Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to forbear from interfering with the petitioner's right to transport the quarried granite on payment of necessary seigniorage, in respect of the Government quarry, comprised in Survey No.30 (Part), situated in Panchapalli Village of Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District, till the disposal of the petitioner's renewal application, dated 05.10.2001. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner's renewal application, dated 5.10.2001, is still pending before the state Government. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also submitted that the petitioner had obtained an order from this Court, dated 3.12.2007, made in W.P.Nos.25108 and 25109 of 2001, wherein a direction had been issued to the state Government to fix the revised rental/charges in respect of the quarry in question, in accordance with law, and to consider the application of the petitioner for the renewal of the lease. In the said order, it had been held that the petitioner is entitled to carry on quarrying operations, till the application for renewal is considered and disposed of by the state Government. Based on the said order, the petitioner had been carrying on quarrying operations in the quarry in question. 5. It had been further stated that the petitioner had submitted a representation, dated 19.1.2012, to the second respondent requesting the second respondent to inspect and issue the transport permit for the granite blocks quarried from the quarry, in Survey No.30 (Part), situated at Panchapalli Village of Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District, in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court. Since, there was no response to the request made by the petitioner, by his representation, dated 19.1.2012, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. When the writ petition had been listed for hearing, on 16.2.2012, Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, the learned Additional Government Pleader, had taken notice on behalf of the respondents. Thereafter, the matter was listed for hearing on 21.2.2012, to enable the learned Additional Government Pleader to get necessary instructions for the further hearing and disposal of the writ petition. 6. When the writ petition had been listed for hearing, on 16.2.2012, Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, the learned Additional Government Pleader, had taken notice on behalf of the respondents. Thereafter, the matter was listed for hearing on 21.2.2012, to enable the learned Additional Government Pleader to get necessary instructions for the further hearing and disposal of the writ petition. However, since, the learned Additional Government appearing for the respondents had requested for further time to get the necessary instructions, the matter had been adjourned to 28.2.2012, finally. 7. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government appearing for the respondents had submitted that, in spite of several letters, dated 16.2.2012, and 21.2.2012, having been issued to the respondents, there has been no proper response from them, till date. It has been further stated that a Revenue Officer, attached to the office of the second respondent, had come to the office of the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on 27.2.2012, and had collected the relevant papers. However, no further instructions were made available, as directed by this Court. 8. He had also submitted that the relevant files have been missing from the office of the second respondent. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, had produced a copy of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, in W.P.No.43799 of 2006, and had stated that the petitioner had stopped quarrying operations in the year, 2003, itself. It is also pointed out that, as per sub clause (4) of Section 4A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the petitioner's quarry is a 'lapsed' one. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to make a request to the second respondent, at this stage, belatedly. 9. It had been further stated that the representation, said to have been sent by the petitioner to the second respondent, on 19.1.2012, had not been received by the office of the second respondent, till date. The petitioner has not shown any acknowledgment to substantiate his claim that the said representation had been received at the office of the second respondent. 10. In view of the above, the petitioner is permitted to submit a copy of the representation, dated 19.1.2012, to the second respondent, within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. In view of the above, the petitioner is permitted to submit a copy of the representation, dated 19.1.2012, to the second respondent, within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, with regard to the request of the petitioner to inspect and issue the transport permit for the granite blocks, said to have been quarried from the quarry, in Survey No.30 (Part), situated in Panchapalli Village of Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District, within a period of ten days thereafter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as per law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.