit before a Special committee. As per Rule 8(10-A) Exp..3(b)(ii). The District Collector shall place all the applications made in response to the notification published and received within the time-limit before a Special committee. The Composition of the Special Committee shall be as follows: .(1) District Collector - Chairman .(2) President of the District Panchayat - Member .(3) Chairman of the Panchayat Union - Member in which the quarry is located .(4) Project Director in-charge of Rural Development in the rank of Additional Collector (Development) - Ex-Officio Member .(5) Deputy Director of Geology and Mining/Assistant Director of Geology and Mining of the District - Ex-Officio Member The Special Committee shall scrutinise the applications and furnish its recommendations to the District Collector within sixty days from the date of placement of the applications before the Committee. After obtaining the applications from the Special Committee with its recommendations the District Collector shall pass orders on the applications in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. 11. In the present case also, as per the Rule, application of Petitioner Mandram was placed before the Selection Committee. Only on the recommendations of the Special Committee, the District Collector has granted stone quarry lease in favour of the Petitioner Mandram and executed the lease deed on 212. 2004 in respect of stone quarry in S.No.853/1 of Viluppanur village. 12. If really the members did not posses the requisite experience or some members have been newly added prior to grant of lease, the same could have been brought to the notice of either the District Collector or the Selection Committee while scrutinising the applications. But that was not to be so. But only after grant of stone quarry lease in favour of Petitioner Mandram, the 4th Respondent had filed W.P.No.4364/2004 to quash the proceedings of the District Collector. 13. While the 2nd Respondent heard the appeal, the District Collector sent parawar remarks to the 2nd Respondent. In his parawar remarks the District Collector has stated that stone quarry lease was granted in favour of Petitioner Mandram as per rules. The District Collector has categorically pointed out that after her removal from the Mandram, the disgruntled 4th Respondent has filed the writ petition and that there is no basis for the allegations levelled by the 4th Respondent. 14. The order of 2nd Respondent clearly refers to Parawar remarks of the District Collector as noted below: 15. The District Collector has categorically pointed out that after her removal from the Mandram, the disgruntled 4th Respondent has filed the writ petition and that there is no basis for the allegations levelled by the 4th Respondent. 14. The order of 2nd Respondent clearly refers to Parawar remarks of the District Collector as noted below: 15. The 2nd Respondent though referred to parawar remarks of the District Collector and the experience certificate issued by the District Collector (based on Tahsildar certificate), the 2nd Respondent unjustly brushed aside the statement of the District Collector. The 2nd Respondent appears to have brushed aside the reply of the District Collector on the flimsy ground that the relevant records were not produced before the 2nd Respondent. It is pertinent to note that the 2nd Respondent being a supervisory / Appellate Authority could have very well called for the records. 2nd Respondent without verifying the records was not right in cancelling the selection of the Petitioner Mandram after the scrutiny of applications by the Selection committee. 16. Only to ensure that proper check, the applications as per rule 8(10-A)Exp..3(b)(ii) the applications are being scrutinised by the Selection Committee. The District Collector who is in charge at the grass root level is in the know of things. While so, the 2nd Respondent was not justified in weighing down the statement of the District Collector. 17. Stone quarry lease granted to Petitioner Mandram was cancelled on the ground that Petitioner Mandram had not obtained requisite experience certificate from the District Collector. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn courts attention to the information supplied by District Collector as to issuance of experience certificate by the District Collector Virudhunagar. The Petitioner Mandram sought for information under Right to Information Act as to who has issued the experience certificate. In the information furnished by the Collector that experience certificate was issued by the District collector on the basis of the certificate issued by the Tahsildar. In accordance with rules, when 3rd Respondent had granted stone quarry lease to the Petitioner Mandram, the 3rd Respondent was not justified in cancelling the same at the instance of disgruntled member of the Mandram. It is relevant to note that the Petitioner Mandram which is a self help group had also paid the lease amount as per terms of lease. It is relevant to note that the Petitioner Mandram which is a self help group had also paid the lease amount as per terms of lease. Cancellation of stone quarry lease is unreasonable and does not stand the test of fairness. The impugned Government Order G.O.(2D) No.126 dated 012. 2006 is a non speaking order and is not sustainable. 18. In the result the impugned orders of the 2nd Respondent in No.278/MM5/2005 dated 29.07.2005, as confirmed by the 1st Respondent vide G.O.(2D) No.126 dated 012. 2006 are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to give the lease to the Petitioner Mandram for a period of five years (deducting the number of days if already quarried) from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.