Judgment : ELIPE DHARMARAO, J. 1. Since in all these matters, similar questions of law are involved, they all are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts in gist, of the above cases are extracted below: W.A. Nos. 669 and 1504 of 2009: 3. Pursuant to the notification published in the District Gazette, dated 19.12.2002, by the District Collector, Kancheepuram, inviting applications for the grant of lease to quarry stones, through tender/auction in the lands comprised in various Survey Numbers in several villages of Kancheepuram District, the appellant in both the appeals by name K. Kathir Kamaraj applied for and became the highest bidder for Quarry No. 4 in Survey No. 25/2B, Tirusoolam village in an extent of 1.32.0 hectares and executed a deed of lease on 16.9.2003, for quarrying rights for a period of five years, i.e. upto 15.9.2008. While the said lease period was about to expire, the lessee K. Kathir Kamaraj made a request to the District Collector on 15.5.2008, seeking extension of lease for a further period of five years on the ground that the quarry for which the lease was granted was a virgin quarry and therefore, by virtue of Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, the lease ought to have been for a period of ten years in the case of virgin quarries. Thereafter, he also filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 22068 of 2008, claiming that the application for renewal is pending and thus sought for a writ of mandamus to forbear the authorities from interfering with his right to continue the quarrying operations till the expiry of another five years period from the date of expiry of the original lease in which an order of interim injunction was granted on 8.9.2008. However, even by the time the interim order was granted, the District Collector had already passed an order dated 2.9.2008, rejecting the request for extension of the period of lease on the ground that the quarry in question was not a virgin quarry. Challenging the said order, the appellant has filed W.P. No. 551 of 2009. In view of the rejection order passed by the District Collector, the first writ petition filed by the appellant in W.P. No. 22068 of 2008 was dismissed. 4. Challenging the said order, the appellant has filed W.P. No. 551 of 2009. In view of the rejection order passed by the District Collector, the first writ petition filed by the appellant in W.P. No. 22068 of 2008 was dismissed. 4. Even before the filing of the above said W.P. No. 551 of 2009 by the appellant herein, one M. Azagaiya (R.2 in W.A. No. 669 of 2009 and R.4 in W.A. No. 1504 of 2009) has filed W.P. No. 29185 of 2008, praying to direct the official respondents to consider his representation dated 6.12.2008 in the matter of conducting auction for the Quarry No. 4, situated in Survey No. 25/2B of Tirusoolam village, Kancheepuram District, to an extent of 1.32.0 hectares as early as possible. Since both the above said Writ Petitions pertain to the same quarry, the learned single Judge has taken up both the matters together and upholding the stand of the District Collector that it is not a virgin quarry, but an existing quarry and therefore, the provisions of Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules have no application to the issue of quarry in question, has dismissed W.P. No. 551 of 2009 filed by the present appellant (lessee) and disposed of W.P. No. 22068 of 2008, with a direction to the District Collector, Kancheepuram to go ahead with the process of notifying the quarry No. 4 for the purpose of grant of lease and act in accordance with law. Even during the pendency of the above said two writ petitions, one I. Vairavan, (R.3 in W.A. No. 669 of 2009) has filed a petition to implead him as a party respondent to W.P. No. 551 of 2009, opposing the claim of the petitioner therein i.e. the appellant herein, stating that he is the resident of Tirusoolam Panchayat and also an elected member of the Tirusoolam Panchayat and if the appellant is allowed to continue with his quarry operations, it will prevent other persons, such as himself (I.Vairavan) who are interested in bidding for a lease of quarry at a fresh auction. Though the learned single Judge had permitted the learned counsel for the said I. Vairavan to present his submissions, the said petition was dismissed holding that he is not a necessary party to the writ petition. 5. Aggrieved at the decision of the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. Though the learned single Judge had permitted the learned counsel for the said I. Vairavan to present his submissions, the said petition was dismissed holding that he is not a necessary party to the writ petition. 5. Aggrieved at the decision of the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 29185 of 2008 and 551 of 2009, these appeals are preferred by the lessee. During the pendency of W.A. No. 669 of 2009, the above said Azagaiya and I. Varaivan have filed M.P. Nos. 3 and 6 of 2009 respectively, to implead them as party respondents and both the said petitions having been allowed, they are brought on record as respondents 2 and 3 in W.A. No. 669 of 2009. 6. Subsequently, one K. Shankar Raj, has filed M.P. No. 1 of 2010 praying to implead him as a party respondent to W.A. No. 669 of 2009. In his affidavit, he would submit that he is a public spirited citizen and Ex-Councillor of Thirusoolam Panchayat and eking out his livelihood by working as worker in the stone quarries; that originally Society was formed in the name of Thirusoolam Anna Harijan Blue Metal Workers Labour Contract Cooperative Society Ltd. and earlier the stone quarries were given to the said Society and the Society was not in a position to administer the quarries as lease not renewed; that the workmen numbering 1600 scattered to various quarries and eking out their livelihood in and around Thirusoolam area; that nearly 300 workmen of the erstwhile Harijan Society members are working in the appellant quarry over seven years and their families are fully depending upon the said quarry; that all the workmen are hailing from S.C. community and originally migrated from Tirunelveli District; that himself and other workmen are working over a period of 40 years in the stone quarries; that the entire womenfolk are also working as coolies in the said quarries; that the imminent threat of closure of the quarry would result in non-employment to three hundred families; that the entire workmen are working more than 240 days in a calendar year over a period of seven years and hence they are entitled to notice and compensation under Section 25 -F of the I.D.Act and further on humane consideration of their past services to be recognised and are entitled to compensate. 7. 7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the impleaded parties sail along with the learned advocate General to contend that Quarry No. 4, for which the appellant seeks extension of lease on the ground that it is a virgin quarry, is not a virgin quarry but an existing quarry and hence, the prayer of the appellant cannot be considered and that the learned single Judge has properly appreciated this aspect and has rightly rejected the claim of the lessee, wherein no interference need be made by this Court. W.P. Nos. 3557 of 2008 and 4637 of 2008: 8. Coming to the case of the petitioners in these writ petitions, it has been submitted by them that they are the successful bidders for the quarry lease of respective Quarry Nos. 12 (situated in S. No. 99) and 10 situated in Survey No. 99 Part of Keerapakkam village, Chengleput Taluk, admeasuring an extent of 5.. hectares each, having been carved out from and out of a major extent of around 200 acres, classified as ‘ malai poramboke ‘ in the revenue records and to augment the revenue to the Government, the respondent has sub-divided the said area as very many number of bits of quarries and thus the District Collector has carved out five bits of quarries, leaving major portion of ‘ malai poramboke ‘ intact and thus the said five bits of quarries are virgin in nature and undoubtedly all are an unprospected areas, which contain overburdens i.e. herbs, shrubs, bushes and malaiman (i.e. gravel deposits on the hillocks) etc.; that out of five virgin bits of quarries, which were identified for auction held on 8.1.2003, by assigning quarry Nos. 8 to 12 continuously, in Keerapakkam village, the respondent has rightly identified, classified and accordingly itemized in the Gazette that the quarry Nos. 8, 9 and 11 alone are virgin areas and therefore the period of lease shall be ten years and on the other hand, without any rhyme or reason, as far as Quarry Nos. 10 and 12 are concerned, they have been wrongly identified under the caption of ‘ non-virgin areas ‘ and therefore, the lessees are entitled for a total period of five years, instead of ten years as per Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules. 9. 10 and 12 are concerned, they have been wrongly identified under the caption of ‘ non-virgin areas ‘ and therefore, the lessees are entitled for a total period of five years, instead of ten years as per Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules. 9. According to the petitioner in W.P. No. 4637 of 2008, immediately after registration of the lease deed dated 27.2.2003, he has submitted a representation dated 28.2.2003 to the respondent/District Collector to grant or modify or rectify the lease period contained in the lease agreement dated 26.2.2003 for a period of ten years, instead of five years and he has been informed by the respondent that his grievance will be considered at the end of the period mentioned in the lease deed; that keeping in mind the expiry of term of lease, he submitted a detailed written representation on 14.11.2007 and since there is no reply till 15.2.2008, he filed the present writ petition on 20.2.2008. Along with this writ petition, the petitioner has filed M.P. No. 1 of 2008 and obtained an interim order. 10. According to the petitioner in W.P. No. 3557 of 2008, as soon as the lease agreement was executed by letter dated 18.6.2008, she brought to the knowledge of the respondent about the mistake done by the respondent and requested to modify the lease period as ten years, as applicable to virgin quarries, by making suitable amendments to the lease agreement dated 19.2.2003, but since no orders are received by them, the petitioner along with her husband met the then District Collector in person, who informed them that their request for rectification can be made only at the time of expiry of the present lease period as the lease agreement has already been executed. Therefore, in view of the fact that the lease period was to expire on 19.2.2008, by letter dated 20.10.2007, she has requested the respondent to extend the lease period by five more years in conformity with Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Since there was no reply, she filed this writ petition. Along with this writ petition, the petitioner filed a petition in M.P. No. 1 of 2008 and obtained an order of interim injunction. 11. Since there was no reply, she filed this writ petition. Along with this writ petition, the petitioner filed a petition in M.P. No. 1 of 2008 and obtained an order of interim injunction. 11. While so and during the pendency of these writ petitions, one M.C. Ranganathan has filed two petitions in M.P. No. 1 of 2009 in both these writ petitions, praying to implead him as a party to these writ petitions on the ground that he is the President of Unamancheri First Grade Panchayat and also the President of the Panchayat Presidents ‘ Association, Kattankulathur and thus, he is an interested party to the petitions in public interest and prayed to implead him as a party to the writ petitions. He has further submitted that the petitioners are resorting to submitting representations to the District Collector to prolong the litigation to gain pecuniary benefits after the expiry period and thus virtually preventing the authorities from calling for fresh tenders for the auction of the stone quarry. 12. When these two impleadment petitions were listed before the First Bench, the Honourable First Bench, by the order dated 28.7.2009 has dismissed both these petitions observing that ‘ the Government is very much in the picture and is contesting the matter. Nothing is pointed out in these miscellaneous petitions as to what are damaging effects, if at all, on the residents of the particular village, whether there is pollution or whether any of the houses are shaken from their foundation or otherwise. ‘ However, when these batch of cases are listed before us, by mistake M.P. No. 1 of 2009 in W.P. No. 4637 of 2008 was allowed on 17.2.2010, as a result the party has been brought in record as a party respondent (as R2) in W.P. No. 4637 of 2008. Neither the counsel for the writ petitioner nor the counsel appearing on behalf of the State brought the fact of dismissal of M.P. No. 1 of 2009 in W.P. No. 4637 of 2008 by the First Bench to our notice, which led to passing of an order by this Bench (headed by one of us, ELIPE DHARMARAO, J.) on 17.2.2010. Neither the counsel for the writ petitioner nor the counsel appearing on behalf of the State brought the fact of dismissal of M.P. No. 1 of 2009 in W.P. No. 4637 of 2008 by the First Bench to our notice, which led to passing of an order by this Bench (headed by one of us, ELIPE DHARMARAO, J.) on 17.2.2010. In view of the above and since the order dated 17.2.2010 came to be passed by mistake, the said order dated 17.2.2010 is re-called and the name of the petitioner in M.P. No. 1 of 2009 is deleted from the array of respondents, in compliance of the order of the First Bench, dated 28.7.2009. 13. The respondent/District Collector has filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the subject matter of the quarry is an existing quarry or non-virgin quarry. After filing of the counter affidavit by the Collector, the petitioner in W.P. No. 4637 of 2008 has filed M.P. No. 1 of 2010 in W.P. No. 4637 of 2008, praying to direct the District Collector to produce the authenticated Map/Sketch containing the full details of length and breadth of the quarry site situated in S. No. 99 of Keerapakkam village (roughly 700 acres of hillocks), along with the authenticated/certified copy of the sketch appended under the registered lease deed executed in favour of the Swamidoss Pandian in respect of Quarry in S. No. 99 part of Keerapakkam village, as well as the transport permit details accorded, from the date of grant of lease till the end of the lease period. 14. The respondent State has also filed a counter affidavit on 5.4.2010, stating that it was notified in the District Gazette, inviting application for the grant of lease, exclusively for quarrying of ordinary rough stone for a period of five years and ten years and not as ‘ Stone and Earth ‘ . It is further submitted that the subject quarry was already leased out earlier to one Tvl. Madras Concrete Pipes and allied industries by Managing Director Thiru Vargheese, vide the proceedings of the District Collector, Kanchipuram in Rc. No. 658/1986/Q2, dated 5.1.1989 for a period of five years from 5.1.1989 to 4.1.1994 and since the subject quarry was already exploited, the question of considering that it is a virgin quarry does not arise. Madras Concrete Pipes and allied industries by Managing Director Thiru Vargheese, vide the proceedings of the District Collector, Kanchipuram in Rc. No. 658/1986/Q2, dated 5.1.1989 for a period of five years from 5.1.1989 to 4.1.1994 and since the subject quarry was already exploited, the question of considering that it is a virgin quarry does not arise. It has further been submitted that the petitioner (in W.P. No. 3557 of 2008) has been granted lease on 19.2.2003 and he has also obtained the first transport permit on 21.2.2003 itself for the removal of stone on payment of seigniorage fee, which fact, clearly shows that the petitioner has commenced the commercial production within two days from the date of grant of lease and hence the question of removal of over burden/waste material does not arise; that after that, the petitioner is getting transport slips regularly without any interruption and as on 11.2.2008 (lease period expired on 18.2.2008), the petitioner has obtained transport permits for 32,500 lorry loads of rough stone. It has also been submitted that the area previously subjected to quarrying was notified in the Schedule-A for a period of five years in the notification and the remaining area, which is not subjected to quarrying previously, was notified for ten years in Schedule-B in the Notification; that the petitioner ‘ s quarry was already held under lease from 1989 to 1994 and hence it has been notified for five years only and lease was granted to the petitioner for a period of five years and the petitioner knowing well that it is a non-virgin quarry, participated in the auction and executed the lease deed on 19.2.2003 for a period of five years and also commenced quarry operations from 21.2.2003 onwards and hence it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the subject matter of quarry is virgin quarry and further as per Rule 8(8)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, there is no extension of lease after the expiry of lease and therefore, the extension sought for by the petitioner for five more years on the contention of virgin quarry is not sustainable in law and on facts. It has also been submitted that the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in A. Srinivasan and 25 Others v. District Collector, Kancheepuram and 9 Others (2008) 5 MLJ 551 : 2008 (3) CTC 800 , relied on the part of the petitioners seeking the benefits under Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, is not applicable to the facts of the case. W.P. No. 16152 of 2008: 15. In this case, the request of the petitioner to grant extension of the quarry for five more years on the ground that the land is a virgin land has been rejected by the District Collector by the impugned order, which is being challenged by the petitioner/lessee. 16. The case of the respondent/District Collector is that the lease has been granted for a specific period and there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules to extend the lease period, after its extension and hence, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be adhered to. W.P. No. 23930 of 2008: 17. In this writ petition also, the petitioner submits that he has been granted the lease for a period of five years from 7.4.2003 to 6.4.2008 and since the quarry is a virgin one, he is entitled to quarry for another term of five years as per Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules. In this case, a learned single Judge has granted injunction by order dated 29.4.2009 in M.P. No. 1 of 2008, observing that the Collector has not disputed about the nature of the quarry. W.P. No. 2234 of 2009: 18. In this writ petition, a learned single Judge has granted interim stay and injunction, by the order dated 4.2.2009 observing that the District Collector in the counter filed in W.P. No. 1730 of 2009 (which is not before us now) has admitted that the quarry is a virgin one and the opposition to the renewal of the lease for a further period of five years is only on the ground that an enhancement of licence fee is demanded. 19. But, the respondent has filed a detailed counter wherein it has been stated that the the rough stone quarry situated in S. No. 97/19(Part-8) over an extent of 5.. 19. But, the respondent has filed a detailed counter wherein it has been stated that the the rough stone quarry situated in S. No. 97/19(Part-8) over an extent of 5.. hectares in Tiruvakkarai village, Vanur Taluk was one among the quarries notified for grant of lease for the first time as a virgin one and the petitioner having entered into the contract and also given in writing that he will not claim extension of lease in any account, cannot now seek extension and would pray to dismiss the writ petition. W.P. No. 2765 of 2009: 20. In this case, the petitioner would submit that S. No. 25/2B, wherein the quarry is situated is consisting of 80-19-5 hectares and out of the larger extent, only a meagre portion of 50-40 acres on the western side was leased out to Thirisoolam Anna Harijan Blue Metal Workers Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited and the major portion of the said 50-40 acres was not put for quarry operations; that a portion of the S. No. 25/2B on the Eastern side which was not covered by the earlier lease and which was not subjected for quarrying earlier was sub-divided for the first time in the year 2002 and the sub-divided non-operated area was numbered as Quarry Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 and since he became the successful bidder in respect of the quarry lease of Quarry No. 2, it should be construed as a virgin land and he must be given the advantage of Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules. 21. But, this contention of the petitioner has been negatived by the official respondents by filing a detailed counter affidavit, wherein they have stated that the entire area of 50.40 acres in S. No. 25/2B was already exploited by Thirusoolam Anna Harijan Blue Metal Workers Labour Contract Cooperative Society and in order to get more revenue to Government for public utility, the said existing quarry was divided into four parts, leaving the prohibited distance from the residential area and the total extent of 8.50.0 hectare was brought under tender-cum-public auction by the notification dated 19.12.2002 and hence, it is not a virgin quarry and hence the petitioner ‘ s prayer cannot be granted. W.P. Nos. 9637 and 9638 of 2009: 22. These two writ petitions are also regarding the quarries of the same area which is the subject matter in W.A. Nos. W.P. Nos. 9637 and 9638 of 2009: 22. These two writ petitions are also regarding the quarries of the same area which is the subject matter in W.A. Nos. 669 and 1504 of 2009 and W.P. No. 2765 of 2009. While on the part of the petitioners, it is the contention of the petitioners that the quarry Nos. 1 and 3, which are the subject matters in these writ petitions are virgin lands, on the part of the respondent/District Collector, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed stating that Quarry Nos. 1 to 4 in S. No. 25/2B are old quarries, further narrating the earlier leases granted in the land before sub-dividing the land to augment revenue to the Government. 23. During the pendency of these writ petitions, one M. Azagaiya, has filed a petition in M.P. No. 4 of 2009, praying to implead him as a party respondent to W.P. No. 9637 of 2009. In the affidavit filed in support of this petition, he has submitted that the entire extent in S. No. 25/2B was leased in 1982 to Tirusoolam Anna Harijan Blue Metal Workers Labour Contract Cooperative Society and the lease period expired on 16.11.1984, much before the 500 metre rule came into force and the lease was again renewed for the periods from (1) 17.11.1984 to 16.11.1987; (2) 10.2.1988 to 14.2.1991 and (3) 8.4.1993 to 7.4.1996 and as such, the land in S. No. 25/2B in its entirety, was quarried from 1982 onwards when the 500 metre rule was never in force; that the land in S. No. 25/2B Tirusoolam village ha come under several inspections during the extension of lease in favour of aforesaid cooperative Society, during which it has been identified as a ‘ quarried area ‘ and not as a ‘ virgin area ‘ ; that the inspection report dated 30.1.1993 filed by the writ petitioner himself belies his claim. On such and other averments, this petitioner would pray to dismiss the writ petition, further stating that if the case of the writ petitioner to grant extension of lease is adhered to, it will prevent persons, such as this proposed respondent, who are interested in bidding for a lease of the quarry at a fresh auction and causes irreparable loss and injury to him. Since this petitioner is a proper and necessary party to the proceedings, this impleadment petition is allowed and this petitioner is impleaded as a party respondent to this writ petition. W.P. No. 12861 of 2009: 24. In this case, the petitioner would contend that it is a registered Association formed in the year 2000 for the purpose of upgrading the bonded labourers working in the stone quarries and by the Notification dated 14.5.2003, the respondent/District Collector has invited applications from the societies registered under the Societies Act for granting stone quarry under SGSY Scheme and they became the successful bidders and the lease was granted for a period of five years, which was to expire on 27.8.2008, but since the quarry is a virgin one, they are entitled for further lease period of five years. At the time of admission of this Writ petition, a learned single Judge of this Court has granted interim injunction, as prayed for, providing the petitioner to pay 50% over and above the existing lease amount and also seigniorage fees within a period of one week and on such payment, the interim injunction will be for the period from 23.7.2009 to 22.9.2010. 25. However, the District Collector has filed a counter affidavit stating that in the case of quarries leased out to SGSY or released bonded labourers, as per sub clause (vi) of clause (a) of sub rule (10-A) of Rule 8 of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, the period of lease for stone quarry shall be five years as the maximum and further the portion of survey in question had already been leased out and subjected to quarry earlier during a period of five years from 20.3.1989 to 19.3.1994 to Tvl.Erumapatti Jelly and Stone Cutting Boers Sangam, Erumapatti, and this fact is very well aware to the president of the writ petitioner Sangam Thiru B. Periyasamy, who was one of the Executive Members of the earlier Kal Mattrum Jelly Udaickum Boer Sangam, which has been granted a lease over the same area leased out to the writ petitioner Sangam and therefore, Thiru P.Duraisamy, President of the present writ petitioner Sangam is well aware that the area leased out to the writ petitioner Sangam is not a virgin quarry, but subjected to quarrying earlier and therefore, the petitioner Sangam is not entitled to the relief sought for. W.P. Nos. W.P. Nos. 18067 and 18068 of 2009: 26. The case of the petitioners in these two writ petitions is that since the lands leased out to them are virgin, they are entitled for ten years lease as per Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, but, the respondent/District Collector has, by the impugned order, has rejected the request of the lessee (petitioner in W.P. No. 18067 of 2009) on the ground that the quarry was already allotted to one Chinnakannu for the period from 4.1.1999 to 3.1.2004 and hence, the lands cannot be called as virgin. But, now this petitioner has filed an additional affidavit stating that the earlier lessee was unable to start the quarrying operations and hence he requested the respondents to refund the proportionate lease amount and seigniorage fee for the unexpired portion of the lease or permit period and the Director of Geology and Mining, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-32, by his proceedings in B/G & M/1166/976, dated 12.4.2001 has also ordered refund of the proportionate lease amount and seigniorage fee for the unexpired portion of the lease to the said Chinnakannu and therefore, the lands being virgin, he is very well entitled to avail the benefit of Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules. 27. In respect of the case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 18068 of 2009, it is seen that originally her son Kennedy became the successful bidder and since he died during the subsistence of the lease period, the petitioner, who is the mother of the deceased/original lessee, has entered into supplementary lease deed with the respondent and became the lessee. Even though she also requested the respondent for extension of the lease period, relying on Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, the respondent/District Collector has, by the impugned order, rejected her request on the ground that knowing fully well of the nature of the quarry, an agreement has been entered into by the lessee with the respondent for a lease period of five years and has also given an undertaking that he will not seek for extension of the lease and hence, the request of the lessee cannot be complied with. W.P. No. 19939 of 2009: 28. W.P. No. 19939 of 2009: 28. The petitioner, V. Anjalai, as the Promoter of Sri Vembiamman Mahalir Suya Udavi Kuzhu, Malaikottalam, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District, has filed this writ petition seeking the benefits of Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, since her request for the same was negatived by the District Collector on the ground that the grant to the present petitioner is a special grant under Rule 8(10-A) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and hence it cannot be extended and the benefit of Rule 8(8) cannot be extended. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has filed M.P. No. 1 of 2009 and obtained an order of interim injunction on 1.10.2009. 29. While this writ petition is pending, an impleadment petition has been filed by Sri Vembi Amman Mahalir Suya Uthavi Kuzhu, represented by its promoter Ms.Uma, Malaikottalam village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District, praying to implead her as a party respondent to this writ petition. Allegations and counter allegations have been made against each other by the writ petitioner and the proposed party in their respective affidavit and counter affidavit, regarding the position of each of them in the Sangam, which we are not concerned with in this writ petition, since the question that requires to be answered by us in this writ petition is as to whether the Sangam, which has been granted lease under Special Grant under Rule 8(10-A) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 is entitled for extension of the lease period under Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. If this question is answered in favour of the Sangam, then, probably a question would arise as to who is the real Promoter of the said Sangam and who has to represent the Sangam for the extended period of lease. Therefore, by allowing the impleadment petition No.2 of 2009, and hearing the arguments on either sides, we proceed to discuss the main legal question raised in this writ petition regarding the applicability of Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 to the cases of Sangams to which Special Grants have been accorded under Rule 8(10-A) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1952. Since this proposed party is a proper and necessary party to decide the issue on hand, this petition is allowed and the petitioner herein is impleaded as a party respondent to this writ petition. W.P. No. 20994 to 20997 of 2009: 30. Even in these writ petitions, the petitioners were granted lease for a period of five years and they also seek for extension under Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules on the ground that though on an earlier occasion, they made their request with the District Collector, soon after the lease agreement was executed, they were informed by the District Collector that the said request for rectification can be made only at the time of expiry of the present lease period, as the lease agreement has been already executed. The lease deeds were executed on 7.2.2005 and the same expired on 6.2.2010. From the records,it is seen that the petitioners have submitted their representations on 6.10.2009, seeking extension of the lease i.e. at the fag-end of their lease periods. W.P. No. 22866 of 2009: 31. In this probono publico, the petitioner has sought to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner ‘ s representation dated 27.2.2009 to stop the respondents No.4 to 7 from continuing the quarries therein, which are the subject matters in W.P. Nos. 16152 of 2008 and 2234 of 2009. Therefore, this case is connected to W.P. Nos. 16152 of 2008 and 2234 of 2009. 32. From the factual matrix of the cases extracted supra, all the above cases can be sub-divided into four categories. In the first and second category of cases, the contention of the lessees that the lands are virgin in category has been tooth and nail opposed by the State on the ground that the lands having already been granted for lease earlier and the quarry operations also conducted for a considerable length of time, the quarries will not once again gain the status of virgin quarry. W.A. Nos. 669 of 2009, 1504 of 2009; W.P. Nos. 2765 of 2009, 9637 of 2009 and 9638 of 2009 fall within the first category of cases. Though in W.P. Nos. 4637of 2008 and 3557 of 2008 also, the same situation prevails, because of difference in factul matrix we deal with them separately. They form the second category of cases. W.A. Nos. 669 of 2009, 1504 of 2009; W.P. Nos. 2765 of 2009, 9637 of 2009 and 9638 of 2009 fall within the first category of cases. Though in W.P. Nos. 4637of 2008 and 3557 of 2008 also, the same situation prevails, because of difference in factul matrix we deal with them separately. They form the second category of cases. In the third category of cases, though the claim of the lessees that the lands are virgin have not been stiffly opposed by the State, a strong plea has been raised on their part that the leases granted to the lessees are governed by the specific lease agreements entered into by them, which are statutory in nature and in view of the specific bar created under the statute governing the subject, viz. The Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 as against extending the lease periods, the prayers of the lessees cannot be granted. W.P. Nos. 18067 of 2009; 18068 of 2009; 16152 of 2008, 2234 of 2009; 23930 of 2008; W.P. Nos. 20994 to 20997 of 2009 fall within this category. However, since the prayer sought for in W.P. No. 22866 of 2009 is having inter relation with W.P. Nos. 16152 of 2008 and 2234 of 2009, this probono publico is also dealt with in this category. In the fourth category of cases, the lease grants are special grants under Rule 8(10-A) and hence, the State has taken the stand that extension of lease is prohibited. W.P. Nos. 12861 of 2009 and 19939 of 2009 fall within this category. Therefore, we now proceed to deal with each category of cases separately. First Category of Cases: Discussion in W.A. Nos. 669 of 2009, 1504 of 2009; W.P. Nos. 2765 of 2009, 9637 of 2009 and 9638 of 2009: 33. In all these matters, the subject quarries are situated in Trisoolam village of Kancheepuram District. It is to be mentioned that similar questions of facts and law have already been considered and answered against the lessees by a Division Bench of this Court, in Writ Petitions No. 4227, 4638, 13724 and 21852 of 2008, dated 2.3.2010, speaking through one of us (ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.). The said common order of this Court dated 2.3.2010 has been confirmed and affirmed by the Honourable Apex Court in S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 7566, 7684, 7803 and 9529 of 2010, dated 29.3.2010 since the said SLPs. The said common order of this Court dated 2.3.2010 has been confirmed and affirmed by the Honourable Apex Court in S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 7566, 7684, 7803 and 9529 of 2010, dated 29.3.2010 since the said SLPs. are dismissed by the Honourable Apex Court. 34. Even though the above said first category of cases also woke up similar questions of facts and law, Mr. V.T. Gopalan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and the petitioners in the writ petitions, would argue that these matters are entirely different from the earlier batch of writ petitions and to assess the same, we have gone through the materials placed on record. 35. The Gazette Notification dated 19.12.2002 issued by the respondent contains three annexures. Through this notification, the District Collector, Kancheepuram has notified quarry lease for many quarries including the quarries in the earlier batch of writ petitions in Writ Petitions No. 4227, 4638, 13724 and 21852 of 2008, dated 2.3.2010. The annexure named as ‘ A ‘ is in respect of the lands wherein the quarry rights are granted for five years, the second annexure named as ‘ B ‘ is in respect of the lands wherein the quarry rights are granted for a period of ten years and the third annexure named as ‘ C ‘ is in respect of the lands wherein quarry rights are granted only for one year. Rule 8 (8) of the Rules, whereupon much emphasis has been placed on the part of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the writ petitions, was introduced by way of G.O.Ms. No. 391 Industries dated 17.11.2000 and therefore, it follows that the Gazette Notification dated 19.12.2002, has been issued by the Government only in due compliance of this Rule, like the one in the earlier batch of writ petitions. It has been clearly mentioned in this Notification that annexure ‘ A ‘ is regarding old quarries and annexure ‘ B ‘ is regarding virgin lands and in respect of annexure ‘ C ‘ it has been mentioned as gravel quarry. All the quarries, regarding which these writ appeals and writ petitions are filed, situate in S. No. 25/2B in Quarry Nos. 1 to 4, which are grouped in Annexure ‘ A ‘ under the caption ‘ old quarries ‘ . 36. All the quarries, regarding which these writ appeals and writ petitions are filed, situate in S. No. 25/2B in Quarry Nos. 1 to 4, which are grouped in Annexure ‘ A ‘ under the caption ‘ old quarries ‘ . 36. From the materials placed on record, particularly from the counter affidavit of the District Collector, Kancheepuram, it is seen that the Thirusoolam Anna Harijan Blue Metal Workers Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited was originally granted stone quarry to an extent of 50.40 acres in S. No. 25/2B of Thirusoolam village for the period ending 16.11.1984 and again the lease was renewed for a further period from 17.11.1984 to 16.11.1987 and subsequently renewed from 15.2.1988 to 14.2.1991 vide Collectors Proceedings No.170640/81/Q4, dated 15.2.1988 and further period of three years from 15.2.1988 to 14.2.1991. It has also been submitted that the said Society was also granted lease for a period of three years from 8.4.1993 to 7.4.1996 to an extent of 20 acres in Collector ‘ s proceedings No. 19752/90-Q4 dated 8.4.1993 by restricting the area from the total extent of 50.40 acres already held by the society, as this Court by the order in W.P. No. 14930 and 14931 of 1989, dated 3.2.1992 has directed that no quarry should be operated within 500 meters from the residential area. It has further been submitted by the District Collector that subsequently on the Western side of the quarry area of S. No. 25/2B, an extent of 23.62 acres was also granted to the society for a period of five years from 2.1.1996 to 1.1.2001 as per G.O.Ms.3(D)No.357, Industries (MMEI) Department, dated 7.12.1995 under the provision of erstwhile Rule 39 of TNMMCULES, 1959, restricting the radial distance of 500 meters from the residential area. 37. Giving all such factual details, it has been argued by the learned Advocate General appearing for the State that the quarries in S. No. 25/2B are not virgin quarries, but existing ones and hence they have been correctly included in Annexure ‘ A ‘ of the Gazette Notification dated 19.12.2002. 37. Giving all such factual details, it has been argued by the learned Advocate General appearing for the State that the quarries in S. No. 25/2B are not virgin quarries, but existing ones and hence they have been correctly included in Annexure ‘ A ‘ of the Gazette Notification dated 19.12.2002. As the factual aspects submitted on the part of the State were not at all rebutted by the appellants and the petitioners, by submitting any contra material, we have no hesitation to hold that the quarries in S. No. 25/2B are the existing quarries and the gap, if any, from the earlier quarry to the present grant of lease does not in any way make the quarry ‘ virgin ‘ once again. Therefore, the learned single Judge is right in rejecting the claim of the appellants. 38. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and the petitioners would argue that soon after entering into the lease deeds, the lessees have requested the District Collector to modify the lease period to one of ten years, as is eligible for virgin lands but their representations were not considered. 39. The other thing to be pointed out by us is that the opening Para No. 2 of the Gazette Notification specifically required the intended parties to the auction to inspect the quarry sites at their own expenditure, so as to have personal knowledge of the condition of the lands, before participating in the auction. It has also been specifically mentioned therein that in the event of grant of quarry lease, the successful bidders have to make their own arrangements like laying roads from the quarry and other such necessary amenities at their own cost and expenditure. 40. Therefore, it follows that the lessees have participated in the auction only after duly visiting the quarry sites and assessing the conditions prevailing therein and having fully satisfied with the same. Having personally visited the sites and got satisfied with the condition of the lands, knowing fully well that the lands are old quarries wherein already quarry operations took place and thus, the lands are not virgin, the lessees have participated in the auction and emerged as highest bidders. Having personally visited the sites and got satisfied with the condition of the lands, knowing fully well that the lands are old quarries wherein already quarry operations took place and thus, the lands are not virgin, the lessees have participated in the auction and emerged as highest bidders. Thereafter, they have enjoyed the rights of quarrying for the full period and only at the fag end of the lease periods, the petitioners started quarrelling about the nature of the land that the lands are virgin lands and not already existing quarries and the respondent/State has wrongly notified the lands as old quarry lands and therefore, they are entitled for the lease rights for ten years, instead of five years granted by the respondent/Administration. 41. The learned senior counsel appearing for the lessees would argue that soon after entering into the lease agreements, the lessees have submitted their representations to the District Collector to modify the lease period, but their representations have not been disposed of by the District Collector. But, the perusal of the entire materials placed on record would make it undoubtedly clear that though the lessees have submitted their representations to the District Collector, they have never bothered to pursue the same till the fag-end of their lease periods. The important thing that is to be pointed out by us is that the lessees have not at all challenged the gazette notification, whereunder they became the successful bidders. 42. Having already visited the quarries in person, as has been provided for by the Gazette Notification and having been satisfied with the condition of the quarries and having participated in the auction process and emerged as the highest bidders and enjoyed the lease hold rights for the entire period of five years, the lessees have resorted to the method of quarrelling with the physical nature of the quarries only at the fag-end of their lease periods, which clearly shows their mala fide intention. The specific case of the respondent/State is that since it is not a virgin land, they have rightly granted the lease only for a period of five years and the petitioners have also participated in the auction knowing fully well that the period of lease was only for a period of five years and have also executed the lease deeds for a period of five years only and under Rule 8(8)(ii) of the Rules, no further extension of lease could be granted in favour of the petitioners and hence, the petitioners are not entitled for further period of five years, with which we are in total conformity. 43. Even from the materials placed on record by the proposed respondent, it is seen that the entire stretch of S. No. 25/2B has already been subjected to quarrying and thus has lost the identity of virgin lands and long back became and attained the position of ‘ old quarries ‘ . 44. Where a Statute occupies the field, the principles of equity and promissory estoppel have no role to play. In the cases on hand, the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959 occupies the entire field and it is an exhaustive legislation insofar as the field is concerned. Therefore, the rights and liabilities of the parties emanate only from this Statute. Rule 8(8), clearly distinguishes the rights of the lease holders in respect of virgin lands and the old lands as five years and ten years. As per Rule 8(8)(ii), ‘ the lease shall expire on the date specified in the lease deed and in no case extension of the period of lease shall be made ‘ . When there is a specific bar created under law for such extension of the period of lease, which is exhaustive in nature, the prayers of the petitioners cannot be appreciated. 45. It is to be pointed out that much reliance has been placed on the part of the lessees on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in A. Srinivasan and 25 Others v. District Collector, Kancheepuram and 9 Others (supra), wherein it has been held as follows at p. 555 of MLJ: “ 13. 45. It is to be pointed out that much reliance has been placed on the part of the lessees on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in A. Srinivasan and 25 Others v. District Collector, Kancheepuram and 9 Others (supra), wherein it has been held as follows at p. 555 of MLJ: “ 13. …..Only in the event the statute prohibits or imposes a restriction for giving effect to retrospective operation, the rule must be read in the same manner by giving effect to the real meaning and the Court cannot import something new into the said rule. But the said principle of law is not applicable to the given cases. A lease is known to be virgin by the fact whether it was virgin at the time when it was granted for quarrying. So long as the lease period is in force, the area would be only known to be virgin till such time the lease is over. The words “ which have not been subjected to quarrying so far ” in the amended Rule shall relate only to date on which the lease was granted and not subsequently. The intention of the legislature is clear in granting ten years for virgin quarries and only for five years in respect of other quarries. The decision to grant ten years is with reference to virgin quarries. We do not find any intention of the legislature to restrict the period to existing virgin quarries and in fact by that rule, there is no such restriction. This would be the correct interpretation as the Government had duly taken into consideration of the representations of the lessees who could not exploit the mineral for the entire full period of five years. As the area being virgin, they had to develop the area before commencement of the quarrying operation and in that process, they would lose a substantial portion of the lease period. Keeping the above grievance of the lessees only, the Government had extended the period of lease to ten years in respect of virgin areas. Hence, the lessees are entitled to the lease for a period of ten years provided the areas that were leased to them were virgin and there were no prior leases granted and the said quarries were not put into operation earlier. ” 46. Hence, the lessees are entitled to the lease for a period of ten years provided the areas that were leased to them were virgin and there were no prior leases granted and the said quarries were not put into operation earlier. ” 46. But, in the said writ petition, the Division Bench of this Court was not called upon to decide the nature of the land as to whether it was a virgin land or an existing quarry land, which is the prime question involved in all the cases on hand. In the above said Division Bench judgment of this Court, the lease was granted for a period of five years only and in the meantime, the amended Rule 8(8) came into existence, by G.O. Ms. No. 391 dated 17.11.2000. Since the said provision of law came into operation during the currency of the lease, which is admittedly for a virgin land, the Division Bench of this Court has held that ‘ so long as the lease granted in respect of the virgin areas for the first time is in force and the period of lease was not over on the date when the amendment came into force on 17.11.2000, those areas should be considered to be virgin not subjected to quarrying operation and therefore the benefit of the period of ten years shall be extended to those lessees as the virgin quarries are entitled to the grant of lease for a period of ten years as per the said amended rule. ‘ Thus observing, the Division Bench of this Court has ordered retrospective operation of the said Rule to the cases before it. But, in the cases on hand, the Notification was issued very well after the induction of the said amended Rule 8(8), in due compliance of the above provision of law, giving separate annexures for virgin lands and existing quarry lands and in the said case the Division Bench of this Court was not called upon to decide the nature of the lands, which are admittedly the virgin lands. But, in the cases on hand, the very nature of the lands has been questioned by the petitioners, having participated in the auction knowing very well about the nature of the lands notified in the Notification and started questioning the nature of the lands only at the fag end of the lease periods. But, in the cases on hand, the very nature of the lands has been questioned by the petitioners, having participated in the auction knowing very well about the nature of the lands notified in the Notification and started questioning the nature of the lands only at the fag end of the lease periods. Thus, the above said Division Bench judgment is factually distinguishable and we have no hesitation to hold that the said decision of the Division Bench of this Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 47. Regarding the delay in approaching the Court, when we have posed a specific question to the learned counsel appearing for the lessees, the learned senior counsel Mr. V.T. Gopalan, has relied on a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Dhariwal Industries Ltd. v. M.S.S. Food Products AIR 2005 SC 1999 : (2005) 3 SCC 63 : (2005) 2 MLJ 139, wherein the Honourable Apex Court has held that ‘ question of delay and laches might be a relevant aspect to be considered, but once it has been adverted to and interim injunction granted by trial Court and confirmed by High Court in appeal, Supreme Court in appeal by special leave at interlocutory stage may not be justified in refusing interim injunction on ground of delay and laches and interfering with discretion exercised by Courts below. ‘ Relying on this judgment of the Honourable Apex Court, the learned senior counsel would argue that since in the cases on hand also, interim injunctions were granted by this Court at the time of admitting the writ petitions, the question of delay should not hamper the prospects of the lessees. 48. The above said judgment of the Honourable Apex Court came to be passed in a matter arising out of a civil suit, which ultimately landed in the hands of the Honourable Apex Court. Since already the suit, first appeal and second appeal stages have been crossed, the Honourable Apex Court, in no uncertain terms held in the manner above extracted. But, the cases on hand have been filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which cannot be equated with a civil suit, since they both stand on different footings. There is no doubt regarding the proposition of law that ‘ delay defeats equity ‘ . 49. But, the cases on hand have been filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which cannot be equated with a civil suit, since they both stand on different footings. There is no doubt regarding the proposition of law that ‘ delay defeats equity ‘ . 49. In S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala (2009) 2 SCC 479 : (2009) 6 MLJ 966, the Honourable Apex Court has held (Ratio decidendi): “ Delay defeats equity. Where a petitioner approaches High Court after a long delay, relief prayed for may be denied on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that he is similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain benefit of a judgment. ” 50. In this case before the Honourable Apex Court, while dealing with a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Honourable Apex Court has gone upto the stage of holding that even a similarly situated person can be denied the relief, if he approached the Court belatedly. 51. In the cases on hand, the lessees having entered into the lease agreements and enjoyed the fruits of quarrying lease for a full term of five years, have approached this Court at the fag-end of their lease periods, knowing fully well that their lease hold rights are governed and subject only to the agreements entered into by them with the Administration, which provided an irrevocable lease period of five years. 52. Ultimately, a desperate argument has been advanced on the part of the lessees that the lessees are not standing in the way of the income of the State and they are ready to pay 150% more amount as the fee than the amount now subsisting and that the Government may put up their claim before this Court – whether it is 160% or 170% or whatever it may be so as to continue the lease rights of the lessees. 53. We are not in a position to appreciate this argument advanced on the part of the lessees. We wonder as to why the well established procedure of public auction of such lease hold rights to be given a simple go-bye, where there is plenty of opportunity for the State to choose a highest bidder. 53. We are not in a position to appreciate this argument advanced on the part of the lessees. We wonder as to why the well established procedure of public auction of such lease hold rights to be given a simple go-bye, where there is plenty of opportunity for the State to choose a highest bidder. This Court cannot become an auction conductor for the purpose of the case of the lessees here and it is for the Executive to conduct the public auction in accordance with the procedure contemplated under law and find out the highest bidder, where even the present lessses can have opportunity to bid, if they are so interested. 54. Furthermore, Rule 8(11) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 creates a specific bar for renewal of the leases granted under Rule 8 and it states that ‘ no lease granted under this Rule shall be renewed. ‘ . Further, as has already been stated supra, Rule 8(8)(ii), states that ‘ the lease shall expire on the date specified in the lease deed and in no case extension of the period of lease shall be made. ‘ Therefore, we do not accept this argument advanced on the part of the lessees and hence, this argument is also rejected. 55. Thus, viewing from any angle, the cases of the lessees merit no consideration. Accordingly, all these matters are liable only to be dismissed. Second Category of Cases: Discussion in W.P. Nos. 4637 of 2008 and 3557 of 2008: 56. In these writs, the quarries are situated in S. No. 99 of Keerapakkam village of Chengelput Taluk, Kancheepuram District. Even in these writ petitions, the specific contention of the lessees is that their lands are virgin in character, but lease was granted only for five years. 57. The respondent/District Collector has filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the subject matter of the quarry is an existing quarry or non-virgin quarry since the lease hold rights were already granted in favour of one Swamidoss Pandian. 57. The respondent/District Collector has filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the subject matter of the quarry is an existing quarry or non-virgin quarry since the lease hold rights were already granted in favour of one Swamidoss Pandian. After filing of the counter affidavit by the Collector, the petitioner in W.P. No. 4637 of 2008 has filed M.P. No. 1 of 2010 in W.P. No. 4637 of 2008, praying to direct the District Collector to produce the authenticated Map/Sketch containing the full details of length and breadth of the quarry site situated in S. No. 99 of Keerapakkam village (roughly 700 acres of hillocks), along with the authenticated/certified copy of the sketch appended under the registered lease deed executed in favour of the said Swamidoss Pandian in respect of Quarry in S. No. 99 part of Keerapakkam village, as well as the transport permit details accorded, from the date of grant of lease till the end of the lease period. 58. The respondent State has also filed a counter affidavit on 5.4.2010, stating that it was notified in the District Gazette, inviting application for the grant of lease exclusively for quarrying of ordinary rough stone for a period of five years and ten years and not as ‘ Stone and Earth ‘ . It is further submitted that the subject quarry was already leased out earlier to one Tvl.Madras Concrete Pipes and allied industries by Managing Director Thiru Vargheese vide the Proceedings of the District Collector, Kanchipuram in Rc. No. 658/1986/Q2, dated 5.1.1989 for a period of five years from 5.1.1989 to 4.1.1994 and since the subject quarry was already exploited, the question of virgin quarry does not arise. It has further been submitted that the petitioner (in W.P. No. 3557 of 2008) has been granted lease on 19.2.2003 and the petitioner has obtained the first transport permit on 21.2.2003 itself for the removal of stone on payment of seigniorage fee, which fact, clearly shows that the petitioner has commenced the commercial production within two days from the date of grant of lease and hence the question of removal of over burden/waste material does not arise; that after that, the petitioner is getting transport slips regularly without any interruption and as on 11.2.2008 (lease period expired on 18.2.2008), the petitioner has obtained transport permits for 32,500 lorry loads of rough stone. It has also been submitted that the area previously subjected to quarrying was notified in the Schedule A for a period of five years in the notification and the remaining area which is not subjected to quarrying previously was notified for ten years in the Schedule B in the Notification; that the petitioner ‘ s quarry was already held under lease from 1989 to 1994 and hence, it has been notified for five years only and lease was granted to the petitioner for a period of five years and the petitioner knowing well that it is a non-virgin quarry, participated in the auction and executed the lease deed on 19.2.2003 for the period of five years and she has commenced quarry operations from 21.2.2003 onwards and hence, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the subject matter of quarry is virgin quarry and further as per Rule 8(8)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, no extension of lease could be granted after the expiry of lease and therefore, the extension sought for by the petitioner for another five years on the contention of virgin quarry is not sustainable in law and on facts. It has also been submitted that the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in A. Srinivasan and 25 Others v. District Collector, Kancheepuram and 9 Others (supra) relied on the part of the petitioner, is not applicable to the facts of this case. 59. Mr. R. Thiagarajan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the lessees in these cases would argue that it is not the case of the Government that the entire stretch of some 700 acres or so in the S. No. 99 of Keerapakkam village was leased out to the said Swamidoss and out of the total stretch the quarries carved out as quarry Nos. 10 and 12, for which the petitioners became the highest bidders, are virgin lands and even though they have filed a petition in M.P. No. 1 of 2010 praying to direct the District Collector to produce the authenticated Map/Sketch containing the full details of length and breadth of the quarry site situated in S. No. 99 of Keerapakkam village (roughly 700 acres of hillocks), along with the authenticated/certified copy of the sketch appended under the registered lease deed executed in favour of the said Swamidoss Pandian in respect of Quarry in S. No. 99 part of Keerapakkam village, as well as the transport permit details accorded, from the date of grant of lease till the end of the lease period, no such details are produced by the District Collector and therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn by this Court against the respondent/Administration. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners would rely on a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamedhaji Latif AIR 1968 SC 1413 wherein a Three Judge Bench of the Honourable Apex Court has held: “ Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue. It is not a sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof. A practice has grown up in Indian procedure of those in possession of important documents or information lying by, trusting to the abstract doctrine of the onus of proof, and failing, accordingly, to furnish to the Courts the best material for its decision. ” 60. We have no quarrel with regard to the above proposition of law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court regarding the adverse inference. But, in the cases on hand, the opening Para No.2 of the Gazette Notification specifically required the intended parties to the auction to inspect the quarry sites at their own expenditure, so as to have personal knowledge of the condition of the lands, before participating in the auction. But, in the cases on hand, the opening Para No.2 of the Gazette Notification specifically required the intended parties to the auction to inspect the quarry sites at their own expenditure, so as to have personal knowledge of the condition of the lands, before participating in the auction. It has also been specifically mentioned therein that in the event of grant of quarry lease, the successful bidders have to make their own arrangements like laying roads from the quarry and other such necessary amenities at their own cost and expenditure. 61. Therefore, it follows that the lessees have participated in the auction only after duly visiting the quarry sites and assessing the conditions prevailing therein and having fully satisfied with the same. Having personally visited the sites and got satisfied with the condition of the lands, knowing fully well that the lands are old quarries wherein already quarry operations took place and thus, the lands are not virgin, the lessees have participated in the auction and emerged as highest bidders. Thereafter, they have enjoyed the rights of quarrying for the full period and only at the fag end of the lease periods, the petitioners started quarrelling about the nature of the land that the lands are virgin lands and not already existing quarries and the respondent/State has wrongly notified the lands as old quarry lands and therefore, they are entitled for the lease rights for ten years, instead of five years granted by the respondent/Administration. When this position has been clearly explained by us to the learned senior counsel, he replied that when his clients have visited the quarries, their visit is only with regard to the lease amounts, which they can offer and nothing else. But, when it is an admitted case on the part of the lessees that they have visited the lands before entering into the lease deeds, there can be no doubt that they would have assessed all the facts on earth, otherwise they would not have arrived at their own figure of quotation. Furthermore, the gazette notification, which provided the lease period of five years under different annexures has not been challenged by the lessees. Furthermore, the gazette notification, which provided the lease period of five years under different annexures has not been challenged by the lessees. Having already entered into the lease deeds, pursuant to their becoming the highest bidders and having enjoyed the lease rights for the total period of five years, now the lessees have come forward to file these writ petitions, with an ulterior motive to get further extension, somehow or other and stating that it has been notified as stone and earth and hence, they are eligible for ten years period of lease. 62. From the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/State in these matters on 5.4.2010, it has been stated that it was notified in the District Gazette, inviting application for the grant of lease exclusively for quarrying of ordinary rough stone for a period of five years and ten years and not as ‘ Stone and Earth ‘ . It is further submitted that the subject quarry was already leased out earlier to one Tvl. Madras Concrete Pipes and allied industries by Managing Director Thiru Vargheese vide District Collector, Kanchipuram proceedings Rc. No. 658/1986/Q2, dated 5.1.1989 for a period of five years from 5.1.1989 to 4.1.1994 and since the subject quarry was already exploited, the question of virgin quarry does not arise. It has further been submitted that the petitioner (in W.P. No. 3557 of 2008) has been granted lease on 19.2.2003 and the petitioner has obtained the first transport permit on 21.2.2003 itself for the removal of stone on payment of seigniorage fee, which fact, clearly shows that the petitioner has commenced the commercial production within two days from the date of grant of lease and hence, the question of removal of over burden/waste material does not arise; that after that, the petitioner is getting transport slips regularly without any interruption and as on 11.2.2008 (lease period expired on 18.2.2008), the petitioner has obtained transport permits for 32,500 lorry loads of rough stone. It has also been submitted that the area previously subjected to quarrying was notified in the Schedule A for a period of five years in the notification and the remaining area which is not subjected to quarrying previously was notified for ten years in the Schedule B in the Notification; that the petitioner ‘ s quarry was already held under lease from 1989 to 1994 and hence, it has been notified for five years only and lease was granted to the petitioner for a period of five years and the petitioner knowing well that it is a non-virgin quarry, participated in the auction and executed the lease deed on 19.2.2003 for the period of five years and she has commenced quarry operations from 21.2.2003 onwards and hence it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the subject matter of quarry is virgin quarry and further as per Rule 8(8)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, no extension of lease after the expiry of lease could be granted and therefore, the extension sought for by the petitioner for another five years on the contention of virgin quarry is not sustainable in law and on facts. 63. On a thorough perusal of the entire materials placed on record, with regard to these two writ petitions, we are in total conformity with the averments advanced on the part of the respondent/State. 64. In view of the admitted fact that the petitioners have visited the quarries before bidding and only after getting satisfied, they participated and became the highest bidders and enjoyed the quarrying rights for a full period of five years, they cannot be permitted to raise such incorrect and illegal aspects before us. When the petitioners have not challenged the gazette notification and the lease agreements entered into by them, they are bound by the terms of the gazette notification and the lease agreements. It seems the petitioners in these cases wanted to gain some benefit from the some loosely arranged words in the counter affidavit originally filed by the respondent/State, though factually they have no case to stand before us. It seems the petitioners in these cases wanted to gain some benefit from the some loosely arranged words in the counter affidavit originally filed by the respondent/State, though factually they have no case to stand before us. When the respondent/State has clarified the picture by filing the counter affidavit dated 5.4.2010 that the applications have been called for exclusively for quarrying of ordinary rough stone for a period of five years and ten years, depending upon the nature of the quarry i.e. Virgin or existing quarry and not as ‘ stone and earth ‘ and in view of the fact that the petitioner in W.P. No. 3557 of 2008 has immediately exploited the quarry and also obtained the first transport permit on 21.2.2003 itself for the removal of stone by paying seigniorage fee, the case of the petitioners needs to be rejected and accordingly, both these writ petitions deserve only to be dismissed. Third Category of Cases: Discussion in W.P. No. 18067 of 2009; 18068 of 2009; 16152 of 2008; 2234 of 2009; 23930 of 2008, W.P. Nos. 20994 to 20997 of 2009 and 22866 of 2009: 65. In all these writ petitions, in one voice, the petitioners/licencees would contend that their lands are virgin lands and hence in view of Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, leases should have been granted to them for a period of ten years, but, instead, only for a period of five years, the leases have been granted. 66. Even though in respect of W.P. No. 18067 of 2009, the respondent State has stated that one Chinnakannu was already granted with the lease rights and thus the land has lost the state of ‘ virgin ‘ and became an used quarry, on the part of the petitioner/lessee, sufficient material has been produced to show that the said Chinnakannu did not start the quarry since he was unable to start the quarrying operations and hence, he requested the respondents to refund the proportionate lease amount and seigniorage fee for the unexpired portion of the lease or permit period and the Director of Geology and Mining, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-32, by his proceedings in B/G & M/1166/976, dated 12.4.2001 has also ordered refund of the proportionate lease amount and seigniorage fee for the unexpired portion of the lease to the said Chinnakannu. Based on such material, it has been contended on the part of the petitioner in W.P. No. 18067 of 2009 that since the lands are virgin, he is very well entitled to avail the benefit of Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules. 67. But, in all these matters, the Gazette Notification, prescribing five years lease period has not been assailed by these petitioners and having participated and became the highest bidders, having enjoyed the quarrying for full five years, they cannot be permitted to go back the terms of the agreement entered into by them. The petitioners have stated that when they requested the District Collector to modify the lease period as ten years, applicable to virgin quarries, by making suitable amendments to the lease agreements, the respective District Collectors informed them that the said request for rectification can be made only at the time of expiry of the five years of the present lease agreement. In the absence of any material to show that given the opportunity, the petitioners have approached the respondent/District Collectors to ‘ rectify ‘ or ‘ modify ‘ the terms of the contract, and the delay in approaching this Court, we are not able to appreciate the contentions raised on the part of these petitioners. 68. The petitioners are the lessees, having specifically entered into contracts with the respondent/State. In such a case, the only right for them is to seek to enforce the terms of contract, which is statutory in nature and the statutory provisions governing the contract. For this purpose, we draw strength from a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. AIR 1996 SC 2736 : (1996) 5 SCC 460 . 69. Where a Statute occupies the field, the principles of equity and promissory estoppel have no role to play, vide Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Govt. of A.P. AIR 1999 SC 1734 : (1999) 4 SCC 458 . As per Rule 8(8)(ii), ‘ the lease shall expire on the date specified in the lease deed and in no case extension of the period of lease shall be made ‘ . of India Ltd. v. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Govt. of A.P. AIR 1999 SC 1734 : (1999) 4 SCC 458 . As per Rule 8(8)(ii), ‘ the lease shall expire on the date specified in the lease deed and in no case extension of the period of lease shall be made ‘ . When there is a specific bar created under law for such extension of the period of lease, which is exhaustive in nature, the prayers of the petitioners, who are governed and bound by the specific contracts entered into by them with the respondent/State being statutory in nature, cannot be appreciated. Therefore, all these writ petitions are also liable to be dismissed. 70. In respect of W.P. Nos. 16152 of 2008 and 2234 of 2009, opposing the claim of the petitioners therein and praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, a probono publico in W.P. No. 22866 of 2009 has been filed. But, since the above said two writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 16152 of 2008 and 2234 of 2009 have been dismissed by us, we do not see any reason to assign separate reasons regarding the claim made against respondents 6 and 7 in W.P. No. 22866 of 2009, who are the petitioners in W.P. No. 16152 of 2008 and 2234 of 2009. In respect of the relief sought for against the respondents 4 and 5, for whom there is no representation before us, we feel it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.2.2009 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, with due opportunity for all the parties concerned, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this direction, W.P. No. 22866 of 2009 is disposed of. Fourth Category of Cases: Discussion in W.P. Nos. 12861 of 2009 and 19939 of 2009 71. In both these cases, the lease rights have been granted under the Special Grant, provided for under Rule 8(10-A)of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessions Rules. 72. Rule 8(10-A) has been introduced with the specific purpose of helping the Swarna Jayanthi Gram Swarozgar Yojana Scheme Groups, registered either under the Tamil Nadu , 1983 or under the Tamil Nadu , 1975 and the Societies formed by released bonded labourers, subject to certain conditions. 72. Rule 8(10-A) has been introduced with the specific purpose of helping the Swarna Jayanthi Gram Swarozgar Yojana Scheme Groups, registered either under the Tamil Nadu , 1983 or under the Tamil Nadu , 1975 and the Societies formed by released bonded labourers, subject to certain conditions. Rule 8(10-A)(vi) prescribed the period of stone quarrying granted under the provisions of Rule 8(10-A) as five years. It has been specifically mentioned that the period of lease for stone quarrying shall be five years. For better appreciation, the said Rule is extracted hereunder: “ The period of lease for stone quarrying shall be five years. For valid reasons to be recorded in writing, before publishing notification inviting applications for grant of lease, wherever the District Collector considers it necessary, the period of a lease may be fixed for a period of less than five years. ” Under Rule 8(11), a specific bar has been created by law that ‘ no lease granted under this Rule shall be renewed. ‘ 73. Though this Rule 8(10-A) substituted the earlier Sub-Rule (10-A), by G.O. Ms. No. 635, Industries, dated 3.8.1999, and even though Rule 8(8), prescribing the period of lease for quarrying stone in respect of the virgin areas, was enhanced to ten years by G.O. Ms. No. 391, Industries, dated 17.11.2000, the Legislature, in its wisdom, has not thought it fit to apply the same ratio to the quarries granted under Rule 8(10-A). The Legislature is very strict in not extending the period upto ten years, even in respect of virgin lands, to the leases granted under Special grant under Rule 8(10-A). Even as could be seen from Rule 8(10-A)(vi), extracted supra, the District Collector has been authorised to fix lesser period of lease than five years, but under Rule 8(11), a specific bar has been created by law that ‘ no lease granted under this Rule shall be renewed. ‘ 74. Therefore, when the Rule specifically contemplated only a period of five years lease for the leases granted under Special Grant under Rule 8(10-A) and when there is specific bar created by Rule 8(11) not to renew the leases granted, the contention of the petitioners that they should also be equally treated with other lessees, does not merit consideration, since the Special Grants are governed by Rule 8(10-A), unlike other general leases. Therefore, both these writ petitions are also liable to be dismissed. Therefore, both these writ petitions are also liable to be dismissed. Discussion in M.P. No. 1 of 2010 in W.A. No. 669 of 2009: 75. In this case, the petitioner would submit that he is the Ex-counciller of Thirusoolam panchayat and eking out his livelihood by working as worker in stone quarries; that originally a Society was formed in the name of Thirusoolam Anna Harijan Blue Metal Workers Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited and earlier the stone quarries were given to the said society, but the Society was not in a position to administer the quarries as lease not renewed; that the workmen numbering 1600 scattered to various quarries and eking out their livelihood in and around Thirusoolam area; that himself and nearly 300 workmen of the erstwhile Harijan Society members are working in the appellant quarry over seven years and their families are fully depending upon the said quarry; that all the workmen are hailing from S.C. Community and originally migrated from Tirunelveli district and they are working over a period of forty years in the stone quarries; that the imminent threat of closure of the quarry would result in non-employment to three hundred families; that the entire workmen are working for more than 240 days in a calendar year over a period of seven years and hence, they are entitled to notice and compensation under Section 25 -F of the I.D. Act and further on humane consideration, their past services to be recognised and declare them entitled to compensation. 76. During the course of arguments, Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, the learned counsel appearing for the proposed party would submit that the work is perennial in nature and hence, there is every justification in the prayer sought for by the proposed party. He would further argue that the State is under obligation to protect the interest of the workers. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel rely on a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in People ‘ s Union For Democratic Rights and Others v. Union of India and Others AIR 1982 SC 1473 : (1982) 3 SCC 235 : 1982-II-LLJ-454, wherein it has been held as follows at p. 463 of LLJ: “ 10. We must then proceed to consider the first limb of the second preliminary objection. We must then proceed to consider the first limb of the second preliminary objection. It is true that the workmen whose cause has been championed by the petitioners are employees of the contractors but the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority which have entrusted the construction work of Asiad projects to the contractors cannot escape their obligation for observance of the various labour laws by the contractors. So far as the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 is concerned, it is clear that under Section 20 , if any amenity required to be provided under Sections 16, 17 , 18 or 19 for the benefit of the workmen employed in an establishment is not provided by the contractor, the obligation to provide such amenity rests on the principal employer and therefore, if in the construction work of the Asiad projects, the contractors do not carry out the obligations imposed upon them by any of these Sections, the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority as principal employers would be liable and these obligations would be enforceable against them. The same position obtains in regard to the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979. In the case of this Act also, Sections 17 and 18 make the principal employer liable to make payment of the wages to the migrant workmen employed by the contractor as also to pay the allowances provided under Sections 14 and 15 and to provide the facilities specified in Section 16 to such migrant workmen, in case the contractor fails to do so and these obligations are also therefore clearly enforceable against the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority as principal employers. So far as Article 24 of the Constitution is concerned, it embodies a fundamental right which is plainly and indubitably enforceable against everyone and by reason of its compulsive mandate, no one can employ a child below the age of 14 years in a hazardous employment and since, as pointed out above, construction work is a hazardous employment, no child below the age of 14 years can be employed in construction work and therefore, not only are the contractors under a Constitutional mandate not to employ any child below the age of 14 years, but it is also the duty of the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority to ensure that this Constitutional obligation is obeyed by the contractors to whom they have entrusted the construction work of the various Asiad projects. The Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority cannot fold their hands in despair and become silent spectators of the breach of a Constitutional prohibition being committed by their own contractors. So also with regard to the observance of the provisions of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1946, the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority cannot avoid their obligation to ensure that these provisions are complied with by the contractors. It is the principle of equality embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution which finds expression in the provisions of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1946 and if the Union of India, the Delhi Administration or the Delhi Development Authority at any time finds that the provisions of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1946 are not observed and the principles of equality before the law enshrined in Article 14 is violated by its own contractors, it cannot ignore such violation and sit quiet by adopting a non-interfering attitude and taking shelter under the executive that the violation is being committed by the contractors and not by it. If any particular contractor is committing a breach of the provisions of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1946 and thus denying equality before the law to the workmen, the Union of India, the Delhi Administration or the Delhi Development Authority as the case may be, would be under an obligation to ensure that the contractor observes the provisions of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1946 and does not breach the equality clause enacted in Article 14 . The Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority must also ensure that the minimum wage is paid to the workmen as provided under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The contractors are, of course, liable to pay the minimum wage to the workmen employed by them but the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority who have entrusted the construction work to the contractors would equally be responsible to ensure that the minimum wage is paid to the workmen by their contractors. This obligation which even otherwise rests on the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority is additionally reinforced by Section 17 of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service), Act 1979 insofar as migrant workmen are concerned. It is obvious, therefore, that the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority cannot escape their obligation to the workmen to ensure observance of these labour laws by the contractors and if these labour laws are not complied with by the contractors, the workmen would clearly have a cause of action against the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority. ” 77. The petitioner is espousing the cause of the labour working in the quarries and though he is not a necessary party to decide the issue on hand, he is a proper party, since the main relief sought for by them is completely dependant on the prayer of the appellant. Therefore, the petitioner can be impleaded as a party respondent to this writ appeal. Accordingly, this impleadment petition is allowed, to the extent of impleading this petitioner as a party respondent to the appeal. 78. But, with regard to the main prayer of the petitioner to grant them the benefits enshrined under the, we are unable to heed to the arguments advanced on the part of the petitioner in this miscellaneous petition. It seems this prayer has been carved out on the part of this impleaded petitioner at the behest of the lessees, since any direction issued to the lessees to regularise the services of these workmen, would mean that the lessee is permitted to continue with the quarry lease, which is prohibited under the Statute governing the contract viz. It seems this prayer has been carved out on the part of this impleaded petitioner at the behest of the lessees, since any direction issued to the lessees to regularise the services of these workmen, would mean that the lessee is permitted to continue with the quarry lease, which is prohibited under the Statute governing the contract viz. the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, further in view of the fact that whenever the lessee changes, normally, they pick and choose their own workforce. Though the present petitioner and Others seem to be working in the quarries for quite a long number of years, being in the unorganised sector, no such directions/reliefs can be granted by us to them. But, following the above judgment of the Honourable Apex Court, the District Collector is directed to accommodate the quarry labours, if their services are attached to the quarries, whenever a new contract regarding the quarry lease is entered into. For all the above reasons and discussions, Writ Appeals No. 669 of 2009 and 1504 of 2009; Writ Petitions No. 3557 of 2008, 4637 of 2008; 16152 of 2008; 23930 of 2008; 2234 of 2009; 2765 of 2009; 9637 of 2009; 9638 of 2009; 12861 of 2009; 18067 of 2009, 18068 of 2009; 19939 of 2009 and 20994 to 20997 of 2009 are dismissed and W.P. No. 22866 of 2009 is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, all the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.