Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent, to refund a sum of Rs.29,83,512/-, along with the interest on the said sum, at 18% per annum. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner has been in the business of exporting granites, from the year, 1972. While so, the second respondent had conducted an auction for the granting of quarry lease for black and coloured granites, on 12.2.1990, in respect of 4.64.0 hectares, in S.No.14/4A2, in Puthiragoundanpalayam village, Athur Taluk, Salem District. The petitioner had participated in the tender. The petitioner’s bid amount of Rs.25,50,010/- was declared as the highest amongst the participants. Thereafter, the first respondent, after accepting the recommendation of the Director of Geology and Mining, had confirmed the bid in favour of the petitioner and had granted the quarrying lease, for a period of 10 years, from 1991 to 2001, as per the order, in G.O.Ms.No.1350, Industries (MM B2) Department, dated 23.11.1990. On confirmation of the tender, the petitioner had paid the entire bid amount of Rs.25,50,010/-, on 12.2.1990, along with a sum of Rs.2,55,001/- as security deposit, and a sum of Rs.1,78,501/-, as stamp duty. Thus, a total sum of Rs.29,83,512/- had been paid by the petitioner, in respect of the lease in question. Thereafter, a lease deed had been registered, on 4.3.1991. 4. It had been further stated that the land in question had been handed over to the petitioner, after the boundaries had been demarcated, pursuant to the letter of the District Collector, Salem, the second respondent herein, dated 20.3.1991. While so, the petitioner had received a letter, dated 16.4.1991, from the office of the Forest Department, directing the petitioner not to start the work in the quarry site, until further instructions were received from the higher authorities. 5. It had been further stated that the petitioner had invested huge amounts of money, on men and machineries, for starting the quarrying operations in the proposed site. However, the forest officials concerned had restrained the petitioner from commencing the quarrying operations. 5. It had been further stated that the petitioner had invested huge amounts of money, on men and machineries, for starting the quarrying operations in the proposed site. However, the forest officials concerned had restrained the petitioner from commencing the quarrying operations. The petitioner had been asked to pay the cost of the plantation raised in the area in question, in spite of the entire amount having been paid by the petitioner, pursuant to the execution of the lease deed, registered, on 4.3.1991. Further, the second respondent had directed the petitioner to pay an additional fee, as compensation and security deposit, and to execute a fresh lease agreement, with the forest department, stating that the petitioner would not be permitted to commence quarrying operation without entering into the fresh lease agreement. Consequently, a Government Order had been issued, in G.O.Ms.No.618, Environment and Forest Department, dated 22.10.1991, directing the petitioner to pay the additional amounts, payable by the petitioner, and to execute a fresh lease agreement, before commencing quarrying operations. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.5273 of 1992, to quash the impugned government order, issued by the second respondent and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to quarry black granites in the land in question, for a period of 10 years from the date of the granting of the permission to commence the quarrying operation. This Court, by its order, dated 23.9.1999, had quashed the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.618, Environment and Forest Department. 6. It had been further stated that a Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 26.7.2007, made in W.A.No.211 of 2000, filed against the order made in W.P.No.5273 of 1992, dated 23.9.1999, had directed the respondents 2 and 3 therein, namely, the Government of Tamil Nadu and the District Collector, Salem, to consider the repayment of the amount paid by the petitioner, as per the statutory provisions applicable to the case, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. In spite of the said directions, issued by the Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 26.7.2007, the amount of Rs.29,83,512/-, paid by the petitioner, had not been refunded, till date. In spite of the said directions, issued by the Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 26.7.2007, the amount of Rs.29,83,512/-, paid by the petitioner, had not been refunded, till date. Further, there has been no proper response from the respondents, in spite of the several representations made by the petitioner, requesting them to refund the amount due to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In spite of several adjournments having been granted, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner could not commence the quarrying operations, in spite of the entire amount of Rs.29,83,512/- having been paid by the petitioner, including the bid amount, security deposit and the stamp duty, in respect of the quarrying lease granted in favour of the petitioner, by way of a lease deed, registered on 4.3.1991. Further, the respondents had not repaid the amounts due to the petitioner, as per the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 26.7.2007, made in W.A.No.211 of 2000. 9. The learned counsel had also submitted that, in similar matters, the Government of Tamil Nadu had refunded the amounts to the parties concerned, along with the interest, at the rate of 18% per annum. A copy of the Government Order, in G.O.(Ms).No.190, Industries (MMB.2) Department, dated 29.12.2011, had been placed before this Court in support of the claim made on behalf of the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had not been in a position to refute the claims made on behalf of the petitioner. The amount of Rs.29,83,512/-, paid by the petitioner, is to be refunded to the petitioner, in view of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 26.7.2007, made in W.A.No.5273 of 1992. As the said order had become final, the interest, which may be payable on the said amount, may not be fixed at the rate of 18% per annum, as claimed by the petitioner. 11. As the said order had become final, the interest, which may be payable on the said amount, may not be fixed at the rate of 18% per annum, as claimed by the petitioner. 11. He had further submitted that in certain recent orders passed by this Court, directions had been issued to the state Government to refund the amounts, along with the interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 9% per annum. 12. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, and in view of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court, on 26.7.2007, in W.A.No.211 of 2000, it is noted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner had paid the said amount of Rs.29,83,512/-, pursuant to the quarrying lease granted in its favour, following the lease agreement, registered on 4.3.1991. It is also not in dispute that the quarrying operation could not be commenced due to the dispute raised by the forest department concerned. Further, it is not the case of the respondents that the delay in the repayment of the said amount, by the first respondent, has been caused by the petitioner. 13. From the records available, it is seen that the amount due to the petitioner had not been refunded, by the first respondent, in spite of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court, dated 26.7.2007, in W.A.No.211 of 2000, confirming the order, dated 23.9.1999, made in W.P.No.5273 of 1992. In such circumstances, the first respondent is directed to refund the amount of 29,83,512/-, to the petitioner, along with the interest accrued thereon, calculated at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of the payment of the said sum, by the petitioner, till the date of its repayment, by the first respondent, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.