Judgment :- By consent of the learned counsel for both parties, the writ petition is disposed of. 2. The petitioner entered into a lease agreement with the second respondent in respect of 347.23 Acres of salt pan lands in Vayalur Village, Ponneri Taluk in Tiruvallur District, belonging to the second respondent for the purpose of manufacturing salt on the same. The said lease agreement was registered before the Sub-Registrar at Ponneri as Document No.563/1990. The period of lease is to expire on 010. 2009. From the date of lease, namely 07.02.1990, the petitioner claims that he was manufacturing salt on the said lands and he was also complying with the terms and conditions of the lease. While so, according to him, on 29.01.1999, the second respondent requested the petitioner to surrender the lands for the purpose of handing over the same to the Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation (TIDCO) for establishing a Petro Chemical Park. It was agreed upon during the talks that on such surrender of the lands 66% of the land cost would be paid by TIDCO to the Salt Department and 34% would be paid to the lease namely the petitioner. But, it was not so done. Instead, by order dated 06.05.1999, the lease was terminated by the second respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner made a respresentation on 28.05.1999 and the same was also rejected. Challenging the above, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.911 of 2000, before this Court. But this Court disposed of the writ petition without going into the merits of the case by giving liberty to the petitioner to institute a Civil suit challenging the cancellation of the lease. The said order was passed by this Court on 21.01.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner issued notice Under Section 80 (1) C.P.C. and then filed O.S.No.2354 of 2000, before the City Civil Court, Chennai for declaration that the cancellation order dated 06.05.2009 and the subsequent order on the representation of the petitioner are null and void and for consequential relief of injunction and also not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. 3. The suit was hotly contested by the respondents. It was, inter alia, contended by the respondents that possession had already been taken and handed over to TIDCO. 3. The suit was hotly contested by the respondents. It was, inter alia, contended by the respondents that possession had already been taken and handed over to TIDCO. On completing trial, the City Civil Court, Chennai disbelieved the version of the respondents and passed a decree and judgment as prayed for on 18.07.2006. 4. Challenging the same, an appeal was filed in A.S.No.273 of 2001. The Appellate Court by decree and judgment dated 09.08.2002 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree and judgment of the Trial Court. 5. Aggrieved over the same, the respondents filled a second appeal before this Court with a delay of 893 days. C.M.P.No.2741 of 2006 was filed by the respondents seeking to condone the said delay and then to entertain the second appeal but, this Court by order dated 18.07.2006 dismissed C.M.P.No.2741 of 2006, thereby declining to condone the delay. 6. After the above proceedings, the petitioner claims that he approached the respondents on many occasions requesting them not to interfere with his right to manufacture salt on the lands covered under the lease agreement. But the respondents did not co-operate. Though the petitioner has been paying the lease amount regularly and though the second respondent has collecting the same without any protest, according to the petitioner, he was not allowed to manufacture salt on the said lands. With this grievance, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to permit him to resume manufacturing of salt on these lands for a further period of six years from 21.05.1999. 7. According to the petitioner, since he was prevented from manufacturing salt on these lands though, he paid the lease amount regularly, he is entitled for extension of lease period and for manufacturing salt for six years commencing from 21.05.1999. 8. The present writ petition was filed on 17.02.2009. On 26.02.2009, this Court ordered notice of motion returnable in three weeks. On service of notice, the respondents entered appearance though their counsel. The matter was subsequently listed on 10.08.2009, 12.08.2009, 14.08.2009, 20.08.2009, 26.08.2009, 15.09.2009, and lastly today (i.e. 16.09.2009). 8. The present writ petition was filed on 17.02.2009. On 26.02.2009, this Court ordered notice of motion returnable in three weeks. On service of notice, the respondents entered appearance though their counsel. The matter was subsequently listed on 10.08.2009, 12.08.2009, 14.08.2009, 20.08.2009, 26.08.2009, 15.09.2009, and lastly today (i.e. 16.09.2009). On all these hearing dates, it was submitted to this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that as against the order of this Court in C.M..No.2741 of 2006 dated 18.07.2006, steps have been taken to file Special Leave Petition (S.L.P) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In the counter filed by the second respondent in paragraph 3, it is stated that the first respondent in consultation with the Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi has taken necessary action to file S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the dismissal of above CMP and for which, a copy of the communication sent to their counsel engaged in New Delhi is also filed by way of type set of papers. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the writ petition has been pending from the month of February 2009, though it has been repeatedly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that steps are being taken to file S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondents have not filed any such File Number or S.L.P.No. Etc before this Court. The learned counsel fort the respondents is not in a position to said as to whether S.L.P. has been really filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court or not. He only repeats to say that steps are being taken to file S.L.P. Though the order was passed by this Court on 18.07.2006, it is not understandable as to why the learned counsel for the respondents has not been instructed to inform this Court as to whether, as a matter of fact, S.L.P. has been really filed or not. This position is really deplorable. 10. At the same time, this Court has to see whether the relier sought for by the petitioner could be granted in this writ petition or not. In paragraph 4 of the counter, it is stated that the possession of the lands was already taken by the second respondent and the same was handed over to TIDCO. It is further stated that the lands are no more available for salt manufacturing. In paragraph 4 of the counter, it is stated that the possession of the lands was already taken by the second respondent and the same was handed over to TIDCO. It is further stated that the lands are no more available for salt manufacturing. The learned counsel for the petitioner would however refute the said allegation. According to him, possession was never taken and the lands are laying only fallow. 11. In view of the judgment of the Civil Court, declaring that the cancellation of lease is void, in my considered opinion, the petitioner is entitled to manufacture salt on these lands till 010. 2009, (the date of expiry of the lease period). The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even if the petition is allowed granting the relief within the short span of two weeks available for him, it would not be possible to manufacture salt. He would submit that since he was prevented for six years from manufacture salt though, the lease amount was collected regularly from the petitioner by the second respondent, there may be a direction to the second respondent to permit him to manufacture salt for another six years from today. 12. In may considered opinion, the said relief cannot be granted. Whether lease period can be extended or not, is a matter to be decided on mutual agreement between the second respondent and the petitioner. This Court cannot direct the second respondent to extend the lease period. If it is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the fact that he has been paying lease amount regularly; he has been prevented from manufacturing salt for six years and on account of the same, he has suffered hugs loss; his remedy lies elsewhere for claiming appropriate damages by instituting Civil suit. In this Writ Petition, this Court can neither order payment of damages, as quantification of the damages would be difficult without evidence, not this Court can direct the second respondent to extend the lease period for another six years. 13. In view of all the above, though the petitioner has got a good case, unfortunately, in this writ petition, no relief could be granted to him. Thus, in my considered opinion, the writ petition almost has become infructuous. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. 13. In view of all the above, though the petitioner has got a good case, unfortunately, in this writ petition, no relief could be granted to him. Thus, in my considered opinion, the writ petition almost has become infructuous. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to workout his remedies, elsewhere in the manner known to law, for claiming damages, if he is entitled for the same under law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.