Judgment :- 1. The District Collector, Dharmapuri conducted an auction for grant of lease for quarrying granites in the land measuring an extent of 1.26.5 hectares in S.Nos.606/1 and 607/2 in Ajjanahalli Village, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri for a period 10 years. The bid amount of Rs.22,05,010/-(Rupees twenty two lakhs five thousand and ten only) quoted by the petitioner was found to be the highest and the petitioner was declared as successful bidder. He paid a total amount of Rs.25,80,112/-(Rupees twenty five lakhs eighty thousand one hundred and twelve) which included security deposit and stamp duty. 2. In the G.O.491, Industries Department, dated 11.5.1990, lease was granted in favour of the petitioner to quarry black granites for a period of ten years based upon the recommendations of the District Collector, Dharmapuri and the Director of Geology and Mining. 3. In these circumstances, a lease deed dated 19.8.1990 was executed between the petitioner and the District Collector, Dharmapuri for quarrying black granites for 10 years in the aforesaid Government poromboke lands. The lease deed also mentions about the deposit of aforesaid amounts. 4. Whileso, the District Collector, Dharmapuri issued a letter dated 21.4.1993 to the petitioner to stop quarrying activities in view of the activities of sandalwood smuggler Veerappan and due to the law and order situation in that area. 5. According to the petitioner, he wrote a letter dated 25.4.1993 to the District Collector, Dharmapuri requesting him to inform the date upto which the mining activities has to be stopped. The petitioner also requested for extension of lease or to pay compensation for the loss sustained by him on account of stoppage of quarrying operation. 6. The petitioner addressed a letter dated 19.7.1999 to the Secretary of Tamil Nadu Government, Industries Department seeking refund of lease amount along with interest at 24% per annum, since which he did not operate quarry. 7. As no order was passed, he filed W.P.No.656 of 2001 praying for a direction to the respondents to refund the lease amount. This Court by order dated 27.1.2006 in W.P.No.656 of 2001 directed the respondents to dispose of the representations made by the petitioner, within three months, after giving opportunity to the petitioner. 8. Inspite of order of this Court dated 27.1.2006, no order was passed by the respondents. 9. This Court by order dated 27.1.2006 in W.P.No.656 of 2001 directed the respondents to dispose of the representations made by the petitioner, within three months, after giving opportunity to the petitioner. 8. Inspite of order of this Court dated 27.1.2006, no order was passed by the respondents. 9. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to refund an amount of Rs.19,50,882/-being the tender amount, area assessment, security deposit, stamp duty etc. in proportionate to the period for which the petitioner was prevented from quarrying operations in the land measuring an extent of 1.26.5 hectares in S.Nos.606/1 and 607/2 in Ajjanahalli village, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District, along with interest at 24% per annum from the date of prohibition of quarrying imposed on the petitioner. 10. The respondents filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations. 11. Heard both sides. 12. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for no fault of the petitioner, the petitioner was prevented from operating quarry for more than 7 years, though the lease was granted for 10 years. Hence the petitioner is entitled to refund of lease amount of Rs.19,50,882/-being the tender amount, area assessment, security deposit, stamp duty etc. in proportionate to the period for which the quarrying operation was not carried on. The learned Senior Counsel also relies on the following decisions in support of his submissions: "(i) A decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 6.9.2001 (S.Bose v. Secretary to Govt. Industries Department and 3 others), (ii) M.Vivekanandan.v. The District Collector, Nilgiris (2003 Writ L.R. 504) and (iii) A decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.10529 of 2000 (M/s.Saketh India Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and another)." 13. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner is entitled to interest, as the amount is retained by the Government during the period for which he was not permitted to operate the quarry. 14. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader relies on the letter dated 14.6.2006 of the District Collector, Dharmapuri addressed to the Secretary to the Government, Industries Department stating that if any person approaches the Government to continue the quarrying operation, the Government would permit quarrying with some conditions and the petitioner did not approach the Government. 14. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader relies on the letter dated 14.6.2006 of the District Collector, Dharmapuri addressed to the Secretary to the Government, Industries Department stating that if any person approaches the Government to continue the quarrying operation, the Government would permit quarrying with some conditions and the petitioner did not approach the Government. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to refund of the amount and the payment of interest would, therefore, not arise. 15. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 16. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the highest bidder and he was granted lease to quarry black granites for 10 years at S.Nos.606/1 and 607/2 in Ajjanahalli Village, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri. He was directed to remit the lease amount, area assessment, security deposit, stamp duty etc. Accordingly, he deposited Rs.25,80,112/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs eighty thousand and one hundred and twelve only). A lease deed was entered into on 19.8.1990 between the petitioner and the District Collector, Dharmapuri. The lease deed also mentions about the deposit of the aforesaid amount made by the petitioner. 17. While so, the second respondent issued an order dated 21.4.1993 to the petitioner directing him not to proceed with the quarrying operation and to report to the office. The reason stated is that due to the law and order problem and the activities of sandalwood smuggler Veerappan, the second respondent was forced to issue the aforesaid order. The said order is extracted hereunder:- "TAMIL" 18. When the second respondent directed the petitioner in the order dated 21.4.1993 to stop quarrying activities, the second respondent did not issue any order thereafter permitting the petitioner to proceed with the quarrying activity. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner carried on the quarrying activities, after the order dated 21.4.1993. It is also admitted that the petitioner stopped quarrying operation after 21.4.1993. 19. There are so many quarrying operators, who are awarded lease to quarry black granites in that area. Some of them approached the Government seeking permission to carry out quarrying operations. In spite of the aforesaid ban, the Government granted permission to carry on quarrying operations on some conditions. 20. 19. There are so many quarrying operators, who are awarded lease to quarry black granites in that area. Some of them approached the Government seeking permission to carry out quarrying operations. In spite of the aforesaid ban, the Government granted permission to carry on quarrying operations on some conditions. 20. It is true that the petitioner did not approach the Government seeking permission to carry on quarrying operations when there was a ban as per the order dated 21.4.1993 referred to above, to carry on quarrying operations. That could not preclude the petitioner from seeking refund of the lease amount etc. It is not the case of the respondents that the order dated 21.4.1993 was withdrawn and the petitioner was permitted to carry on the quarrying operations. The permission granted by the Government to some quarry operators to carry on their operations,with some conditions cannot be cited as a reason for refusing to refund the lease amount etc. The Government or the District Collector or the Director of Mining, after the order dated 21.4.1993 of the District Collector, did not notify the petitioner that if he applied for permission to quarry operations, he could be permitted with condition. Even the instances cited by the respondents related to 1998 and thus those persons were not permitted to carry out quarrying operation for more than 5 years. 21. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the respondents could not have refused to refund the amount of Rs.19,50,882/-being the tender amount, area assessment, security deposit, stamp duty etc., representing proportionately for the period for which the quarry was not operated. 22. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the Judgments relied on by him are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. The entire Order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 6.9.2001 in W.P.No.16876 of 2000 (S.Bose v. Secretary to Govt., Industries Department and 3 others) is extracted below:- "1. Heard learned counsel on both sides. 2. For no fault of the fourth respondent/company, they are prevented from quarrying granite from the leased area covered by the order of the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.3(D) No.38, Industries (MMB2) Department, dated 20.4.1998. It is not disputed that the offer of the fourth respondent for Rs.2,51,00,000/-was accepted by the Government as the highest bid. 2. For no fault of the fourth respondent/company, they are prevented from quarrying granite from the leased area covered by the order of the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.3(D) No.38, Industries (MMB2) Department, dated 20.4.1998. It is not disputed that the offer of the fourth respondent for Rs.2,51,00,000/-was accepted by the Government as the highest bid. In addition to the bid amount, the fourth respondent also paid security deposit, area assessment, first year dead rent and stamp duty, totalling a sum of Rs.2,78,13,700/-. The amount, as aforesaid, namely, a sum of Rs.2,78,13,700/-was deposited by the fourth respondent on 16.7.1998. However, in the face of some objections raised by the public that there was a "kuttai" in the leased out area, the authorities could not put the fourth respondent in possession of the same, enabling them to carry out the quarrying operation. To aggravate the position, by letter dated 18.12.1998, the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining informed the fourth respondent that the request for alternative area cannot be entertained. The net result therefore is that the fourth respondent is left neither with the money deposited, nor with the land to carry out the quarrying operation. Though more than three years have elapsed after making the deposit, the State has not taken any action to refund the same. No counter affidavit is also seen filed. 3. Under the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the fourth respondent is entitled to get back the amount deposited way-back in 1998 with interest. Accordingly, we direct respondents 1 and 2 to effect refund of the aforesaid sum of Rs.2,78,13,700/- with interest thereon at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of deposit till payment, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order or on production of the same by the fourth respondent, whichever is earlier. Since a sum of Rs.1,75,700/-, reflecting stamp duty was deposited by the fourth respondent only on 7.10.1998, we make it clear that interest at 12 percent per annum will accrue only with effect from 7.10.1998. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.24382 of 2000 is closed." 23. Since the quarrying operation was not carried on due to the fault of the respondents, the respondents could not deny the refund of the lease amount. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.24382 of 2000 is closed." 23. Since the quarrying operation was not carried on due to the fault of the respondents, the respondents could not deny the refund of the lease amount. Further, lease amount is kept by the respondents for all these years without refunding the same. Hence as held by the Division Bench in the above decision and the decision reported in 2003 Writ L.R. 504 (cited supra), the petitioner is entitled to 9% interest per annum along with refund of lease amount until the payment is made. 24. The writ petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the first respondent to refund a sum of Rs.19,50,882 (Rupees nineteen lakhs fifty thousand eight hundred and eighty two only) being the tender amount, area assessment, security deposit, stamp duty etc. in proportionate to the period for which the petitioner was prevented from quarrying operations in the land measuring an extent of 1.26.5 hectares in S.Nos.606/1 and 607/2 in Ajjanahalli village, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District to the petitioner along with 9% interest per annum from the date on which the petitioner was prevented from carrying quarry operation, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.