COMMON ORDER:-Writ Petition in W.P.No.6113 of 2009 has been filed praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records relating to the Stop Work Notice issued by the respondent bearing Roc.No.561/2009/Mines, dated 06.07.2009 pertaining to granite quarry measuring 0-03-5 Hectares in Survey No.531/1; 0-12-0 Hectares in Survey No.531/10; 0-13-5 Hectares in Survey No.532/4; 0-12-0 Hectares in Survey No.532/7; 0-16-0 Hectares in Survey No.532/10; 0-15-5 Hectares in Survey No.532/11A; 0-16-0 Hectares in Survey No.532/12; and 0-17-5 Hectares in Survey No.532/14 totally measuring 1-06-0 Hectares situated in Thiruvathavur village, Melur taluk, Madurai District, quash the same and direct the respondent to forbear from interfering with the petitioner's right to continue quarry operations during the currency of the quarrying lease period. 2. Writ Petition in W.P.No.6114 of 2009 has been filed, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records relating to the Stop Work Notice issued by the respondent bearing Roc.No.561/2009/Mines, dated 06.07.2009 pertaining to government quarry lands measuring 5-00 acres out of the total extent of 10-00 acres comprised in Survey No.525/1 (Part) situated in Thiruvathavur village, Melur taluk, Madurai District, quash the same and direct the respondent to forbear from interfering with the petitioner's right to continue quarry operations during the currency of the quarrying lease period. 3. The brief facts in W.P.No.6113 of 2009, necessary for disposal of the Writ Petition are as follows: 4. The petitioner is the owner of the above said lands purchased for the purpose of quarrying and marketing granite. After compliance of all the formalities and requirements, the petitioner has applied for grant of quarry lease in his favour. By proceedings, dated 13.5.2005, the Director of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai has also recommended for grant of the said lease. In pursuance of the said recommendation, the Government of Tamil Nadu, by G.O.(3D) No.49 Industries (MMB1) Department, dated 5.7.2005 has granted the granite quarry lease in favour of the petitioner and necessary lease agreement for a period of 20 years has been executed on 12.7.2005. After obtaining the lease, having invested huge amounts, the petitioner has commenced quarry operations by adopting latest scientific quarrying methods while leaving safety distance of 50 meters as contemplated in Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules and thereby, no damage to the neighbouring lands or monuments is being taken place during the quarry operations. 5. After obtaining the lease, having invested huge amounts, the petitioner has commenced quarry operations by adopting latest scientific quarrying methods while leaving safety distance of 50 meters as contemplated in Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules and thereby, no damage to the neighbouring lands or monuments is being taken place during the quarry operations. 5. While so, all of a sudden, the respondent has issued stop-work notice, dated 6.7.2009 against the petitioner directing to stop the quarrying operations forthwith inasmuch as the petitioner is carrying on quarry operations at a distance of 140 meters from the Ancient monument located in S.F.No.525/1 of Thiruvathavoor village as such operations are prohibited under Rule 33 of the Tamil Nadu Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Rules 1971. 6. Being aggrieved over the impugned notice, dated 6.7.2009, the petitioner has come forward with the writ petition. 7. As far as the writ petition in W.P.No.6114 of 2009 is concerned, the petitioner has applied for grant of granite quarry lease in respect of government lands comprised in S.No.525/1(Part) of Thiruvathavur village. By letter dated 20.5.1995, the respondent herein has recommended the Government for grant of lease in favour of the petitioner. By letter, dated 22.5.1995, the Director of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai also recommended for grant of the lease in favour of the petitioner. Pursuance of the said recommendations, the Government of Tamil Nadu has appointed a High Level Committee which in turn inspected the subject area and after taking note of all the surrounding areas and safety distances, submitted its report, dated 15.11.1995 recommending the grant of lease. 8. In view of the recommendation made by the High Level Committee, the Government of Tamil Nadu, by G.O.(3D) No.355 Industries (MMB1) Department, dated 7.12.1995 has granted the granite quarry lease in favour of the petitioner and necessary lease agreement has also been executed on 20.2.1996 for a period of 10 years, commencing from 20.2.1996 to 19.2.2006. After obtaining the lease, the petitioner has started quarrying operations by taking all precautions leaving safety distance of 50 meters from the places of historical and archeological area, temples, villages, etc. However, during the expiry of the lease period, the petitioner has applied for renewal of the lease and since the said renewal application was not disposed of by the Government, the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.37151 of 2005 before this Court. However, during the expiry of the lease period, the petitioner has applied for renewal of the lease and since the said renewal application was not disposed of by the Government, the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.37151 of 2005 before this Court. By order, dated 17-11-2005, this Court granted interim injunction, restraining the respondent from interfering with the petitioner's right to continue quarrying operations. In pursuance of the said interim orders, the petitioner has been continuing quarrying operations. 9. While so, all of a sudden, the respondent has issued stop-work notice, dated 6.7.2009 against the petitioner directing to stop the quarrying operations forthwith inasmuch as the petitioner is carrying on quarry operations at a distance of 125 meters from the Ancient monument located in S.F.No.525/1 of Thiruvathavoor village as such operations are prohibited under Rule 33 of the Tamil Nadu Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Rules 1971. 10. Being aggrieved over the impugned notice, dated 6.7.2009, the petitioner has come forward with the writ petition. 11. The respondent has filed counter affidavits in both the writ petitions, inter alia, stating that the condition No.24 mentioned in the lease agreement is a general condition for maintaining 50 meters as safety distance from the Highways, low and high tension power lines, transformers, temples, historical importance and tanks and that as per Rule 32 of the Tamil Nadu Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Rules 1971, 300 meters safety distance has to be maintained, whereas, the petitioners have not maintained the said safety distance and carrying on the quarrying operations at 140 and 125 meters respectively from Thiruvathavoor Brahmi Kalvettu and in such circumstances, in order to safeguard the same, the impugned notices were issued to the petitioners directing them to stop the quarrying operations forthwith. It is further stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.7, Tamil Development Culture Department, dated 6.1.1990, a notification has been published by the State Government pertaining to the ancient monument located in S.F.No.525 (Part) over an area of 400 meters in Thiruvathavoor village and as per the said notification, the monument is maintained by the State Archeological Department. It is stated that as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Rules 1971, quarrying operations are restricted within 300 meters for the protection of the ancient monuments. It is stated that as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Rules 1971, quarrying operations are restricted within 300 meters for the protection of the ancient monuments. Therefore, in order to protect the Thiruvathavoo Brahmi Kalvettu, the respondent has issued impugned notices inasmuch as the petitioners are carrying on the quarry operations very near to the said Thiruvathavoor Brahmi Kalvettu without maintaining the required distance of 300 meters and that the condition mentioned in the lease agreements is a general one and it is not applicable to the present circumstances. With these averments, the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 12. Assailing the impugned orders, Mr.P.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised the following contentions, viz., i. that after compliance of all the formalities and requirements contemplated under the Rules by the petitioners, the State Government, has granted the lease permitting the petitioners to carry on quarrying operations and also executed the lease agreements and while so, all of a sudden, the respondent has issued impugned notices directing the petitioners to stop the quarrying operations by suspending the lease when the said lease period is still subsisting and therefore, such notices are not legally sustainable; ii. that the respondent has no power to suspend the lease since it is well settled that power to grant permission does not carry with it the power to suspend permission; iii. that the respondent having allowed the petitioners to carry on quarry operations for certain period by fixing the safety distance of 50 meters and now it cannot suspend the lease based on the report of the Assistant Director, Archeology Department; iv. that the respondent has not followed the principles of natural justice while suspending the lease as it is settled that when once the lease is granted, it vests fundamental rights and such rights cannot be taken away without following due process of law; v. that the respondent has not considered the fact that there is no monument situated nearby the quarry area except a big boulder having some engraving existing very far away from the quarry area and no damage would take place because of quarry operations; vi. that the respondent has failed to note that there is no blasting operations in the petitioners' quarry since advanced scientific technology, such as diamond wire cutting, etc., has been introduced by which, no damage would take place even a person stands near by the quarrying operations and that the apprehension of the respondent and the Archeology Department regarding damage to the so-called monument has no basis; vii. that the respondent has suspended the leased based on the recommendation of the Archeology Department, which by its letter, dated 23.9.1996 requested the respondent not to grant quarry leases in future without consulting their department, however, it is to be noted that the lease was granted even prior to the recommendation of the Archeology Department and therefore, the respondent cannot suspend the lease as there is no complaint regarding any damage to the monument because of the quarry operations by the Archeology Department; and viii. that pursuant to the lease agreement entered with the state government, the petitioners have entered into agreements with many export agencies and made huge investments and now because of suspension of the lease, the petitioners would be put irreparable loss and therefore, there is no justification on the part of the respondent in issuing the impugned orders suspending the lease. 13. With the above contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners sought for setting aside the impugned orders. 14. On the other hand, Mr.R.Janakiramulu, learned Special Government Pleader would contend that the by G.O.Ms.No.7 Tamil Development Culture Department, dated 6.1.1990, a notification has been published by the government for the ancient monument located in S.F.No.525 (Part) over an area of 400 meters in Thiruvathoor village and Thiruvathavoor Brahmi Kalvettu has been treated as monument and surrendered to State Archeological Department for maintenance and that the respondent has rightly suspended the lease by way of impugned orders having considered the fact that there would be imminent possibility of causing damage to the historical monument and archeological site in order to protect said Thiruvathavoor Brahmi Kalvettu. He has further contended that as per Rule 32 of Tamil Nadu Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Rules 1971, a minimum safety distance of 300 meters has to be maintained, whereas the petitioners are carrying on the quarry operations without maintaining such safety distance and therefore, the respondent has issued impugned orders directing the petitioners to stop the quarrying operations forthwith. The learned Special Government Pleader would point out that the condition mentioned in the lease agreements regarding the maintenance of safety distance of 50 meters, is only a general condition and it cannot be applicable and relied on to the facts and circumstances in the given situation. He would further contend that when the petitioners are carrying on quarrying operations without maintaining the safety distance by violating the Rules which would cause damage to Thiruvathavoor Brahmi Kalvettu, the State Government cannot remain a silent spectator and therefore, rightly issued impugned orders to the petitioners. With these contentions, the learned Special Government Pleader has sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. 15. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and also on going through the entire records placed before this Court, I find considerable force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is to be noted that the State Government has considered the reports of the District Collector and Director of Geology and Mining while granting lease in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.6113 of 2009 by issuing G.O.(3D) No.49, dated 5.7.2006, wherein, it has been mentioned as follows: "Based on the reports of the District Collector and the Director of Geology and Mining, the Government have examined the quarry lease application of the individual and communicated the entire area applied for lease as precise area and requested the applicant in the letter fourth read above to furnish the approved mining plan as per sub rule 13 of rule 19-A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 through Director of Geology and Mining. Accordingly, the mining plan as approved by the Director of Geology and Mining has been received as per sub rule 13 of the rule 19-A of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessions Rules 1959. Accordingly, the mining plan as approved by the Director of Geology and Mining has been received as per sub rule 13 of the rule 19-A of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessions Rules 1959. The Government after careful examination have decided to grant lease to quarry Multi-coloured granite to Thiru P.K.Selvaraj, Sindhu Granites, Melur, Madurai District in patta lands." 16. As far as the petitioner in W.P.No.6114 of 2009 is concerned, the State Government has constituted a High Level Committee with technical guidance in order to consider and give suitable recommendation on the request made by the petitioner for grant of lease. Accordingly, on consideration of the recommendation of the High Level Committee, the State Government has granted multi coloured granite quarry lease for ten years by G.O.Ms.No.355, dated 7.12.1995, wherein, it is stated as under: "The High Level Committee after scrutinizing the application of Tvl.Sri Laxmi Exports, Melur with technical guidance has recommended grant of lease to quarry granite on the Government poramboke land. In view of the recommendation of the High Level Committee and in the interest of Mineral Development and in the public interest as per Rule 39 of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959, the Government have decided to grant lease to quarry in the Government poramboke land to Tvl.Sri Laxmi Exports, Melur." Therefore, on a perusal of the above, it is crystal clear that having considered the recommendations of the District Collector, the Director of Geology and Mining and also High Level Committee, while exercising powers conferred under Rule 39 of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, the State Government has granted the quarry lease to the petitioners. For this purpose, the State Government has also executed Lease Agreements in favour of the petitioners for the respective lease periods, with specific terms and conditions mentioned therein. Thereafter, in pursuance of the grant of lease, the petitioners have started quarrying operations with legitimate expectation that no hindrance will take place. While so, based on the report of the Assistant Director of Archeology Department, by the impugned orders, dated 6.7.2009, the respondent has directed the petitioners to stop the quarrying operations forthwith. Thereafter, in pursuance of the grant of lease, the petitioners have started quarrying operations with legitimate expectation that no hindrance will take place. While so, based on the report of the Assistant Director of Archeology Department, by the impugned orders, dated 6.7.2009, the respondent has directed the petitioners to stop the quarrying operations forthwith. The only apprehension of the respondent is that there would be imminent damage being caused to the historical monument, i.e., "Thiruvathavoor Brahmi Kalvettu" by way of quarrying operations carrying on by the petitioners since it is situated very near to the quarry area and the petitioners are not maintaining the safety distance of 300 meters. According to the respondent, as per Rule 33 of Tamil Nadu Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Rules 1971, mining operations are prohibited within 300 meters from the ancient monument. Therefore, it is contended on behalf of the respondent that in order to protect the above said monument, the respondent has necessarily issued the impugned notices, dated 6.7.2009 directing the petitioners to stop the quarrying operations immediately and there is no irregularity in the issuance of such notices. 17. I am unable to sustain the view of the respondent for more than one reason. Firstly, the petitioner in W.P.No.6113 of 2009, namely, M/s.Sindhu Granites was granted lease in the year 2005 and the petitioner in W.P.No.6114 of 2009, namely, M/s.Sri Laxmi Exports was granted lease as early as in the year 1995 for a period of ten years and after its expiry, the petitioner was permitted to continue the lease as per the orders of this Court in W.P.No.37151 of 2005, dated 17..11.2005. Therefore, as on the date of issuance of impugned show cause notices against the petitioners, i.e. 6.7.2009, the petitioners have already carried on with quarrying operations for years together and admittedly, there is no complaint from any quarter regarding damage to the so-called Thiruvathavoor Brahmi Kalvettu. When such being the situation, having permitted the petitioners with quarrying operations for years together and as on date there is no damage taken place to the so-called monument because of the quarrying operations, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no justification on the part of the respondent in issuing the impugned notices. When such being the situation, having permitted the petitioners with quarrying operations for years together and as on date there is no damage taken place to the so-called monument because of the quarrying operations, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no justification on the part of the respondent in issuing the impugned notices. Further, it is submitted that in fact, no blasting or explosive operations are being taking place since the petitioners are adopting highly advanced technology, i.e. Diamond wire cutting for separating granite from the mother rock and thereby, there would be no possibility of causing any damage to the so-called monument as apprehended by the respondent. 18. Secondly, the respondent has issued the impugned notices stating that the petitioners are maintaining only the distance of 140 and 125 meters respectively and not 300 meters which is a safety distance to be maintained and as per Rule 33 of Tamil Nadu Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1971 mining operations are prohibited with 300 meters from the ancient monument. It is pertinent to note that in the lease agreement, the State Government has imposed a condition to leave a safety distance of 50 meters. The said condition No.15 is extracted as under: "15. The lessee shall leave a safety distance of 50 meters from the features like road, low tension and high tension power lines, transformers, temples, villages, places of historical and archeological importance and in order to protect the habitation etc. as per relevant regulations of Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act, 1961. If more safety distance is required then safety distance fixed by the Collector has to be left by the lessee." Therefore, admittedly while executing the lease agreement, the government has fixed 50 meters as safety distance only. However, on a perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioners are maintaining 140 and 125 meters respectively from the so-called monument. Therefore, the petitioners are maintaining a maximum distance more than the distance prescribed in the lease agreement and further, as already observed above, the petitioner are adopting the latest technology for separating the rocks, there would be no possibility of causing any damage to the so-called monument. Therefore, the petitioners are maintaining a maximum distance more than the distance prescribed in the lease agreement and further, as already observed above, the petitioner are adopting the latest technology for separating the rocks, there would be no possibility of causing any damage to the so-called monument. Even otherwise, if at all the respondent insists for safety distance of 300 meters to be maintained, he could very well direct the petitioners to do so, without suspending the lease outrightly. Therefore, suspending the lease outrightly even without suggesting for change of norms regarding safety distance by the respondent, in my view, cannot be legally sustained. 19. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court rendered in W.P.No.14529 of 1996 for the proposition that in the absence of enabling provision to suspend the lease, the authority cannot suspend the lease. In paragraph 8 of the above said decision, P.Sathasivam, J., has held as under: "8. It is clear from the above discussion that there is no enabling provision for ordering suspension either in the Act or in the Rules. By virtue of Rule 36(5)(h) of the Rules, the Collector of the other authority can cancel the lease. The argument advanced by the learned Government Advocate that when there is a provision for cancellation of lease, it includes the power to suspend the valid lease cannot be accepted. It is not an incidental omission by the legislature or by the Government, but it is a deliberate omission. In the absence of enabling provision for suspension of lease, the impugned proceeding of the respondent is liable to be quashed." 20. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in " 1991 (II) ALT 32 (C.M.Ramanath Reddy versus State of Andhra Pradesh)", for the proposition that the power to grant permission does not carry with it the power to suspend the permission. In this decision also, while taking note of the fact that mining lease was suspended without notice and hearing, the learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, quashed the proceedings suspending the lease. 21. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon a decision of this Court in W.P.No.919 of 2001, dated 20.3.2003, wherein, D.Murugesan, J. has held as under: "3. .... 21. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon a decision of this Court in W.P.No.919 of 2001, dated 20.3.2003, wherein, D.Murugesan, J. has held as under: "3. .... In all the above Writ Petitions, this Court has uniformly taken the view that during the currency of this period of lease, the respondent cannot interfere with the petitioner's right to quarry and transport the mineral except for violation of condition of lease. In this case, no such violation of the condition of grant is pleaded by the respondent. In fact, both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that the direction issued by this Court under the similar circumstances, is squarely applicable to the facts of this case." Therefore, relying upon the above said decisions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the respondent has no jurisdiction to suspend the lease when there is no enabling provision to do so and that during the currency of this period of lease, the respondent cannot interfere with the petitioner's right to quarry and transport the mineral except for violation of condition of lease. 22. Having regard to the above said decisions which are squarely applicable to the facts of the present cases, I am in agreement with the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the present case also, admittedly, the respondent has not jurisdiction to suspend the lease as there is no enabling provisions to do so the same and further the petitioners have not violated any condition prescribed in the lease agreement so that the respondent can interfere with the petitioners' right to carry on the quarrying operations. It is well settled law that when the lease period is subsisting, the authority cannot suspend the lease, but can cancel the lease by following principles of natural justice if at all the lessee violates any conditions. Further it is brought to my notice that the Government Order, dated 6.1.1990 in G.O.Ms.No.7 Tamil Development Culture Department issued regarding the ancient monuments, based on which, the impugned stop work notices were issued, was in fact, in existence prior to the respective lease agreements of the petitioners, dated 20.6.1996 and 12.7.2005. While that being the situation, now the respondent cannot take different stand that the Thiruvathavoor Brahmi Kalvettu located in the quarrying area would be affected. While that being the situation, now the respondent cannot take different stand that the Thiruvathavoor Brahmi Kalvettu located in the quarrying area would be affected. Therefore, in the light of the above decisions and discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned stop work notices were issued by the respondent without having jurisdiction and in the absence of power to suspend the quarry while the lease has been subsisting and therefore, the same cannot be sustained in law. 23. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent has submitted that subsequent to the impugned notices, the respondent has issued show cause notices, dated 9.7.2009 against the petitioners directing them to offer their explanation as to why the lease granted in their favour cannot be cancelled. It is submitted that without challenging the said show cause notices, the petitioners have come forward with the present writ petitions challenging the impugned notices alone and therefore, the same cannot be entertained. 24. In reply to this, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the respondent has issued the show cause notices dated 9.7.2009 and pending adjudication of the matter, enforced the suspension of lease. He has further submitted that the main issue involved in the writ petitions pertains to suspension of lease and once it is decided, the subsequent actions arising therefrom would automatically get fructified based on the outcome of the issue and therefore, the petitioners have challenged the impugned notices at the first instance appropriately, which, in my opinion, is acceptable. 25. At the end, the learned counsel for the petitioners has produced the affidavit of undertaking duly sworn to by the petitioners regarding the damage to the so-called Thiruvathavoor Brahmi Kalvettu and submitted that the petitioners would carry on the quarry operations in accordance with the conditions of the original lease agreement as well as the Rules and will not cause any damage to the monument. 26. In para 5 of the affidavit of undertaking duly sworn to by the petitioners, it has been undertaken as follows: 5. I hereby undertake on behalf of the petitioner that the quarry operations will be strictly carried on in accordance with the conditions of the original lease agreement dated 20.2.1996 and also the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules and Explosive Act and will not cause any damage to the monument." 27. I hereby undertake on behalf of the petitioner that the quarry operations will be strictly carried on in accordance with the conditions of the original lease agreement dated 20.2.1996 and also the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules and Explosive Act and will not cause any damage to the monument." 27. In the light of my elaborate discussion in the foregoing paragraphs and following the decisions of this Court, I am of the view that the impugned notices, dated 6.7.2009 issued by the respondent while the lease is subsisting cannot be legally sustained and accordingly, they are set aside. In the result, the Writ Petitions succeed and they are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are closed.