Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. It has been stated that the Government of Tamilnadu had granted granite quarry lease in favour of the petitioner, in respect of the patta lands, measuring 2 acres, comprised in S.Nos.454/1B and 454/2A, in Athanavoor Village, Yellagiri Hills, Thirupattur Taluk, Vellore District, under the then existing Rule 19-A of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The lease agreement had been duly executed, on 24.4.1997, and it had also been registered. The lease was for a period of 10 years, from 24.4.1997 to 23.4.2007. 3. It had been further stated that the Central Government had framed the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999, with effect from 1.6.1999. As per Rule 6 of the said rules the minimum period of granite lease shall be for a period of twenty years, with an option for renewal for a further period of twenty years. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed an application for the renewal of the lease, upto 22.4.2017. As the State Government had not considered the renewal application submitted by the petitioner, a writ petition had been filed, by the petitioner, in W.P.No.14997 of 2007. While admitting the writ petition, this Court had granted an order of interim injunction, on 24.4.2007, restraining the respondents therein from interfering with the petitioner's right to continue the quarrying operations, in respect of the quarry in question. While so, a show cause notice, dated 24.4.2007, had been issued by the respondent alleging that the petitioner had quarried outside the lease area and had removed 226.575 cubic metres of granites, illegally. Hence, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.27845 of 2007. This Court, while admitting the writ petition, on 29.8.2007, had granted an order of interim stay of the operation of the said notice issued by the respondent. However, while disposing of the writ petition, this Court had directed that an enquiry ought to be held, with regard to the allegation made against the petitioner. Only thereafter the penalty could be imposed on the petitioner, based on the impugned show cause notice, if it is found to be necessary, as per law. However, while disposing of the writ petition, this Court had directed that an enquiry ought to be held, with regard to the allegation made against the petitioner. Only thereafter the penalty could be imposed on the petitioner, based on the impugned show cause notice, if it is found to be necessary, as per law. However, the respondent, without complying with the directions issued by this Court, had passed the order, dated 28.1.2009, levying penalty, payable by the petitioner, without following the principles of natural justice. 4. It has been further stated that the petitioner had challenged the proceedings of the respondent, dated 28.1.2009, in W.P.No.4415 of 2009. This Court, on 24.4.2009, had granted an order of interim stay and it had been extended thereafter, by the order passed on 3.3.2010. The said writ petition is still pending on the file of this Court. However, as the transport permits had not been issued, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.29218 of 2008. While admitting the said writ petition an interim direction had been granted by this Court, directing the respondent to issue transport permits, in favour of the petitioner, on payment of the necessary seigniorage fee. While so, the First Bench of this Court, by a common order, dated 6.9.2007, passed in W.P.No.2905 of 2005 etc. (batch) had allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondents therein to fix the revised rental charges, while considering the renewal applications. It had also been made clear that, till the disposal of the renewal applications, the quarrying operations would be continued. While so, by an order, dated 9.7.2010, the writ petition filed by the petitioner, in W.P.No.29218 of 2008, had been allowed, directing the State government to pass orders on the renewal application, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. However, the State Government, by a government order, in G.O.(D)No.36, Industries (MMB-1) Department, dated 9.2.2012, had rejected the renewal application. Challenging the said order of rejection the petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.5344 of 2012, and it is still pending on the file of this Court. 5. It has been further stated that the state government had rejected the application of the petitioner for the renewal of the lease, by its order, dated 9.2.2012. Challenging the said order of rejection the petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.5344 of 2012, and it is still pending on the file of this Court. 5. It has been further stated that the state government had rejected the application of the petitioner for the renewal of the lease, by its order, dated 9.2.2012. However, the said order had been received by the petitioner only on 19.2.2012. Immediately, on receipt of the said order, the petitioner had stopped the quarrying operations. Thereafter, on 20.2.2012, the Assistant Geologist had inspected the quarry site and had taken the measurements of the 114 fully finished blocks of marketable granite and had countersigned the stock register maintained by the petitioner. However, he had stated that the petitioner should not remove the blocks of granites, without the prior permission of the competent authority. However, an application had been submitted by the petitioner for the removal of the granites quarried prior to 20.2.2012. By an application, dated 29.6.2012, the permission had been sought to transport 57.396 cubic metres out of the 114 blocks (816.366 cubic metres) on payment of the necessary seigniorage fee. However, the respondent had declined to issue the transport permits stating that the renewal application submitted by the petitioner had been rejected and therefore, the transport permits cannot be issued. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. A counter affidavit, dated 21.7.2012, had been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the averments and allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It has been stated that, since the renewal of the lease application of the petitioner had been rejected, on 9.2.2012, the petitioner cannot be allowed to carry on any quarrying operation in the quarry site in question. Further, he cannot transport the quarried materials, if any. The stocks available in the quarry site could be transported only with the prior permission of the competent authority. 7. It has been further stated that the lease period of the quarry in question had already expired on 23.4.2007. However, the petitioner had been quarrying and transporting granite blocks, for over five years, without any valid extension of lease. The stocks available in the quarry site could be transported only with the prior permission of the competent authority. 7. It has been further stated that the lease period of the quarry in question had already expired on 23.4.2007. However, the petitioner had been quarrying and transporting granite blocks, for over five years, without any valid extension of lease. It has been further stated that the petitioner had kept huge volumes of granite blocks without transporting the same, within the specified period. Further, the petitioner was involved in illicit quarrying of granites in the adjacent poramboke lands belonging to the Government. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted, relying on the earlier decisions of this Court, that the quarrying lease granted in favour of the petitioner, in respect of his patta lands, ought to have been renewed for a period of twenty years, upto 22.4.2017, as per Rule 6 of the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999. However, the lease granted in favour of the petitioner was only till 23.4.2007. Therefore, the petitioner had submitted an application to the State Government for the renewal of the lease. However, as no order had been passed by the State Government renewing the lease of the petitioner, a writ petition had been filed before this Court, in W.P.No.14997 of 2007. Based on the interim order passéd by this Court, on 24.4.2007, the petitioner had continued the quarrying operations in the quarry in question. Thereafter, by an order passed by this Court, on 9.7.2010, in W.P.No.29218 of 2008, the petitioner had been permitted to transport the quarried granite, on payment of the necessary seigniorage fee, till the disposal of the petitioners application, dated 25.4.2006, and re-submitted on 1.7.2008. Even though a direction had been issued to the State Government to dispose of the renewal application of the petitioner, relating to the quarry in question, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, no order had been passed relating to the renewal application submitted by the petitioner. While so, by an order, dated 9.2.2012, the State Government had rejected the request of the petitioner for the renewal of the quarry lease. The said order had been received by the petitioner, on 19.2.2012. While so, by an order, dated 9.2.2012, the State Government had rejected the request of the petitioner for the renewal of the quarry lease. The said order had been received by the petitioner, on 19.2.2012. Thereafter the petitioner had stopped the quarrying operations from 19.2.2012. On 20.2.2012, the Assistant Geologist had inspected the quarry site and had verified the stock register and had noted that there were 114 blocks of marketable granite of 816.366 cubic metres. However, the request of the petitioner for the issuance of the transport permits had not been considered. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the quarrying lease of the petitioner had expired on 23.4.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted a renewal application on 25.4.2006. The said application had been rejected by the State Government, by its order, dated 9.2.2012. The rejection of the renewal application submitted by the petitioner is for the reason that the petitioner was involved in illegal quarrying of granite in the poramboke lands adjacent to the patta lands of the petitioner. Further, the application of the petitioner had not been filed, as specified under Rule 9(a) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. It had also been stated that the mining operations of the petitioner would affect the environment of the Yellagiri Hills and it would also adversely affect the agricultural activities in the area concerned. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had also submitted that the petitioner had no right to quarry the granites after the renewal application submitted by him had been rejected by the State Government, by its order, dated 9.2.2012. Therefore, the granite blocks quarried after the date of the rejection of the renewal application, by the State Government, cannot be permitted to be transported by the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 11. Therefore, the granite blocks quarried after the date of the rejection of the renewal application, by the State Government, cannot be permitted to be transported by the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 11. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, it is seen that the government of Tamilnadu had granted granite quarry lease in favour of the petitioner, in respect of the petitioner’s patta lands in S.Nos.454/1B and 454/2A, measuring an extent of 2 acres, in Athanavoor Village, Yellagiri Hills, Thirupattur Taluk, Vellore District. The lease had been granted in favour of the petitioner, under the then existing Rule 9-A of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, for a period of ten years, from 24.4.1997 to 23.4.2007. As the period of the lease was to expire on 23.4.2007 the petitioner had submitted an application, dated 24.2.2006, for the renewal of the lease. As the state government had not considered the application of the petitioner for renewal of the lease he had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.14997 of 2007. This Court had admitted the writ petition and had passed an order of interim injunction, by its order, dated 24.4.2007, restraining the respondents therein from interfering with the petitioner’s right to continue quarrying operations in the quarry in question. 12. It is also noted that, during the final hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, relating to the renewal of the lease, the first Bench of this Court by a common order, dated 6.9.2007, passed in a batch of writ petitions, had directed the respondents therein to fix the revised rental and other charges and on payment of such charges the request for the renewal of the lease should be considered by the respondents. It had also been made clear that, till the disposal of the renewal applications, the quarrying operations could be continued by the petitioners therein. Accordingly, the petitioner has been carrying on the quarrying operations and the respondents had been issuing the transport permits, in respect of the quarried materials. While so, the State Government had passed an order in G.O.(D) No.36 Industries (MMB-1) Department, dated 9.2.2012, rejecting the request of the petitioner for the renewal of the lease. Accordingly, the petitioner has been carrying on the quarrying operations and the respondents had been issuing the transport permits, in respect of the quarried materials. While so, the State Government had passed an order in G.O.(D) No.36 Industries (MMB-1) Department, dated 9.2.2012, rejecting the request of the petitioner for the renewal of the lease. The said order had been communicated to the petitioner, only on 18.2.2012, through the office of the District Collector, Vellore District. On receipt of the said government order the petitioner had stopped the quarrying operations. On 20.2.2012, the stock register had been verified and signed, by the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Vellore, after inspecting the quarry in question, along with the Special Revenue Inspector Mines. Even though the State Government had passed an order, on 9.2.2012, rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner, for the renewal of the lease, in respect of the quarry in question, the said order had been communicated only on 18.2.2012. It is not in dispute that the said order had been communicated to the petitioner only on 18.2.2012. 19.2.2012 being a Sunday, the quarry in question had been inspected by the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, on 20.2.2012, and the stock register had also been verified and signed. It is not the case of the respondents that the quarried granites do not belong to the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondents to issue transport permits, to the petitioner, in respect of the 114 blocks of granite relating to which entries have been made in the stock register. The respondents shall issue the transport permits, as prayed for by the petitioner, on payment of the necessary seniorage fee and the other charges, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.