JUDGMENT :- 1. The prayer of the petitioner is for a direction directing the respondents to grant further period of 3 months to the petitioner to quarry entire 3000 lorry load of savudu in P.W.D. Lake comprised in S. No: 107/1, Padur Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvallur District and issue necessary bulk transport permit and facsimiled despatch slips by revalidating the unused transport permits and despatch slip. 2. Heard Mr. M. Muthappan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. V.M. Velumani learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. According to the petitioner, he applied for quarrying permission in P.W.D. Lake comprising in S.F.No.107/1 of Padur Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvallur District to quarry 3000 lorry loads of savudu for the period of one year. The District Collector after obtaining the report from revenue authorities as well as P.W.D., granted permission to quarry 3000 lorry loads for the period of one month in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.811 / 2006/Mines - 2 dated 3.3.2006. The period prescribed in the said order is from 3.3.2008 to 2.4.2008. But the said order was received only on 5.3.2008 after noon and thereafter he has paid a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- towards entire seniorage for the 3000 lorry loads on 29.2.2008 itself besides security deposit, area assessment, etc.. It is his case that he has been granted bulk transport permit for 1500 lorry loads for the period between 5.3.2008 and 17.3.2008. However, facsimiled despatch slips were given only for 600 lorry loads and the remaining 900 despatch slips are left with the second respondent for the purpose of affixing seal. Immediately on receipt of the order, petitioner made a representation on 6.3.2008 itself that the period granted for quarrying 3000 lorry loads are not sufficient and requested to extend the period at 100 lorry loads per week. In the meantime, on 11.3.2008 there was a heavy rain for two days and hence he could not do the quarrying operation and the same was intimated to the respondents on 12.3.2008 itself. 4. Petitioner has stated that he was able to quarry only 400 lorry loads out of 600 despatch slips between 5.3.2008 and 17.3.2008. On 17.3.2008, the second respondent, without assigning any reason directed him to stop further quarrying operation. 4. Petitioner has stated that he was able to quarry only 400 lorry loads out of 600 despatch slips between 5.3.2008 and 17.3.2008. On 17.3.2008, the second respondent, without assigning any reason directed him to stop further quarrying operation. Hence, he made a representation on 18.3.2008 requesting them to issue further bulk permit with facsimile despatch slips and also requested to revalidate the earlier dispatch slips by granting further time so as to enable him to quarry entire 3000 lorry loads. But the respondents declined to grant further transport permit, though the petitioner's lease period expires only on 2.4.2008. As there is no action on the part of the respondents, petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition on the ground that there is a statutory duty cast upon the respondents to issue necessary bulk transport permit and facsimiled despatch slips as contemplated under Appendix XII & XIII of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959 as and when the lessee demands on payment of seigniaroge fee. Though the petitioner had already paid the seigniorage fee for the entire 3000 lorry loads, he was able to quarry for the past 15 days only 400 lorry loads and now without assigning any reason, the respondents cannot decline to issue transport permit and therefore, the direction sought for by the petitioner has to be granted. 5. The respondents have filed their counter and stated that the writ petitioner has been granted permission to quarry 3000 lorry loads of savudu from S.No.107/1 P.W.D tank of Padur Village of Poonamallee taluk, under Rule 12 of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, on payment of necessary seigniorage fee for a period of one month from 3.3.2008 to 2.4.2008 as per the Senior District Collector's Proceedings Rc.No.811/2006/G&M-2, Dt. 3.3.2008. That complaints were received stated that the petitioner had indulged in illicit quarrying. The Tahsildar, Poonamallee in his letter Rc.No.2314/2008/A1 dt. 15.3.2008 had reported that the petitioner had indulged in illicit quarrying in S.No.90/1A of Padur Village registered as Grazing Ground Poramboke in the Village Accounts and as such the Tahsildar had recommended for suitable action to be initiated against the petitioner. However, the petitioner in his letter dt. 12.3.2008, received on 14.3.2008 had stated that due to rains on 11.3.2008, he could not operate the quarry. However, the petitioner in his letter dt. 12.3.2008, received on 14.3.2008 had stated that due to rains on 11.3.2008, he could not operate the quarry. A show cause notice was issued on 19.3.2008 directing the petitioner to offer his reply / explanation within 7 days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice, as to why the lease granted to him should not be cancelled as per Rule 36(5) (h) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 for the above illicit quarrying indulged by him. But, the individual had requested for the grant of extension of time to quarry 3000 lorry loads in his letter dt. 18.3.2008 which was received in the office of the respondents on 19.3.2008 (i.e) the date on which the Show cause notice was issued to him. As the lease period granted was upto 2.4.2008, the question of issuing despatch slips without clearing the above issue does not arise. 6. While so the petitioner's letter dt. 27.3.2008 requesting for the grant of permission to issue bulk permit and despatch slips upto 2.4.2008 as per the Hon'ble High Court's order was received on 31.3.2008. Further, it is submitted that as requested by the writ petitioner, a copy of the letter of the Tahsildar, Poonamallee, vide Rc.No.2314/2008/A1 dt. 15.3.2008, wherein the illicit quarrying of 1707 lorry loads of savudu indulged by him in the area not permitted to the petitioner was furnished to him in this office endorsement in Rc.No.811/2006/G&M2, dt. 31.3.2008. However, with due obedience to the Hon'ble High Court's order dt. 20.3.2008, an endorsement was issued to the petitioner in this office Rc.No.811/2006/G&M-2 dt.6.5.2008, granting permission to the petitioner to quarry the balance quantity of 1293 lorry loads of savudu from S.No.107/1 of Padur Village of Poonamallee taluk for a period of 3 days (for the period from 31.3.2008 to 2.4.2008). The petitioner, however did not appear in this office to receive the bulk permit and despatch slips for the removal of the balance quantity of 1293 lorry loads of savudu. 7. The petitioner, however did not appear in this office to receive the bulk permit and despatch slips for the removal of the balance quantity of 1293 lorry loads of savudu. 7. It is further stated in the counter that though the petitioner as the lessee had obtained despatch slips for 1500 lorry loads, he had deliberately indulged in illicit quarrying in Grazing Ground Poramboke, which is not only a not permitted area but also a prima-facie objectionable poramboke that should not be interefered with for any other purpose other than the grazing purpose of the cattle. Hence, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. The foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even on 18.03.2000 itself, the respondent has taken action and considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, petitioner is entitled to have permission for a period of 14 days and that the respondents have not given the facsimile despatch slip. The interim order was granted by this Court on 20.03.2008 directing the respondent to issue transport permit till 02.04.2008. The order copy was received by petitioner's counsel on 26.03.2008 and immediately, on 27.03.2008, petitioner made a representation requesting the respondent to comply with the direction issued by this Court and that even thereafter, the respondents have not given permission to quarry. 9. On the other hand, Ms. V.M. Velumani learned Special Government Pleader would contend that the petitioner is not entitled for facisimiled despatch slips to quarry as the petitioner has quarried contrary to the permit and therefore, based on the Tahsildar's report, the respondent has taken immediate action and called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. It is her further contention that the copy of the order passed by this Court on 20.03.2008 was received by the respondents only on 31.03.2008 and, therefore the respondents permitted the petitioner to quarry for 3 days from 31.03.2008 to 02.04.2008. But, the petitioner has not availed the opportunity and hence, now he cannot claim those benefits. 10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials made available on record. But, the petitioner has not availed the opportunity and hence, now he cannot claim those benefits. 10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials made available on record. It is seen that the petitioner was granted permission to quarry 3000 lorry loads of savudu in P.W.D. Lake comprising in S.F. No: 107/1, Padur Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvallur District, for the period of one month from 03.03.2008 to 02.04.2008, on payment of seniorage fee as per the Senior District Collector's proceedings R.c. No: 811/2006/ G & M-2 dated 3.3.2008. Thereafter, based on the complaints received, the Tahsildar, Poonamallee visited the place and submitted a report in Rc. No: 2314/2008/A1 dated 15.3.2008 stating that the petitioner had indulged in illicit quarrying in S. No: 90/1A of Padur Village which is registered as Grazing Ground Poramboke in the Village Accounts and as such the Tahsildar had recommended for suitable action to be initiated against the petitioner. However, the petitioner has explained in his letter dated 12.03.2008, received by the respondents on 14.03.2008, that due to rains on 11.03.2008 he could not operate the quarry. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 19.03.2008 directing him to submit his explanation within 7 days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice as to why the lease granted to him should not be cancelled as per Rule 36 (5) (h) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 for the illicit quarrying indulged by him. But the petitioner has requested for the grant of extension of time to quarry 3000 lorry loads in his letter dated 18.03.2008 which was received in this office on 19.03.2008, the date on which the show cause notice was issued to him. As the lease granted to the petitioner was upto 02.04.2008, the respondents had not issued the despatch slips without clearing the issue raised by the issuance of the show cause notice. 11. A perusal of the records would reveal that the grant of quarry lease to the petitioner on 03.03.2008 was for a period of one month from 03.03.2008 to 02.04.2008 to quarry 3000 lorry loads of savudu. While so, there was heavy rain for two days on 11.03.2008 and 12.03.2008 and hence, the petitioner could not conduct the quarry operation on those two days. While so, there was heavy rain for two days on 11.03.2008 and 12.03.2008 and hence, the petitioner could not conduct the quarry operation on those two days. By the time there was a complaint received about illegal quarry by the petitioner and based on the report of the Tahsildar, Poonamallee, the respondent has issued a show cause notice and called for an explanation from the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for a direction directing the respondents to permit him to quarry for a further period of 3 months to quarry the entire 3000 lorry loads of savudu. 12. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to grant him further 3 months lease to quarry entire 3000 lorry loads of savudu. In the circumstances in which he could not quarry due to rain and other unavoidable conditions, the respondents, after the receipt of the interim order granted by this Court on 30.03.2008, had issued permission to the petitioner on 16.05.2008 to quarry the balance quantity of 1293 lorry loads of savudu only in Survey No: 107/1 of Padur Village, Poonamallee Taluk, in which place the respondents have granted permission to quarry originally. It is also seen from the proceedings produced before the Court that the respondents have instructed the petitioner to collect the fascimilated despatch slips from the office of the respondents. 13. Action was initiated by the respondent for illicit quarrying at S. No: 90/1A of Padur Village which is registered as Grazing Ground by way of issuance of a show cause notice. Petitioner has submitted his explanation. Though that proceeding is pending, petitioner has not challenged that proceeding before this Court. Pending action, petitioner has moved this Court explaining the circumstances under which he could not carry out the quarrying operation as permitted by the respondent and sought for a direction to the respondents to permit him to quarry for another three months period. This is the matter for examination in this case. As regards the action initiated by issuance of the show cause notice on 19.03.2008, it is open to either of the parties to proceed further. In this writ petition this Court has to only examine as to whether the petitioner is entitled to have permission to quarry for the remaining 1293 lorry loads of savudu or not. 14. As regards the action initiated by issuance of the show cause notice on 19.03.2008, it is open to either of the parties to proceed further. In this writ petition this Court has to only examine as to whether the petitioner is entitled to have permission to quarry for the remaining 1293 lorry loads of savudu or not. 14. To examine that point, it is to be seen that on 20.03.2008, this Court has granted an interim direction directing the respondents to issue bulk transport permits or fascimiled despatch slips to the petitioner with respect of savudu quarry upto 02.04.2008. This order was received by the petitioner on 26.03.2008. A perusal of the records produced before this Court "On verification" would reveal that the copy application was made on 20.03.2008 and the order was made ready on 26.03.2008 and it was delivered to the petitioner's counsel on 26.03.2008. Immediately, the petitioner has made a representation, enclosing the order copy, on 27.03.2008 which the respondents have received on 28.03.2008. The receipt of copy of the order is evident from the office seal available in the records. But, however, the respondent is disputing this fact by saying that the copy of the order was received by them only on 30.03.2008. On verification of the records, it is seen that at Page No: 143, an order copy of this Court is available and the seal of the respondents therein shows that it was received on 28.03.2008. Therefore, it is clear from the records that the order dated 20.03.2008 has been received by the respondent on 28.03.2008 and thus they had knowledge of the order passed by this Court on that date. If that is so, the respondents have to take into account what is the direction of this Court to decide from what date they have to count for issuing permission to the petitioner to quarry. In other words, if the respondents had knowledge about the order passed by this Court on 28.03.2008 they have to count the dates for granting bulk permits of facsimiled despatch slip to the petitioner from 28.03.2008 to 02.04.2008. 15. While considering this aspect it is also to be noted that the respondent has taken a decision on 06.05.2008 and permitted the petitioner to quarry for 3 days. 15. While considering this aspect it is also to be noted that the respondent has taken a decision on 06.05.2008 and permitted the petitioner to quarry for 3 days. But it is the fault of the petitioner in not making use of the order of the respondent permitting to quarry the remaining lorry loads for 3 days. For the reasons best known to him petitioner has not taken advantage of the order passed by the respondents. In such a circumstance, this Court cannot show any indulgence to the petitioner. But, it is evident from the records that the respondents, though had knowledge of the order on 28.03.2008, have not taken into account the order of this Court dated 20.03.2008. Therefore, for three days from 28.03.2008 to 31.03.2008 alone, the petitioner is entitled to claim his right for quarrying operation as per the directions issued by this Court on 20.03.2008. 16. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner from 28.03.2008 to 30.03.2008 for three days time to carry out the quarrying operation. However, it is for the parties to work out their remedy taking into account the subsequent developments. As regards the period from 31.03.2008 to 02.04.2008, which was granted by the respondents but not availed by the petitioner, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the authorities concerned, explain to them the reasons and request them to consider if there is any reasonable cause made out by him. 17. With these directions and observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no orders as to the costs.