Judgment :- 1. Whether determination of mining lease is valid and in accordance with the Rules is the point falling for consideration in the Writ Appeal. 2. Order of District Collector, Salem District directing the Appellant to pay Rs.1,85,17,400/- towards cost of mineral excavated during the period from 21.07.1998 to 11.04.2000 and to sell the stock of 1564 M.Ts. of Magnesite in public auction is the subject matter arising for determination in the Writ Petitions. 3. Since common issues are involved in the Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions, both Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions shall stand disposed by this common Judgment. After the filing of Writ Petitions, original lessee Munusamy Chetty died and his legal representatives K.M. Kamala, K.M. Ramakrishnan, K.M. Govindarajan, K. Sugunakumari, Minors K. Radha and K. Vivek were impleaded in the Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions respectively. 4. Initially, mining lease of Kondappanaickenpatty village, Salem Taluk was granted to one Ramappa on 08.10.1955 and with the permission of Government, the said lease was transferred to Munusamy Chetty. Magnesite is magnesium carbonate, MgCO3. Iron (as Fe2+) substitutes for magnesium (Mg) with a complete solution series with siderite, FeCo3. Magnesite occurs as veins in and alteration product of ultramafic rocks, serpentinite and other magnesium rich rock types in both contact and regional metamorphic terranes. Magniste is useful as a slag former in steelmaking furnaces, in conjunction with lime, in order to protect the magnesium oxide lining. It can also be used as a catalyst and filler in the production of synthetic rubber and in the preparation of magnesium chemicals and fertilizers. In fire assay, Magnesite cupels can be used for cupellation as the Magnesite cupel will resist the high temperatures involved and therefore used in steel manufacturing furnaces. Magnesite is a very rare rich mineral occurring in Salem District in whole of Asia. 5. For appreciating the contentious issues, it is necessary to refer the factual matrix of the case and various rounds of litigations: Ramappa was granted a mining lease to mine Magnesite over an extent of 78.32 acres of Government lands in S.No.57 of Alagapurampudur; S.Nos.1/1, 1/2, 4/1, 5/1 of Mitta Ayyamperumampatty and S.No.76/2B of Kondappanaickenpatty village, Salem Taluk for a period of 20 years in G.O.Ms. No.3498, Industries Dept. dated 08.10.1955. The said mining lease was transferred to Munusamy Chetty vide G.O.Ms.No.494, Industries Dept. dated 27.02.1971 and the lease was to expire on 05.02.1976. No.3498, Industries Dept. dated 08.10.1955. The said mining lease was transferred to Munusamy Chetty vide G.O.Ms.No.494, Industries Dept. dated 27.02.1971 and the lease was to expire on 05.02.1976. In May, 1975, lessee Munusamy Chetty has filed an Application for renewal of lease period and another Application for transfer of the above lease hold area in favour of M/s. Belpahar Refractories Limited, Orissa. Both the Applications were rejected by the Government of Tamil Nadu on the reasons that lessee had violated the mining lease conditions. 6. On a Revision Petition, Government of India by order dated 12.08.1980, set aside the order of State Government and directed the Statement Government to grant mining lease to the lessee provided he paid all arrears of rent and royalty, etc. 7. W.P. No.10236/1981: As narrated above, even prior to 1982 when the lease was to expire on 05.02.1976, State Government did not renew the lease and Revisions were filed by Munusamy Chetty against the deemed rejection. On 22.5.1979, Central Government have set aside the deemed rejection and directed the State Government to consider renewal Application on merits. Again on 18.6.1979, State Government passed an order refusing to grant the renewal which was again challenged by filling Revision Petition before Central Government. On 12.8.1980, Central Government directed the State Government to grant renewal of mining lease. Since no orders was passed by the State Government, Appellant filed W.P.No.10236/1981 to direct the State Government to renew the lease as per the order to Central Government dated 12.8.1990. The said W.P.No.10236/1981 was allowed on 26.11.1981. By an order dated 02.02.1982, the Writ Appeal filed by Statement Government against the order of allowing the Writ Petition was dismissed and SLP filed by the State Government was also dismissed. 8. Contempt Petition No.14/1982-State Government by G.O.Ms.No.244 Industries Department, dated 25.02.1982, renewed the lease for a period of one year instead of 20 years. Munusamy Chetty had also filed Contempt Application No.14/1982 for disobedience of the order dated 26.11.1981 passed in W.P. No.10236/1981. Thereafter, on 19.4.1982, Statement Government passed G.O.Ms.No.514 granting renewal for a period of 20 years adding a condition that ‘mineral should be utilised in his own industry’. 9. In pursuance of the direction of Central Government, in G.O.Ms.No.514, Industries Dept. Munusamy Chetty had also filed Contempt Application No.14/1982 for disobedience of the order dated 26.11.1981 passed in W.P. No.10236/1981. Thereafter, on 19.4.1982, Statement Government passed G.O.Ms.No.514 granting renewal for a period of 20 years adding a condition that ‘mineral should be utilised in his own industry’. 9. In pursuance of the direction of Central Government, in G.O.Ms.No.514, Industries Dept. dated 19.04.1982, application of Munusamy Chetty for renewal of mining lease was ordered granting mining lease for a period of 20 years, subject to the conditions that lease should ‘utilise the mineral in his own industry’. Aggrieved with this order, lease again filed another Revision to delete the condition. In its final order in No.420/1983 dated 17.9.1983, Government of India has set aside the orders in G.O.Ms.No.514 dated 19.4.1982 on the ground that no approval was taken and directing State Government to pass appropriate orders. In this regard, on request from State Government, Government of India, Ministry of Steel and Mines have granted approval of Central Government under Rule 27(3) of the Rules on 31.1.1984 for inclusion of special condition that ‘lessee should utilise the mineral in his own industry’ in the renewal of mining lease for a period of 20 years. 10. In G.O.Ms.No.155, Industries Department, dated 08.02.1984, Government of Tamil Nadu have granted renewal of mining lease to Munusamy Chetty to mine Magnesite over an extent of 78.32 acres in three villages in Salem Taluk. State Government have ordered renewal, subject to the regular conditions and a specific condition that lessee Munusamy Chetty should conduct mining operation in accordance with the specification to be laid down by Indian Bureau of Mines and also ‘should utilise the mineral in his own industry’. 11. W.P.No.11475/1988: Lessee Munusamy Chetty failed to execute the supplemental lease deed as ordered in G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 08.02.1984. After issuing show cause notice, in G.O.Ms.No.994, Industries Department, dated 02.09.1988, State Government has determined the mining lease already ordered and forfeited the security deposit paid by the lessee. Aggrieved by the determination of lease, Appellant filed W.P.No.11475/1988. W.P.No.11475/1988 was dismissed for default on 21.7.1998. Subsequently, on the Application filed by the Appellant, W.P. No. 11475/1988 was restored. Observing that when Central Government who is the appropriate authority has granted approval to impose special condition of utilising mineral in his own industry, learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition which is challenged in the Writ Appeal. 12. W.P.No.11475/1988 was dismissed for default on 21.7.1998. Subsequently, on the Application filed by the Appellant, W.P. No. 11475/1988 was restored. Observing that when Central Government who is the appropriate authority has granted approval to impose special condition of utilising mineral in his own industry, learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition which is challenged in the Writ Appeal. 12. Consequent to the dismissal of W.P.No.11475/1988 on 21.07.1998, Appellant was directed to stop further mining activity in Proceedings Roc.No.2420/88/Mines-A dated 11.4.2000 of District Collector, Salem. The Tahsildar, Salem was also instructed to take possession of the lease hold area and accordingly, the Tahsildar, Salem has taken possession of the lease hold area on 12.04.2000. The Magnesite mineral available in the site have been assessed by the technical people of Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited and the sale price of Magnesite was tentatively fixed at Rs. 886/- per tonne and mineral were declared as seizure and kept in the mines area as it is. 13. A show cause notice was issued by the Collector, Salem District as to why cost of mineral excavated in the intervening period from 21.07.1998 to 11.4.2000, 20900 M.Ts at the rate of Rs.886/- i.e. Rs.1,85,17,400/- and surface rent of Rs.176/- should not be recovered from the lessee. The lessee was also directed to show cause as to why the stock of 1564 M.Ts of Magnesite kept in the Mines and Factory should not be disposed of through public auction and the sale proceeds be credited to the Government account. 14. W.P. Nos. 19657 and 19658/2001 – Aggrieved by those orders referred above the lessee filed two Writ Petitions. As per the final order of Government of India in No.420/2003 dated 17.9.1983, the State Government addressed the Central Government for according their approval for imposing of special condition a1s required in Rule 27 (3) of Rules. After obtaining the concurrence of Central Government on 31.1.1984, in G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 08.2.1984, renewal of lease of Appellant was granted. 15. Stand of Government is that the conditions imposed to ‘utilise the mineral in his own industry’ was in accordance with the policy of State Government. Further case of State Government is that special condition imposed that ‘lessee should utilise mineral in his own industry’ is only after necessary approval from the Central Government. 15. Stand of Government is that the conditions imposed to ‘utilise the mineral in his own industry’ was in accordance with the policy of State Government. Further case of State Government is that special condition imposed that ‘lessee should utilise mineral in his own industry’ is only after necessary approval from the Central Government. According to State Government, having not executed the supplemental lease deed, there is no valid lease at all and that Lessee/Appellant cannot be allowed to go with unjust enrichment by illegal quarrying excavation. In so far as, Writ Petitions, it is averred that after the dismissal of W.P.No.11475/1988, lessee was not entitled to continue the mining and therefore, District Collector, Salem in its Proceedings Roc. No. 2420/88/Mines-A dated 02.6.2000 have ordered the Appellant to pay Rs. 1,85,17,400/-being the cost of mineral for the quantity of 20900 M.Ts mined and transported beyond the validity period i.e. 21.7.1998. It has also been ordered to sell the stock of 1564 M.Ts of Magnesite mined on or after 21.7.1998 and kept in the lease hold lands and in stock yard through public auction and the sale proceeds credited to the Government account. 16. We have heard R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for Appellants/Writ Petitioners. We have also heard P.S. Raman, learned Advocate General assisted by N. Dhandapani, Special Government Pleader for State. 17. Laying emphasis upon the events prior to 1982, R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for Appellants submitted than in spite of the order passed in W.P. No.10236/1981 dated 26.11.1981, State Government was reluctant to renew the lease and State Government was found guilty for the disobedience of the order. Contending that Writ of Mandamus cannot be nullified by the executive, learned Senior Counsel for Appellant submitted that tenacious and contumacious conduct of State Government has to be kept in view. Laying emphasis on the conduct of Government in pre-1982 period, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the condition imposed ‘mineral should be utilised in his own industry’ was deliberately introduced so as to deprive the Appellant’s right of lease which the Appellant won after fighting out the litigation by successive Revisions before Central Government and also by filing Writ Petitions. 18. As pointed out earlier, in G.O.Ms. 18. As pointed out earlier, in G.O.Ms. No.514 dated 19.04.1982 while renewing the mining lease for 20 years from the date of execution of supplemental lease deed, State Government imposed the condition that ‘lessee should utilise the mineral in his won industry’. Challenging imposition of the above condition, Munusamy Chetty preferred Revision before Central Government. As per Rule 27 (3), any condition in addition to the compulsory and optional conditions dealt with in sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 27 can be incorporated in the lease only with the previous approval of the Central Government. Pointing out that in view of clear injunction of Rule 27(3), in exercise of Revisionary powers under Section 30 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and Rule 55 of Rules, Central Government set aside the impugned order and directed the State Government to pass appropriate orders on merits on the Renewal Application. 19. Learned Senior Counsel for Appellants submitted that in view of final order passed by the Central Government in the Revision , State Government ought to have simply passed the order renewing the lease for 20 years deleting the condition ‘mineral to be utilised in his own industry’. It was further contended that in G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 08.2.1984, reiterating the condition of ‘uitlising the mineral in his own industry’ and calling upon Munusamy Chetty to execute supplemental lease deed was not warranted and unsustainable. 20. Drawing our attention to G.O.Ms.No.244 dated 25.2.1982, learned Senior Counsel would further submit that in the said Government Order, when the State Government renewed the mining lease for a period of one year, no such condition was imposed to ‘use the mineral in his own industry’. After final orders was passed by the Central Government (No.349/1980 dated 12.8.1980), in G.O.Ms.No.244 dated 25.2.1982 mining lease was renewed for a period of one year. Of course, G.O.Ms.No.244 dated 25.2.1982 was later challenged in the Contempt Petition for the alleged disobedience of the order dated 26.11.1981 passed in W.P.No.10236/1981. We have gone through the order in G.O.Ms.No.244 dated 25.2.1982. After final orders was passed by the Central Government (No.349/1980 dated 12.8.1980), in G.O.Ms.No.244 dated 25.2.1982 mining lease was renewed for a period of one year. Of course, G.O.Ms.No.244 dated 25.2.1982 was later challenged in the Contempt Petition for the alleged disobedience of the order dated 26.11.1981 passed in W.P.No.10236/1981. We have gone through the order in G.O.Ms.No.244 dated 25.2.1982. In the said Government Order, while renewing the lease for period of one year in favour of Munusamy Chetty, even though specific condition ‘to use mineral in his own industry’ was not incorporated, in the said G.O.Ms.No.244 dated 25.2.1982, it is clearly indicated that Munusamy Chetty had no industrial programme to utilise the mineral which is against the policy of the Government. Even in G.O.Ms.No.244 dated 25.2.1982, the State Government has clearly pointed out that as per Government policy, applicant for Magnesite mining lease should possess an industrial programme for using mineral in their own industry. Therefore, incorporating the condition ‘to use mineral in his own industry’ in G.O.Ms. No.155 dated 8.2.1984 cannot be said to be biased or arbitrary. 21. Submitting that Appellants continuing in possession of the subject lands and mining beyond 2001 (20 years from 1982) is unsustainable on law, the learned Advocate-General inter alia raised the following contentions: Magnesite is a rare mineral which is of vital use and which is available only in Salem District and in one other location in Asia, Munusamy Chetty and Appellants have successfully retained the mining of rare mineral from 1955 by abuse of process of Court; In its order dated 17.09.1983, Central Government did not direct the State Government to delete the clause, but only said that the same could not have been incorporated without previous approval of the Central Government and direction was only to pass an order afresh in accordance with law thereby leaving it to the discretion of State Government to pass appropriate orders; The inclusion of clause for use in own industry having been included by G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 08.02.1984 was only after the consent of Government of India and that it was in accordance with industrial policy of Government of Tamil Nadu, but also with the Central Government in industrial policy for mineral development. No lease deed has been executed at all right from 1979 and Munusamy Chetty and Appellants have been continuing under the orders of the Revision of Central Government or by virtue of orders of High Court. As there was no valid lease, Appellants are to be made to pay for every tonne of Magnesite form 1984 onwards. 22. We will shortly refer as to how lessee has not challenged the orders passed in G.O.Ms. No.155 dated 08.02.1984 in which the State Government has reiterated the condition to ‘use mineral in his industry’. At this juncture, we may note that industrial policy of Government of Tamil Nadu. In G.O.Ms.No.1459, Industries Dept. dated 11.12.1975, policy of Government insisted upon the Industrial Programme in respect of some of the important industrial minerals in Tamil Nadu. Industrial Policy of Government was modified in G.O.Ms. No.681 Industries Dept. dated 06.07.1978. As per Industrial policy for minerals Chromite and Magnesite in the manufacture of refractory bricks which has been hitherto insisted upon only in Salem District was extended throughout the State. That apart Government of Tamil Nadu felt that instead of renewing mining lease to Munusamy Chetty, the area might me reserved for exploitation of mineral by Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited, a State owned Corporation. Even in G.O.Ms.No.244 dated 25.02.1992, Government has clearly indicated that Munusamy Chetty had no Industrial programme to use the mineral which is against the policy of Government. Again in G.O.Ms.No.514 dated 19.4.1982 the same was reiterated. Even in G.O.Ms.No.514 dated 19.4.1982, Government has clearly indicated that Munusamy Chetty had no Industrial programme ‘to use mineral in his own industry’. The relevant portion in G.O.Ms.No.514 dated 19.4.1982 reads as under: “3….. He had no industrial programme to utilise the mineral which is against the present policy of this Government that an applicant for magnesite mining lease should possess an industrial programme for utilising the mineral in refractory industry. … 4. This Government felt that instead of renewing mining lease to Thiru Munisamy Chetty, the area might be reserved for exploitation of mineral by Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd. in exercise of powers recently conferred under Rule 58 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.” 23. The fact that Munusamy Chetty had no industrial programme to utilise the mineral was in fact brought to the notice of Central Government by the State Government. The fact that Munusamy Chetty had no industrial programme to utilise the mineral was in fact brought to the notice of Central Government by the State Government. By a reading of G.O.Ms.No.514 dated 19.4.1982, it is seen that Union Ministry by its letter dated 06.11.1981 replied stating that “in view of the Final order passed by the Central Government, the renewal application of Shri Chetty should be finally disposed off by the State Government and that he had also noted the intention of this Government to reserve this particular area of 78.32 acres for exploitation by Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited”. In the order passed in review application 7/82, this Hon’ble Court has rejected the request of the Petitioners to delete the special condition imposed by the Government in G.O.Ms.514, dated 19.04.1982 to the effect that the quarrying minerals will have to be utilised in Petitioners’ own industry. After rejecting the said contention by observing that the Petitioners can work out their remedy before the Revisional Authority, the Hon’ble Court has further directed the Respondents to execute the lease deed with the said condition. In view of the submission made by the Petitioners that there is some urgency in executing the lease deed, the Hon’ble High Court has directed the First Respondent to execute the lease deed subject to the rights of the Petitioners to challenge the special condition before the Revisional authority. Hence, it is very clear that even at the time of grant of the lease, the dispute between the Petitioners and the Respondents regarding the special condition was very much in existence. Therefore, the lease deed was executed by the Respondents in accordance with the order passed by the Hon’ble Court. 24. Incorporation of the said condition was in accordance with the industrial policy of the State Government. Only because of want of approval as per Rule 27(3), Revision No.2 (465)/82-MV was allowed by the Central Government by its order dated 17.9.1983. It cannot therefore be contended that incorporation of condition to ‘utilise the mineral in his own industry’ was actuated by malice. 25. By an order dated 31.1.1984, Central Government has granted approval for imposing such condition. After obtaining approval of Central Government as contemplated under Rule 27(3), State Government has issued G.O.Ms. No.155 dated 08.2.1984 renewing the lease for a period of 20 years incorporating the condition that ‘mineral should be utilised in his own industry’. 25. By an order dated 31.1.1984, Central Government has granted approval for imposing such condition. After obtaining approval of Central Government as contemplated under Rule 27(3), State Government has issued G.O.Ms. No.155 dated 08.2.1984 renewing the lease for a period of 20 years incorporating the condition that ‘mineral should be utilised in his own industry’. In our considered view, the post 1982 events cannot be examined by taking a skeptical view by examining the matter from the earlier events prior to 1982. Events prior 1982 need not detain us in examining the matter. 26. By the order dated 17.9.1983, Central Government held that it could not sustain the orders of State Government and set aside the order and directed the State Government to pass appropriate orders. Contention of learned Senior Counsel for Appellant is that when Central Government has allowed the Revision, nothing more was left and only thing to be done by the State Government was renewal of lease for a period of 20 years. Further contention of learned Senior Counsel for Appellant is that by simply deleting the condition ‘to utilise the mineral in his own industry’, State Government ought to have passed orders and there was no necessity to execute any supplemental lease deed. The above contention does not merit acceptance. As pointed out earlier, by the order dated 17.9.1983, Central Government allowed the Revision Petition directing the State Government to pass appropriate orders on merits on the renewal Application of Munusamy within 100 days of passing of orders. In the said order, Central Government has observed as follows: “any condition in addition to the compulsory and optional conditions dealt with respectively in sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 27 can be incorporated in the lease only with the previous approval of the Central Government. The condition that Magnesite mined from the leasehold should be utilised in the lessee’s own industry is not covered by sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 27. …..clear injunction of Rule 27(3), we find it difficult to sustain the orders of the State Government in respect of the impugned condition.” 27. While allowing the Revision, Central Government has issued a direction to the State Government to pass appropriate orders. …..clear injunction of Rule 27(3), we find it difficult to sustain the orders of the State Government in respect of the impugned condition.” 27. While allowing the Revision, Central Government has issued a direction to the State Government to pass appropriate orders. It is pertinent to note that State Government cold have simply passed the order directing deletion of condition imposed and could have directed the State Government to allow Munusamy Chetty to continue with the operation, but that was not to be so. Central Government directed the State Government to pass appropriate orders, thus giving option to the State Government to exercise its discretion and pass appropriate orders within 100 days. As rightly submitted by the leaned Advocate-General, Central Government could have straightway passed the order directing deletion of condition or could have passed he order deleting the clause and allowing the lessee to continue the lease. Therefore, it cannot be said that by allowing of the Revision Petition by the Central Government (17.09.1983), power of State Government was fettered in any manner. 28. As per final order of Central Government in No.420/1983 dated 17.09.1983, State Government addressed the Government of India for according their approval for imposing special condition as required under Rule 27(3) of Rules. After obtaining concurrence of Government of India on 31.1.1984 in G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 08.2.1984, renewal of lease was granted to Munusamy Chetty. After so obtaining approval of Central Government, as per Rule 27(3), G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 08.2.1984 was passed imposing special condition ‘to use mineral in his own industry’. We may usefully extract the relevant portion in G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 08.2.1984 as under: 3. ………. The Government of India, Ministry of Steel and Mines, in their Telex dated 31.1.1984 have communicated the approval of the Central Government under Rule 27 (3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 for the imposition of the special condition that the lessee should utilise the mineral in his own industry in the renewal of the mining lease to Thiru. K.G. Munusamy Chetty for the period of 20 years. 7. K.G. Munusamy Chetty for the period of 20 years. 7. In the lease deed executed on 12.05.1982, a condition has been incorporated that the order issued in G.O.Ms.No.514 Industries dated 1982 is also subject to the condition that the applicant should conduct mining operations in accordance with the specifications to be laid down by the Indian Bureau of Mines and also a Proviso to the above mentioned condition that ‘the lease deed executed by Thiru. K.G. Munusamy Chetty pursuant to the order in the Review Petition and also the Government order granting the mining lease will not in any way prejudice his contention in the proposed Appeal that the clause inserted in the Government order that the minerals to be won from the lands should be used in his industry is invalid”. Since the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner in the High Court has since been disposed by the High Court, directing the Government that the orders of the Central Government should be complied with by the State Government, the Collector, Salem is requested to execute supplemental lease deed deleting the Proviso incorporation in the lease deed dated 12.05.1982 under the above mentioned special condition. The Collector, Salem is requested to execute the supplemental lease deed 12.05.1982 under the above mentioned special condition. … He is also requested to send to the Government and the Director of Geology and Mining a copy of the supplemental lease deed as and when executed.’ 29. As per the final order of Government of India in No.420/1983 dated 17.09.1983, the State Government addressed the Central Government for according their approval for imposing special condition as required in Rule 27(3). Only after obtaining concurrence of Central Government on 31.01.1984 in G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 08.02.1984 renewal of lease was granted to Munusamy Chetty. For all intents and purpose, G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 08.02.1984 is legally binding on Munusamy Chetty and the Appellants for the reason that earlier G.O.Ms.No.514 dated 19.04.1982 granting renewal of lease was set aside by the Government of India. 30. Lease deed was executed on 12.05.1982 with Proviso clause enabling Munusamy Chetty to seek remedy before appropriate Forum as to whether the action of the Government in having imposed a special condition that ‘mineral has to be used in his own industry’ is tenable or not. Thereafter, Government has passed an order granting renewal in G.O.Ms. 30. Lease deed was executed on 12.05.1982 with Proviso clause enabling Munusamy Chetty to seek remedy before appropriate Forum as to whether the action of the Government in having imposed a special condition that ‘mineral has to be used in his own industry’ is tenable or not. Thereafter, Government has passed an order granting renewal in G.O.Ms. No.155 dated 08.02.1984 and also directed Munusamy Chetty to execute supplementary lease deed deleting the Proviso already executed on 12.04.1982. As rightly submitted by the learned Advocate-General that only based on the orders of High Court such Proviso was allowed to be incorporated in the lease deed. After obtaining approval of the Central Government and when fresh orders was passed by the Government on 08.02.1984, the Proviso was directed to be removed and the supplementary lease deed was to be executed. 31. By a careful reading of G.O.Ms. No.155 dated 08.2.1984, the following aspects emerge: As per Rule 27(3) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 Central Government has granted its approval by order dated 31.01.1984. Effect of deletion of Proviso is that ‘mineral excavated should be utilised in his own industry’. Lease Munusamy Chetty should execute a special lease deed. 32. It is very relevant to note that Munusamy Chetty has not challenged G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 08.2.1984 which makes it clear in its reference the approval granted by the Central Government on 31.1.1984 and that reiterating the special condition of utilising the mineral in his own industry and also calling upon the lessee to execute supplemental lease deed. 33. After the Central Government set aside the order dated 17.09.1983 as contemplated under Rule 27(3), State Government got approval of the Central Government. Learned Senior Counsel for Appellant submitted that order granting lease was passed on 19.04.1982 and lease deed was already executed on 12.05.1982. Any condition under Rule 27(3) can only be imposed with the previous approval of the Central Government i.e. prior to 19.04.1982 [date of grant of lease]. It was further contended that Rules do not permit any expose facto approval and the approval obtained on 31.1.1984 cannot be said to be in accordance with Rule 27(3) of Mineral concession Rules. Placing reliance upon Golden Granites, etc. It was further contended that Rules do not permit any expose facto approval and the approval obtained on 31.1.1984 cannot be said to be in accordance with Rule 27(3) of Mineral concession Rules. Placing reliance upon Golden Granites, etc. v. K.V. Shanmugam and others, 1998 WLR 47, it was further argued that when law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it shall be done in that manner or not at all. 34. Section 2 of Forest Conservation Act- Prior approval of Central Government for granting lease for quarrying granite in reserved forest lands of the State Government is essential. Making a distinction between “previous approval” and mere “approval” in Goldern Granites, etc. v. K.V. Shanmugam and others, 1998 WLR 47, the Division Bench of this Court held that imposing of condition in the Order stating that the commencement of quarrying operations should be done only after obtaining concurrence of Government of India is not in conformity with requirement of Section 2 of Forest Conservation Act, 1980, which clearly shows that prior approval of the Central Government is mandatory as well as pre-condition for the grant of lease of forest lands for non-forest purposes and quashed the impugned order observing that “Whenever a statute prescribes that a particular act is to be done in a particular manner, and also lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement leads to serve consequences, such requirement would be mandatory.” 35. Under Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, Section 22 for termination of service of Teacher, prior approval of competent authority is necessary. In M. Rukmani Devi v. The Chief Educational Officer, 1996 (2) CTC 577 , wherein prior approval for termination was not obtained, a Division Bench of this Court held that provisions under Section 22 relating to seeking approval of Competent Authority is not procedural formality but imposes substantial restrictions on power of Management of School of dispense with service of Teacher. 36. Learned Senior Counsel for Appellant has also placed reliance upon Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Limited and others, 1986 (1) SCC 264 and contended that there is clear distinction between the expression “previous approval” and mere “approval”. It was submitted that under Rule 27 (3) obtaining prior approval of Central Government is not an empty formality and has a purpose to serve. It was submitted that under Rule 27 (3) obtaining prior approval of Central Government is not an empty formality and has a purpose to serve. It was contended that post facto approval on 31.1.1984 cannot be taken as a valid approval. As pointed out earlier, even in the earlier communications, State Government has brought to the notice of Central Government about its desire to exploit Magnesite for the State Government undertaking Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited and after corresponding with the Central Government, the Central Government has granted approval on 31.1.1984. While so, it is not open to the lessee to challenge the validity of grant of approval by State Government without challenging the basic order dated 8.2.1984. 37. It is seen that what was challenged before the Revisional Authority was the condition imposed by the Respondents in G.O.Ms.No.514 dated 19.04.1982. Since at the time of passing the order of the Revision authority held that the said condition was imposed without the prior approval, by the subsequent order passed by the Central Government, the said condition will have to be necessarily incorporated by implication. The lease deed would become complete only with the said condition and in that context we are of the considered view that the insistence of the Respondents to execute the supplementary sale is only formal in nature in the sense that only with the said condition lease would come into existence. Therefore, it is not open to the Petitioners to contend that the lease deed having executed already and hence the Respondents cannot invoke the power of cancellation. 38. Yet another fact to be seen in this case is that after passing of the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No.155, Industries Department dated 08.02.1984, certain proceedings were initiated by the Government to execute the supplement deed. Accordingly, the District collector in and by letter dated 16.12.1986 has directed the Petitioners to execute the supplementary deeds. The Petitioners have replied in and by letter dated 03.11.1997 stating that the clause contained in lease deed dated 12.05.1982 was illegal and void and therefore a fresh Government Order will have to be passed followed by a supplementary lease deed by deleting the special condition in G.O.Ms.No.155 Industries Department dated 08.02.1984. The Petitioners have replied in and by letter dated 03.11.1997 stating that the clause contained in lease deed dated 12.05.1982 was illegal and void and therefore a fresh Government Order will have to be passed followed by a supplementary lease deed by deleting the special condition in G.O.Ms.No.155 Industries Department dated 08.02.1984. The above said facts clearly show that it is the specific case of Petitioners themselves that there was no lease deed in the eye of law and until and unless the Government Order is passed deleting the said condition by executing the consequential lease deed the Petitioners are bound by the condition. In fact, the very seen stand was also taken by the Petitioners in their reply dated 22.02.1988. When this is the specific case of Petitioners themselves they cannot contend to the contrary by stating that there is no provision for execution of supplementary lease deed and the earlier lease deed is in subsistence. Therefore, in view of the above said facts, the Respondents are estopped from pleading that the earlier lease deed without the condition alone is to be taken into consideration. 39. The order passed by the Revision Authority in setting aside the special condition would clearly show that the said defect committed earlier was only a curable defect. The said defect was also cleared and approved by the Central Government. Consequently, the question whether the approval given by the Central Government would be applicable to the Petitioners or not is to be decided by the Central Government itself being the authority which passed the order. When the Central Government has given approval, it has to be presumed that it was satisfied itself about the applicability of the special condition for the grant of lease in favour of the Petitioners and that is the reason why the approval was given. 40. Much reliance was placed upon the observations made in the Contempt Appeal No.4/1982 where the First Bench has observed that Munusamy Chetty made repeated assertion before the Bench that State Government has wrongly inserted the clause that ‘he should use the minerals in his own industry’. The observation of First Bench in Contempt Appeal No.4/1982 is as under: “7. 40. Much reliance was placed upon the observations made in the Contempt Appeal No.4/1982 where the First Bench has observed that Munusamy Chetty made repeated assertion before the Bench that State Government has wrongly inserted the clause that ‘he should use the minerals in his own industry’. The observation of First Bench in Contempt Appeal No.4/1982 is as under: “7. …… The appellant’s repeated assertion before us is that the state Government had wrongly inserted a clause that he should use the minerals in his own industry does not also now survive because even according to him the Central Government has now done away with the said clause. ….” In our considered view, Munusamy Chetty appears to have made an incorrect statement before the First Bench. It is because by that time the Contempt Appeal was disposed of by the First Bench on 26.08.1986, Central Government has already granted its approval on 31.1.1984 and the same was not brought to the notice of the First Bench while disposing the Contempt Appeal. 41. Learned Advocate-General has drawn our attention to the order of learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11475/1988, a reading of which, it is seen that Munusamy Chetty had gone to the extent of contending that fax message of Central Government dated 31.1.1984 was a fabricated document and that original communication should be produced. State Government was unable to produce the original communication or the subsequent confirmation proceedings granting approval to impose such a condition as prescribed by statutory rule. Learned Single Judge ordered notice to the Central Government Standing Counsel and on such notice, original File containing grant of approval by the Government of India was produced before the Court. Learned Single Judge perused the File and satisfied that in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 27 (3), Central Government granted approval to the State Government to impose condition that Appellant Munusamy Chetty ‘should utilise the mineral in its own industry’. The observation of the learned Single Judge dated 12.09.2001 reads as under: “14. On the production of the said fax message, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Mr. Giridhar vehemently contended that it is a fabricated document and that the original communication should be produced. ….. 16. The observation of the learned Single Judge dated 12.09.2001 reads as under: “14. On the production of the said fax message, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Mr. Giridhar vehemently contended that it is a fabricated document and that the original communication should be produced. ….. 16. The Central Government, as seen from the file, in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 27(3) of the mineral Concession Rules, 1960, granted approval to the State Government to impose the condition that the Petitioner K.G. Munuswamy Chetty-lessee should utilise the mineral in its own industry. The file would show that the State Government had made a request in this behalf to the Central Government and the Director of Department of Mines. Government of India, who is the appropriate authority and who has been conferred with the power to exercise powers under the Mineral Concession Rules, including Rule 27(3) conveyed the approval of the Central Government under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 to impose the special condition the renewal of mining lease to K.G. Munuswamy Chetty, the Petitioner herein for a period of 20 years. The condition being that the lessee should utilise the mineral in his own industry”. In our considered view, Appellants had gone to the extent of denying the grant of approval by the Central Government. The Appellants have failed in their attempt before the High Court in trying to project that no orders have been obtained from the Government of India. 42. Yet another fact to be seen in the present case on hand is that the Petitioners have not raised any other substantial plea before the learned Single Judge except by contending that the prior approval of the Central Government has not been obtained. The rejection f the order passed by the learned Single Judge would show that no other points have been raised. 43. Further allowing the Writ Petitions would amount to reviewing the policy decision of the Government without even challenging the same. Hence, the same is impermissible in law. The Petitioners do not have a legal right to maintain the Writ Petition and the discretionary relief under Article 226 cannot be exercised in this case. 44. Propriety or validity of grant of approval and G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 08.02.1984 direction to District Collector, Salem District to execute supplemental lease deed cannot be challenged in this proceedings in which Appellant is challenging determination of lease. 44. Propriety or validity of grant of approval and G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 08.02.1984 direction to District Collector, Salem District to execute supplemental lease deed cannot be challenged in this proceedings in which Appellant is challenging determination of lease. In G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 08.02.1984, State Government directed the District Collector, Salem District to get supplemental lease deed and to incorporate the clause (deleting the proviso) which is to the effect of ‘utilising the mineral in his own industry’. Appellant did not come forward to execute supplemental lease deed. It is only thereafter issuance of show cause notice and the impugned order was passed on 02.09.1998 determining the lease. In our considered view, the order of determination of lease is consequential, consequent upon the non-execution of supplemental lease deed. 45. In Amarjeet Singh and others v. Devi Ratan and others, 2010(1) SCC 417 , the Supreme Court held that without challenging the basic order, the consequential order cannot be challenged. G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 08.02.1984 refers to grant to approval by Central Government dated 31.1.1984. In G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 08.02.1984 deletion of Proviso was ordered and imposing condition ‘to utilise the mineral in his own industry’. It is worthwhile to recapitulate the order passed by the Central Government while allowing the Revision Petition on 17.09.1983. As we pointed out earlier, while allowing the Revision Petition, Central Government has only remitted the matter back to the State Government to pass appropriate orders. Having not challenged the basic order [G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 08.02.1984], the Appellant cannot challenge the validity of grant of approval by the Central Government dated 31.1.1984 nor direction of State Government to execute the supplemental lease deed. 46. Learned Senior Counsel for Appellants submitted that as per Rule 31(2), the lease had already commenced on 12.05.1982 and mining operations started and carried on pursuant thereto and the transport permit were also being issued by the Department on payment of royalty and in such a fact situation, the power under Rule 31 of Mineral Concession Rules, got exhausted and nothing more remained to be exercised by the State Government under Rule 31. Placing reliance upon Sri Balaji Minerals, rep. by its Proprietor, V. Raghuramachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. Placing reliance upon Sri Balaji Minerals, rep. by its Proprietor, V. Raghuramachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai and others, 2007(8) MLJ 79 it was further argued that in spite of allowing of Revision by the Central Government imposing the same condition of using the mineral in his own industry is bad in law, since the same seeks to vary or add to the terms of lease during its currency which are already executed and commenced on 12.05.1982. 47. The above contention does not merit acceptance. As pointed out earlier, inspite of direction in G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 08.02.1984 to execute the supplemental lease deed, Munusamy Chetty has not chosen to execute the lease deed within the period of six months. The conditions stipulated were not complied with. In as much as Munusamy Chetty has not executed the supplemental lease deed, Munusamy Chetty was a defaulter. In view of failure of Munusamy Chetty to execute supplemental lease deed within the stipulated period of six months, in our considered view, there was no subsisting lease and the excavation of Magnesite was illegal from 08.02.1984 or 08.08.1994. As pointed out earlier, Munusamy Chetty has not chosen to challenge G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 08.02.1984. 48. Leaned Senior Counsel for the Appellants laying emphasis upon the order passed in W.P. No.16818 of 2002, submitted that the Court has directed the Respondents to issue transport permit to the Writ Petitioner to transport Magnesite and the Respondents have issued transport permits and therefore it cannot be said that there was illegal quarrying. Laying emphasis upon the order in the said Writ Petition, it was further submitted that the learned Single Judge has observed that “it must be deemed as if lease has been renewed in favour of the Appellant till the disposal of Application for renewal.” In our considered view, the scope of Writ Petition W.P.No.16818 of 2002 was very limited whether to direct the Respondents to issue transport permit or not. The question of “renewal and deemed renewal” was beyond the scope in the said Writ Petition. In any event, the observation made by learned Single Judge in the above Writ Petition was only a passing observation. It is also pertinent to note that there is nothing to indicate that the pendency of Writ Appeal and Writ Petitions were brought to the notice of learned Single Judge. In any event, the observation made by learned Single Judge in the above Writ Petition was only a passing observation. It is also pertinent to note that there is nothing to indicate that the pendency of Writ Appeal and Writ Petitions were brought to the notice of learned Single Judge. We are of the considered view that in any event the direction passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16818 of 2002 to issue transport permit is subject to the order to be passed in the Writ Appeal and the Appellant cannot take advantage of the direction passed in the said Writ Petition. 49. Case of Appellants regarding deemed renewal is not sustainable because deemed renewal contemplates existence of subsisting lease. As rightly contended by the leaned Advocate- General, no lease deed was executed at all and after 1984 Munusamy Chetty and Appellants have been continuing either under the orders of Revision of the Central Government or on the virtue of the orders of the High Court. It is only in cases where there is subsisting lease with a valid Renewal Application, deemed renewal would arise. As there was no valid lease, in our considered view, question of deemed renewal does not arise. 50. On behalf of Appellants, R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that grant of mining lease to other persons, a special condition to use Magnesite in his own industry was not imposed and only the Appellants have been discriminated by imposing such a special condition. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel has drawn our attention to the Proceedings of Director of Geology and Mining granting Magnesite lease to one Gopal and Nirmala for a period of 20 years and produced the lease deed executed in favour of the said Nirmala dated 03.05.2005 and Gopal dated 19.09.1997 respectively. Though, this point was not raised in the Writ Petition/Writ Appeal, we have directed the Special Government Pleader to file reply counter-affidavit. In the reply counter-affidavit filed by the District Collector, Salem [2nd Respondent], it is stated that mining lease to mine Magnesite and Dunite over an extent of 1.44.0 Hectares of Patta land in S.F.No.17/3 in Chettichavadi village, Salem Taluk was granted for a period of 20 years to Nirmala in R.C.No.16259/MM3/1997 dated 28.02.2005. In the reply counter-affidavit filed by the District Collector, Salem [2nd Respondent], it is stated that mining lease to mine Magnesite and Dunite over an extent of 1.44.0 Hectares of Patta land in S.F.No.17/3 in Chettichavadi village, Salem Taluk was granted for a period of 20 years to Nirmala in R.C.No.16259/MM3/1997 dated 28.02.2005. Like wise, Government has also granted mining lease to mine Magnesite over an extent of 6.35 acres of Patta land in S.F.No.36 in Kondappanaickenpatty village, Salem Taluk Gopal, Proprietor Universal Mining Corporation, Salem in G.O.3(D) No.84 dated 28.05.1997 and the lease deed was executed on 19.09.1997 and the lease is valid up to 18.09.2017. The said two leases are Patta lands owned by respective lessees and the lease lands are also lesser in extent and therefore, Government have not imposed the condition that ‘mineral should be used in their own industry’. In the case on hand, the subject matter to mind Magnesite is over a large extent of 78.32 acres of Government poramboke land in S.F.No.76/2B of kondappanaickenpatty village. In accordance with their own industrial policy regarding insistence upon industrial programme in respect of certain important industrial minerals like Magnesite, State Government imposed condition that ‘mineral should be used in their own industry’. We do not find any substance in the contention that Munusamy Chetty or Appellants have been discriminated by imposing a special condition. 51. In the show cause notice dated 09.02.1988, Munusamy Chetty was called upon to show cause as to why lease should not be determined for having failed to execute the supplemental lease deed within a period of six months as directed in G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 08.02.1984 as required under Rule 31 of Mineral Concession Rules. The show cause notice was well in accordance with Rule 31 of Mineral Concession Rules. 52. Rule 31 of Mineral Concession Rules reads as under: “31. The show cause notice was well in accordance with Rule 31 of Mineral Concession Rules. 52. Rule 31 of Mineral Concession Rules reads as under: “31. Lease to be executed within six months – (1) Where, on an Application for the grant of a mining lease, an order has been made for the grant of such lease, a lease deed in From K or in a form as near thereto as circumstances of each case may require, shall be executed within six months of the order or within such further period as the State Government may allow in this behalf and if no such lease deed is executed within the said period due to may default on the part of the applicant, the State Government may revoke the order granting the lease and in that event the Application fee shall be forfeited to the State Government. ….” As contemplated under Rule 31, in view of failure to execute the supplemental lease deed, State Government in G.O.Ms. No.994 dated 02.09.1988 determined the lease which is in accordance with law. 53. Learned Senior Counsel for Appellants submitted that final order determining the lease was passed in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 27(5). It was further argued that the condition precedent for exercising powers conferred under Rule 27(5) are default in payment of royalty or breach of any of the conditions of the lease and therefore power under Rule 27(5) was not available. It was further argued that the order is also bad for violation of Principles of Natural Justice, since there was no show cause notice to invoke the power under Rule 27(5) for non-payment of royalty or breach of any of the conditions of lease. 54. Of course, show cause notice was issued for determining the lease for having failed to execute the supplemental lease deed within the period of six months as required under Rule 31 of Mineral Concession Rules. Even though, determination of lease was in exercise of power under Rule 27(5), the parties have correctly understood the basis on which lease was determined. Paragraph (6) of the final order dated 02.09.1988 makes clear reference for having failed to execute the supplemental lease deed as directed in G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 08.02.1984 and within a period of six months as contemplated under Rule 31 of Mineral Concession Rules. Paragraph (6) of the final order dated 02.09.1988 makes clear reference for having failed to execute the supplemental lease deed as directed in G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 08.02.1984 and within a period of six months as contemplated under Rule 31 of Mineral Concession Rules. The parties have clearly understood the matter, on which final order of determination proceeded. It is a well settled principle of law that a mere wrong quoting of the provision would not vitiate the proceedings. 55. Pivotal and core issue to be decided in all these cases is as to whether the Writ Petitioner is entitled to challenge the orders impugned, notwithstanding the special condition mentioned in the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.514, Industries Department, dated 19.04.1982 or not. The facts which are not in dispute and discussed earlier are once again placed, in order to decide the issue. 56. Observing that Application of Doctrine of Natural Justice cannot be imprisoned within the strait-jacket of a rigid formula, in Union of India v. P.K. Roy, AIR 1968 SC 850 , the Supreme Court held as follows: “…. (T) he extent of application of the Doctrine of Natural Justice cannot be imprisoned within the strait-jacket of a rigid formula. The application of the doctrine depends upon the nature of the jurisdiction conferred on the administrative authority, upon the character of the rights of the persons affected, the scheme and policy of the statute and other relevant circumstances disclosed in the particular case.” 57. In the case of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, 1969 (2) SCC 262 , the Supreme Court held as under: “What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a Complaint is made before a Court that some Principle of Natural Justice had been contravened the Court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case”. 58. Recent trend in non-observance of natural justice is of ‘prejudice’. Whenever a Complaint is made before a Court that some Principle of Natural Justice had been contravened the Court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case”. 58. Recent trend in non-observance of natural justice is of ‘prejudice’. Even in those cases where procedural requirements have not been complied with, the action has not been held ipso facto illegal, unlawful or void unless it is shown that non-observance had prejudicially affected the applicant. When grant of approval by Central Government and failure of Appellant to execute supplemental lease deed has been clearly indicated in the show cause notice, we find no good reason why the Respondents should have given Munusamy Chetty further hearing nor we find that Munusamy Chetty was prejudiced in any way. 59. There is no force in the arguments that lease was determined during the currency of lease. Such argument proceeds on erroneous footing that there was currency of lease. When State Government directed to execute the supplemental lease deed and when Munusamy Chetty had not executed such supplemental lease deed, as such there was no currency of lease, State Government has rightly determined the lease. 60. Learned Senior Counsel for Appellants submitted that the order is also bad for violation of Principles of Natural Justice, since there was no show cause to invoke powers under Rule 27(5) of Mineral Concession Rules for non-payment of royalty or breach of any of the condition of the lease deed. Even though, Rule 27(5) was invoked lease was determined mainly on the ground of non-execution of supplemental lease deed as directed in G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 08.02.1984 within six months as required. 61. Much arguments were advanced on the violation of Principles of Natural Justice. But in our considered view, none of them merit acceptance. We find no reason as to why the Respondents should afford any further opportunity to the lessee for determination of lis nor do we find any prejudice caused to the lessee. The Principles of Natural Justice are not rigid and they cannot be imprisoned in any straight jacket formula. The Principles of Natural Justice must yield and change with exigencies of the situation. The Principles of Natural Justice are not rigid and they cannot be imprisoned in any straight jacket formula. The Principles of Natural Justice must yield and change with exigencies of the situation. While interpreting the legal provisions, the Court of law cannot be unmindful to the hard realities that without execution of supplemental lease deed the lessee has been illegally quarrying on the mining activities from 1984. 62. W.P.No.11475 of 1988 was once dismissed for default on 21.7.1998. On Application filed by the Appellants, Writ Petition was restored on 30.6.2000. After receipt of order of dismissal for default, Respondents issued notice to the Appellant to stop further mining activity by proceedings dated 11.4.2000. Tahsildar Salem was also instructed to take possession of the leasehold area and accordingly Tahsildar had taken possession on 12.4.2000. The Magnesite mineral available in the site was assessed by the technical experts of Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited and the sale price of Magnesite was tentatively fixed at Rs.886/- per tonne and the mineral was declared as “sea-shell” and kept in the mines area as it is. The impugned show cause notice dated 3.5.2000 was issued to the Appellant as to why a sum of Rs.1,85,17,400/- being the cost of 20,900 M.Ts of mineral i.e., at the rate of Rs.886/- excavated in the intervening period from 21.7.1998 to 11.4.2000. The Appellant was also directed to show cause as to why stock of 1564 M.Ts of Magnesite kept in the mines and factory should not be disposed of through public auction and the sale proceedings credited to the Government Account. The District Collector has passed the proceedings dated 2.6.2000 directing Appellant/Writ Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,85,17,400/-being the cost of mineral for the quantity of 20,900 M.Ts of mines transported during the interregnum period from 21.7.1998 to 11.4.2000. In the same proceedings, District Collector has also ordered for sale in public auction the stock of 1564 M.Ts of Magnesite kept in the premises. Aggrieved by these orders, the lessee filed two Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.19657 and 19658 of 2001. 63. As against the interim order passed in W.P.M.P.Nos.28950 and 28951/2001 in W.P.Nos.19657 and 19658/2001, directing the Appellant-Ramakrishna Magnesite Mines to furnish bank guarantee for the value of Rs.1,85,17,400/- W.A.No.3050/2002 has been filed. 64. Learned Senior Counsel for appellant Mr. Aggrieved by these orders, the lessee filed two Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.19657 and 19658 of 2001. 63. As against the interim order passed in W.P.M.P.Nos.28950 and 28951/2001 in W.P.Nos.19657 and 19658/2001, directing the Appellant-Ramakrishna Magnesite Mines to furnish bank guarantee for the value of Rs.1,85,17,400/- W.A.No.3050/2002 has been filed. 64. Learned Senior Counsel for appellant Mr. Thiagarajan contended that after dismissal of Writ Petition, on application filed by appellant, Writ petition was restored on 30.6.2000 and once Writ Petition was restored, the interim order also stands revived and therefore Government was not justified in passing the order for recovery of cost of mineral excavated. In support of his contention that once the main matter is restored, supplementary/interlocutory orders passed before dismissal of Suit revives, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon Vareed Jacob v. Sosamma Geevarghese And Others, 2004 (6) SCC 378. There is no quarrel over the proposition that on restoration of Writ Petition/Suit, interim orders passed before dismissal of Writ Petition/Suit stand revived. But the point for consideration is, whether the grant of interim order in the Writ Petition/ Appeal would clothe the Writ Petitioner the right of quarrying when there was no valid renewal of lease. As we have pointed out earlier, ever since August 1984 there was illegal excavation of mineral. In our considered view, even though after restoration of Writ Petition, interim orders stand restored, interim orders passed in the Appeal/Writ Petition are only subject to passing of final order in the Appeal/Writ Petition. Interim order merges with the final order passed. It is not uncommon that the litigants obtain interim orders and because of the pendency of the matters, litigant would stand to gain by the benefits yielding out of interim orders. The cost of mineral excavated in the interregnum period from 21.7.1998 to 11.4.2000 i.e., 20900 M.Ts at the rate of Rs.886/-i.e., Rs.1,85,17,400/- and surface rent of Rs.176/- are due to be recovered from the lessee. In our considered view, a party cannot be allowed to take the benefit yielding out of interim order even though he has lost the battle at the end, which cannot be countenanced. 65. It is held by the Supreme Court in Amarjeet Singh and others v. Devi Ratan and others, 2010 (1) SCC 417 that any unfair advantage gained by any party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must be neutralised. 65. It is held by the Supreme Court in Amarjeet Singh and others v. Devi Ratan and others, 2010 (1) SCC 417 that any unfair advantage gained by any party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must be neutralised. Observing that a party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of his own wrongs by getting an interim order, in the above decision, Supreme Court has held as under: “17. No litigant can derive any benefit from mere pendency of case in a Court of law, as the interim order always merges in the final order to be passed in the case and if the Writ Petition is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified automatically. A party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of its own wrongs by getting an interim order and thereafter blame the Court. The fact that the Writ is found, ultimately, devoid of any merit, shows that a frivolous Writ Petition had been filed. The maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, which means that the act of the Court shall prejudice no one, becomes applicable in such a case. In such a fact situation the Court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the act of the Court. Thus, any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must be neutralised, as the institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a suitor from delayed action by the act of the Court. (Vide Shiv Shankar v. U.P.SRTC,1995 SCC (L&S) 1018; GTC Industries Ltd v. Union of India, 1998(3) SCC 376 and Jaipur Municipal Corporation v. C.L. Mishra, 2005 (8) SCC 423 . 18. In Ram Krishna Verma v. State of U.P., 1992 (2) SCC 620 , this Court examined the similar issue while placing reliance upon its earlier judgment in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. ITO, 1980 (2) SCC 191 and held that no person can suffer from the act of the Court and in case an interim order has been passed and the Petitioner takes advantage thereof and ultimately the Petition is found to be without any merit and is dismissed, the interest of justice requires that any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must be neutralised. 19. 19. In Mahadeo Savalaram Shelke v. Pune Municipal Corporation, 1995 (3) SCC 33 , this court observed that while granting the interim relief, the Court in exercise of its discretionary power should also adopt the procedure of calling upon the Plaintiff to file a bond to the satisfaction of the Court that in the event of his failing in the suit to obtain the relief asked for in the Plaint, he would adequately compensate the defendant for the loss ensued due to the order of injunction granted in favour of the Plaintiff. Even other wise the Court while exercising its equity jurisdiction in granting injunction is also competent to grant adequate compensation to mitigate the damages caused to the defendant by grant of injunction. The pecuniary award of damages is consequential to the adjudication of the dispute and the result therein is in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction in doing ex debito justitiae mitigating the damage suffered by the defendant by the act of the Court in granting injunction restraining the Defendant from proceeding with the action complained of in the Suit. Such a procedure is necessary as a check on abuse of the process of the Court and adequately compensate the damages or injury suffered by the defendant by act of the Court at the behest of the Plaintiff. 20. In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P., 2003 (8) SCC 648 this Court examined this issue in detail and held that no one shall suffer by an act of the Court. The factor attracting applicability of restitution is not the act of the Court being wrongful or a mistake or error committed by the Court; the test is whether on account of an act of the party persuading the Court to pass an order held that the end as not sustainable, has resulted in one party gaining an advantage it would not have otherwise earned, or the other party has suffered an impoverishment which it would not have suffered but for the order of the Court and the act of such party. There is nothing wrong in the parties demanding being placed in the same position in which they would have been had the Court not intervened by its interim order when at the end of the proceedings the Court pronounces its judicial verdict which does not match with and countenance its own interim verdict. There is nothing wrong in the parties demanding being placed in the same position in which they would have been had the Court not intervened by its interim order when at the end of the proceedings the Court pronounces its judicial verdict which does not match with and countenance its own interim verdict. The injury, if any, caused by the act of the Court shall be undone and the gain which the party would have earned unless it was interdicted by the order of the Court would be restored to or conferred on the party by suitably commanding the party liable to do so. Any opinion to the country would lead to unjust if not disastrous consequences. 21. The Court further held South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., v. State of M.P., 2003 (8) SCC 648 : “28. … Litigation may turn into a fruitful industry. Though litigation is not gambling yet there is an element of chance in every litigation. Unscrupulous litigants may fell encouraged to approach the Courts, persuading the Court to pass interlocutory orders favourable to them by making out a prima facie case when the issues are yet to be heard and determined on merits and if the concept of restitution is excluded from application to interim orders, then the litigant would stand to gain by swallowing the benefits yielding out of the interim order even though the battle has been lost at the end. This cannot be countenanced. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the successful party finally held entitled to a relief assessable in terms of money at the end of the litigation, is entitled to be compensated. ….” 22. Similarly, in Karnataka Rare Earth v. Dept. of Mines & Geology, 2004 (2) SCC 783 , a similar view has been reiterated by this Court observing that the party which succeeds ultimately is to be placed in the same position in which it would have been if the Court would not have passed an interim order.” 66. Following the ratio of the above decisions, we are of the view that Government must be placed in the same position as it would have been in August 1984. Without valid renewal of lease and by obtaining one order or other from the Court, Munusamy Chetty and the Appellants have been carrying on mining operation on the rare mineral-Magnesite. Following the ratio of the above decisions, we are of the view that Government must be placed in the same position as it would have been in August 1984. Without valid renewal of lease and by obtaining one order or other from the Court, Munusamy Chetty and the Appellants have been carrying on mining operation on the rare mineral-Magnesite. Since in view of our conclusion that from August 1984, excavation of Magnesite was illegal, Government has to take appropriate steps to recover the cost of Magnesite illegally excavated. The impugned notice dated 2.6.2000 is only for the interregnum period from 21.7.1998 to 11.4.2000. The Government is directed to issue a fresh show cause notice for recovery of the cost of Magnesite excavated from August 1984. Insofar as the impugned notice dated 2.6.2000 for sale of stock, we find no substantial grounds are made out for quashing the impugned order of direction to sell in public auction the stock of 1564 M.T. kept in the premises. 67. In the result, Writ Appeal No.1981/2001 is dismissed. The Appellants are directed to forthwith stop excavation of Magnesite/quarrying. The Appellants are directed to deliver vacant possession of the leaslehold area bearing S.F.No.76/2 B of Kondappanaickenpatty village, 57 of Alagapuram Pudur Village and 1/1, 1/2, 4/1 and 5/1 of Ayyamperumalpatty Village, Salem Taluk and District measuring an extent of about 78.32 acres within two weeks from the date of this Judgment. W.P.No.19657 of 2001 and W.A.No.3050 of 2002 are disposed of with the following directions: While upholding the right of the Government to recover the cost of Magnesite quarried from August 1984, the Respondent is directed to issue fresh show cause notice within a period of eight weeks from today to recover the cost of Magnesite quarried from August 1984 till this date. The fresh show cause notice to be issued shall also include the interregnum period from 21.7.1998 to 11.4.2000. After issuing show cause notice for recovery of the cost of Magnesite illegally quarried, the Respondents shall afford opportunity to the Writ Petitioners/Appellants and proceed with the same in accordance with law. The Order of the District Collector, Salem dated 2.6.2000 for sale of 1564 M.Ts of Magnesite in public auction is confirmed and the public auction sale shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and W.P.No.19658 of 2001 is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.