JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THE petitioner was granted Sand Quarry lease by way of lease agreement dated 4.2.2009 for quarrying and removing river sand from S.F. No. 254 (Old) in Vanpakkam Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District, over an extent of 5.00.0 Hectares, for a period of six months from 4.2.2009 to 3.8.2009. He operated the quarry for one month from 4.2.2009 to. 4.3.2009. He did not use the balance period for one reason or other. THEreafter, he requested the Government to permit him to use poclain for sand quarrying for the un-expired portion of five months. THE same was rejected by the first respondent Government in G.O. (D) No. 196, Industries (MMC2) Department, dated 21.10.2010. THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the said order and also for a consequential direction to the respondents to permit him to carry on manual quarrying of sand from S.F. No. 254 (Old) in Vanpakkam Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District, over an extent of 5.00.0 Hectares. ( 2. ) THE case has a checkered history. THE details of the same are given below: (a) THE petitioner was granted sand quarry lease in S.F. No. 254, over an extent of 5.00.0 Hectares in Vanpakkam Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District,, for a period of three years from 27.7.1999 to 26.7.2002,vide proceedings dated 24.6.1999 of the District Collector, Cuddalore, the third respondent herein. THE petitioner has also remitted the required lease amount and also other amounts. (b) While so, he filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 22 of 2000 before this Court praying for a direction to refund the lease amount, since the villagers objected to the quarrying of sand. THE said writ petition was disposed of on 10.1.2000 with a direction to the authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.9.1999, within a period of eight weeks. THE request of the petitioner for refund of the lease amount was rejected vide proceedings dated 16.3.2000. (c) Subsequently, the petitioner sent a representation dated 10.8.2000 requesting to grant an alternative site for quarrying sand, in the said circumstances. He filed another writ petition in W.P. No. 14970 of 2000 praying for a direction to the District Collector, Cuddalore to consider and pass orders on his representation dated 10.8.2000 to allot an alternate site in Azhagiyanatham Village, instead of the original quarry in Vanpakkam Village. He filed another writ petition in W.P. No. 14970 of 2000 praying for a direction to the District Collector, Cuddalore to consider and pass orders on his representation dated 10.8.2000 to allot an alternate site in Azhagiyanatham Village, instead of the original quarry in Vanpakkam Village. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 19.9.2000 directing the District Collector to pass orders on the petitioner?s representation dated 10.8.2000, on merits, within a period of twelve weeks. Accordingly, the District Collector passed an order dated 25.11.2000 rejecting the petitioner?s request for an alternate site. (d) THEreafter, the petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P. No. 15335 of 2001 praying for an alternate site in Azhagiyanatham Village or any other site. THE said writ petition was allowed on 20.6.2002 in the peculiar circumstances of the case that the petitioner was prevented from exercising his right to carry quarry operations due to law and order situation. (e) Against the said order dated 20.6.2002, a writ appeal in W.A. No. 3198 of 2002 was preferred by the authorities and the same was dismissed by this Court on 3.12.2002. (f) In the meantime, Rule 38-A was introduced in Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and thereby all the existing leases for sand quarry (patta and poramboke) ceased to be effective from 2.10.2003 and the right to exploit sand vested with the State Government. All the existing lease hold areas were taken possession by the Government on 2.10.2003 onwards. (g) A batch of writ petitions were filed questioning Rule 38-A. THEreafter, the matter was brought to the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench, on 11.5.2004 in W.A. Nos. 3241 and 3242 of 2003 upheld the orders of the Government by holding that the State is entitled to exploit sand by quarrying itself on the Government land and partly allowed the petitioners therein to operate the sand quarry with certain directions. (h) THE matter was taken to the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5542-5644 of 2005. THE Honourable Supreme Court disposed the appeal on 24.3.2006 and the operative portion of the order is reproduced hereunder: "In regard to mining leases subsisting as on 2.10.2003, we have read down Rule 38A as terminating such leases in terms of the contract (lease deeds) by six months, without assigning cause and without any liability to pay compensation. THE Honourable Supreme Court disposed the appeal on 24.3.2006 and the operative portion of the order is reproduced hereunder: "In regard to mining leases subsisting as on 2.10.2003, we have read down Rule 38A as terminating such leases in terms of the contract (lease deeds) by six months, without assigning cause and without any liability to pay compensation. Such of those writ petitions (respondents herein) whose leases were subsisting on 2.10.2003 and whose activities were stopped with effect from that day will be entitled to carry on the quarrying activities for a period of six months or for the actual unexpired period of the lease (as on 2.10.2003), whichever is less. This benefit will be available to even those who have orders of Court for grant of mining leases were not executed for one reason or the other. It is, however, made clear that the State Government is at liberty to prematurely terminate the leases for any of the cause mentioned in Section 4-A(2), by giving a notice and hearing under Section 4-A(3), if they want to terminate any lease within the said period of six months." (i) In view of said development, the petitioner has made representations dated 28.12.2006 and 3.3.2007 to the District Collector, Cuddalore seeking permission to quarry sand in Vanpakkam site or in the alternative area in Azhagiyanatham Village, as per the order of this Court dated 20.6.2002 in W.P. No. 15335 of 2001, for a period of six months, as per the order of the Honourable Supreme Court dated 24.3.2006 in C.A. Nos. 5572-5644 of 2005. (j) THEreafter, the petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P. No. 13226 of 2007 praying for a direction to the respondents to consider his representations dated 28.12.2006 and 3.3.2007 for grant of sand quarry lease for a period of six months as per the order of the Honourable Supreme Court dated 24.3.2006 in C.A. Nos. 5572-5644 of 2005. This Court passed an order dated 23.4.2007 in the said writ petition directing the respondents to pass orders on the petitioner?s representation, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. (k) Accordingly, the District Collector, Cuddalore passed an order dated 17.12.2007 rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of lease for six months as per the aforesaid order of the Honourable Supreme Court. (k) Accordingly, the District Collector, Cuddalore passed an order dated 17.12.2007 rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of lease for six months as per the aforesaid order of the Honourable Supreme Court. (l) While so, the petitioner filed writ petition in W.P. No. 4367 of 2008 to quash the order dated 17.12.2007 of the District Collector, Cuddalore refusing to grant sand quarry lease for six months as per the order of the Honourable Supreme Court. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 3.7.2008 by directing the District Collector, Cuddalore to grant lease for a period of six months in S.F. No. 254, over an extent of 5.00.0 Hectares in Vanpakkam Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District, on condition that the writ petitioner should pay 120% over and above the lease amount fixed originally as per the District Collector?s proceedings dated 24.6.1999. THE petitioner also paid the enhanced lease amount as fixed by this Court. (m) In pursuance of the order dated 3.7.2008 passed in W.P. No. 4367 of 2008, the petitioner was granted lease to quarry and remove sand from S.F. No. 254 (Old), Vanpakkam Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District, for a period of six months from the date of execution of lease deed. THE lease deed was executed on 4.2.2009 permitting the petitioner to quarry sand for a period of six months from 4.2.2009 to 3.8.2009. (n) As per condition no. 7 in the lease deed, the petitioner is prohibited from using machineries for quarrying/removing sand. (o) THE petitioner carried out the quarrying operation for a period of one month. THEreafter, he made a representation dated 4.3.2009 requesting the Government to use Poclain machine for sand quarrying, as per Rule 36(A)(6) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. THE petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 3941 of 2009 praying to dispose of his representation dated 4.3.2009 seeking permission to use Poclain machine for quarrying sand. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 21.4.2009 directing the District Collector, Cuddalore to send his remarks within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and also directed the Government to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner?s representation within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the remarks from the District Collector. (p) THE Government issued an order in G.O. (D) No. 150, Industries (MMC2) Department, dated 14.5.2009 rejecting the request for use of Poclain machine for sand quarrying, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 21.4.2009 in W.P. No. 3941 of 2009. (q) THE petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P. No. 11133 of 2009 to quash the aforesaid G.O. (D) No. 150. This Court upheld the Government order vide its order dated 24.11.2009 in W.P. No. 11133 of 2009. (r) Against the aforesaid order dated 24.11.2009 of this Court, the petitioner filed an appeal in W.A. No. 66 of 2010. THE First Bench of this Court, on 2.2.2010, dismissed the said writ appeal as withdrawn. However, the petitioner was permitted to make a representation to the Government seeking permission to quarry sand by manual processes and the Government was directed to take appropriate decision on such representation, on merits. (s) Subsequently, the petitioner made a representation dated 18.2.2010 to the Government to grant permission to quarry sand manually for the un-expired period of six months in lease deed dated 4.2.2009. (t) THEreafter, the petitioner filed writ petition in W.P. No. 7423 of 2010 seeking direction to the Government to dispose of his representation dated 18.2.2010. This Court, disposed of the said writ petition on 13.4.2010 directing the Government to pass orders on the petitioner?s representation dated 18.2.2010 within a period of six weeks. (u) Pursuant to the order dated 13.4.2010 passed in W.P. No. 7423 of 2010, the Government passed an order in G.O. (D) No. 95, Industries (MMC2) Department, dated 11.6.2010 rejecting the request of the petitioner to quarry sand manually for the un-expired period of five months. (v) THE petitioner filed writ petition in W.P. No. 13920 of 2010 to quash the aforesaid G.O. (D) No. 95. This Court passed an order dated 10.8.2010 in W.P. No. 13920 of 2010, quashing the Government order in G.O. (D) No. 95 on the ground that the petitioner was not heard before passing the said order and also that the petitioner was not given the report of the District Collector, Cuddalore dated 18.2.2010 and the recommendations of the Commissioner of Geology and Mining dated 12.5.2010. This Court directed the Government to pass orders afresh, after providing the aforesaid reports to the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner. This Court directed the Government to pass orders afresh, after providing the aforesaid reports to the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner. (w) THEreafter, the Government provided those reports and also provided an opportunity of personal hearing and passed the impugned order in G.O. (D) No. 196, Industries (MMC2) Department, dated 21.10.2010 rejecting the request of the petitioner to quarry sand manually for the un-expired period of five months. THE present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the aforesaid G.O. (D) No. 196. The petitioner filed a lengthy affidavit stating that the petitioner should have been granted permission to use Poclain machine. However, the prayer in the writ petition is that the petitioner should be given permission to quarry sand manually for the un-expired period of five months as per the lease deed dated 4.2.2009, since he filed writ petitions seeking permission for use of Poclain machine and in the meantime, the period of lease came to an end. According to the petitioner, as he was prosecuting writ petitions before this Court, he could be granted permission to complete the un-expired period of five months as per the lease deed dated 4.2.2009. ( 3. ) THE respondents have filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner should blame himself for not operating the sand quarry during the lease period and that the respondents never prevented him from operating the quarry. Since the petitioner on his own volition did not operate during the lease period, he could not now seek for permission to use the un-expired lease period. ( 4. ) HEARD both sides. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner now wanted only manual operation of quarry and that therefore, the respondents could be directed to grant the same. It was further submitted that the petitioner paid enhanced lease amount as per the order dated 3.7.2008 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 4367 of 2008 and hence, he should be permitted to use the un-expired period of lease. It was also submitted that since he filed writ petitions seeking permission for using Poclain machine and in the meantime, the lease period got expired, the petitioner could be permitted to operate the un-expired lease period. It was also submitted that since he filed writ petitions seeking permission for using Poclain machine and in the meantime, the lease period got expired, the petitioner could be permitted to operate the un-expired lease period. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments: (a) Division Bench judgment of this Court in C.T. Ramasamy v. Sp. Kaveri Achi 2002 (4) LW 681 (b) Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Katui and Others AIR 1987 SC 1353 : (1987) 2 SCC 107 : 1987-I-LLJ-500 (c) Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and Others AIR 2003 SC 833 : (2003) 1 SCC 726 ( 5. ) ON the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader sought to sustain the impugned Government Order and relied on the counter affidavit. It was further submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that had the respondents prevented the petitioner from operating the quarry, then the petitioner would have right in seeking permission to operate the unexpired period of lease. It was also submitted that neither the respondents nor the villages prevented the petitioner from operating the sand quarry and it was the petitioner, who himself on his own volition did not operate the sand quarry and therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. ( 6. ) I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner was granted lease to sand quarry in S.F. No. 254 (Old) over an extent of 5.00.0 Hectares in Vanpakkam Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District for a period of six months from 4.2.2009 to 3.8.2009, pursuant to the lease deed dated 4.2.2009, which was executed in view of the order dated 3.7.2008 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 4367 of 2008, on the condition that the petitioner should pay the enhanced lease amount. The petitioner has also paid the enhanced amount and operated the sand quarry for a period of one month i.e. from 4.2.2009 to 4.3.2009. On 4.3.2009, he made a representation to the Government seeking permission to use Poclain machine. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract condition No. 7 that is incorporated in the lease deed dated 4.2.2009 as follows: "Tamil" ( 7. On 4.3.2009, he made a representation to the Government seeking permission to use Poclain machine. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract condition No. 7 that is incorporated in the lease deed dated 4.2.2009 as follows: "Tamil" ( 7. ) IN spite of such a categorical condition incorporated in the lease deed, the petitioner chose to seek permission to use Poclain machine and the same was rejected in G.O. (D) No. 150 citing that there is a condition in the lease deed and that if permission is granted for use of machinery, that would result in loss of ecology. The petitioner challenged the said G.O. (D) No. 150 by filing writ petition in W.P. No. 11133 of 2009. This Court upheld the Government Order vide its order dated 24.11.2009 and paras 7 and 8 of the order dated 24.11.2009 passed in W.P. No. 11133 of 2009 are extracted hereunder: "7. Sub clause (6) of Rule 36-A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 contemplates that no machinery shall be used for quarrying sand from riverbed except with the permission of the State Government and the Government can grant permission if use of such machinery will not be detrimental to ecology. It would be useful to extract sub clause (6) of Rule 36-A of the said Rules and the same is extracted hereunder: "No machinery shall be used for quarrying sand from river beds, except with the permission of the Secretary to Government, INdustries Department or any other authority or Officer, as may be authorised by him in this behalf, who may grant such permission if use of such machinery will not be detrimental to ecology." 8. Furthermore, while granting lease to the petitioner, the lease deed contains a specific clause that the petitioner shall not use machinery for carrying on sand quarry. The petitioner has accepted the said condition. While so, now he cannot be heard to say that he shall be permitted to use poclain machinery for carrying on sand quarry. The authority viz., the first respondent has considered the request of the petitioner and found that the petitioner cannot be allowed to use poclain machinery for carrying on sand quarry. The report of the District Collector, Cuddalore that has been relied on by the first respondent states that the use of machinery will be detrimental to ecology. The authority viz., the first respondent has considered the request of the petitioner and found that the petitioner cannot be allowed to use poclain machinery for carrying on sand quarry. The report of the District Collector, Cuddalore that has been relied on by the first respondent states that the use of machinery will be detrimental to ecology. When such a report was received from the District Collector, Cuddalore, the Government had thought it fit not to grant permission to the petitioner to use the machinery, especially poclain for carrying on sand quarry. Thus, the Government had applied its mind while rejecting the request of the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the first respondent dated 14.5.2009." ( 8. ) THOUGH the petitioner filed an appeal in W.A. No. 66 of 2010 against the aforesaid order dated 24.11.2009, he had withdrawn the same. Hence, the order dated 24.11.2009 passed in W.P. No. 11133 of 2009 attained finality. In the meantime, the period of lease also expired. While withdrawing the writ appeal, he sought permission to make representation to the Government seeking permission to operate the un-expired portion of lease. Accordingly, liberty was granted and the petitioner also made representation and the same was rejected by the Government in G.O. (D) No. 95, Industries (MMC.2) Department, dated 11.6.2010. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed writ petition in W.P. No. 13920 of 2010 and this Court quashed the said G.O. (D) No. 95 on 10.8.2010 on the ground that the report of the District Collector as well as the report of the Commissioner of Geology and Mining relied on in G.O. (D) No. 95 was not furnished to the petitioner and moreover, the petitioner was not heard before passing the said order. Thereafter, the order of this Court dated 10.8.2010 in W.P. No. 13920 of 2010 has been complied and the impugned order in G.O. (D) No. 196, Industries (MMC.2) Department, dated 21.10.2010 came to be passed, after considering all aspects of the matter. Thereafter, the order of this Court dated 10.8.2010 in W.P. No. 13920 of 2010 has been complied and the impugned order in G.O. (D) No. 196, Industries (MMC.2) Department, dated 21.10.2010 came to be passed, after considering all aspects of the matter. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract para 4(b) of the impugned, which reads as follows: "4(b) Even after obtaining the quarry lease, the petitioner has filed to operate the subject sand quarry from 4.3.2009 to 3.8.2009 of his own choice." As correctly stated in the impugned order, it was the own choice of the petitioner in not operating the quarry from 4.3.2009 to 3.8.2009. As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, it is a different matter if the petitioner was prevented from operating the sand quarry at the instance of the respondents or due to some other reasons such as by the villagers or otherwise. Here, the petitioner operated the sand quarry for one month and thereafter, insisted for using of Poclain machine contrary to the conditions of the lease deed. He had chosen to file writ petitions and also lost in almost all the cases. Then, he has to blame for himself. ( 9. ) THE judgments relied on the learned senior counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of this case. In the Division Bench judgment of this Court in C.T. Ramasamy v. Sp. Kaveri Achi (supra), which arose out of O.S.A, the appellant therein filed an application for issue of probate in respect of a will. THE respondent therein filed caveat petition No. 158 of 2001 under Section 148-A of C.P.C. on 24.7.2001. Necessary affidavit as prescribed under Original Side Rules was not filed in time. Hence, the respondent filed an application to condone the delay of 229 days in filing the affidavit. THE said application was allowed by a learned single Judge and the O.S.A was against the said order of the learned single Judge. This Court found that there is no limitation for filing caveat application. While the Division Bench found that the order of the learned single Judge could not be sustained, taking into account the aforesaid fact that the caveat application could be filed without reference to limitation, directed the respondent to file a fresh caveat petition. I am unable to understand as to how this judgment could help the petitioner. ( 10. While the Division Bench found that the order of the learned single Judge could not be sustained, taking into account the aforesaid fact that the caveat application could be filed without reference to limitation, directed the respondent to file a fresh caveat petition. I am unable to understand as to how this judgment could help the petitioner. ( 10. ) IN the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Katui and Others (supra), the State of Jammu and Kashmir preferred an appeal against enhancement of compensation in respect of acquisition of lands. There was a delay of four days in preferring the appeal. The application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of four days was dismissed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. On appeal, the Honourable Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and held that the delay of four days ought to have been condoned and hyper-technical approach could not be adopted in those matters. I am not able to understand as to how this judgment would help the petitioner. In the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and Others (supra), the petitioner therein was granted sand quarry lease for a period of one year. After the expiry of one year lease period, the District Collector granted renewal of lease for two years, taking into account the fact that originally the petitioner should have been granted three years lease as per the Government Order and by mistake, he was granted only one year lease. The renewal of lease was questioned by a competitor by preferring a revision before the State of Uttar Pradesh. The State allowed the revision on the ground that the State decided to hold auction of mining rights and the auction could fetch more revenue to the State. The matter went to the Honourable Supreme Court and the Honourable Supreme Court set aside the order of the State and permitted the petitioner therein to operate for the unexpired period of lease, though the period already expired. The Honourable Supreme Court held that the petitioner was prevented from operating the sand quarry because of the action of the State Government. The relevant passage in para 6 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: "6.... The Honourable Supreme Court held that the petitioner was prevented from operating the sand quarry because of the action of the State Government. The relevant passage in para 6 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: "6.... The operation had to be stopped because of the order of the State Government intervening which order has been found unsustainable in accordance with stipulations contained in the mining lease consistently with GO issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh..." In view of the aforesaid finding, the petitioner therein was permitted to operate the quarry for the un-expired period of lease. In my view, the said judgment could not be applied here, since the petitioner herein was not prevented by the respondents from operating the quarry. If it is so, the petitioner could very well be justified in asking for operating un-expired lease period. As stated in para 4(b) of the impugned order, it was his own choice in not operating during the lease period. Hence, the petitioner has no right to operate sand quarry for the un-expired lease period. ( 11. ) IN these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.