Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner has been carrying on the business of quarrying dimensional granite blocks and manufacturing of value added products and in exporting the same. The petitioner has been a pioneer in the industry. It has invested considerable resources in developing the quarries and the infrastructure for carrying on the quarrying activities in order to achieve optimum utilization of the available natural resources. 3. It has been further stated that it is a 100% export oriented unit. It had been granted quarry lease, for the quarrying of black granite, by way of a tender-cum-auction over an extent of 9.02.0 hectares, in SF Nos.75/11 and 75/12 of Pazhavalam Village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District, for a period of twenty years, from 12.10.1998 to 11.10.2018. As such, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.43,00,000/-, as the lease amount, Rs.4,30,000/- as the Security Deposit and a sum of Rs.30,100/-, as stamp paper expenses. 4. It has been further stated that the Government of Tamilnadu had framed the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, providing for the grant of quarry leases. The said rules had been amended, from time to time. In the year, 1972, Rule 8A had been introduced, for the granting of long term leases. Thereafter, in the year, 1989, the State Government had issued Dead Rent for the grant of leases relating to minor minerals. On 2.9.1989, the State Government had amended Rule 8-A of the said Rules for the grant of leases, for quarrying granite dimension stones, through a tender system. 5. It had also been stated that the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1959, had been amended, vide G.O.Ms.Nos.1273 and 608, as well as by G.O.Ms.No.103, dated 13.7.1996. The petitioner had challenged the amendments made, vide sub-Clause 9(c) and 9(g) of Rule 8-A of the Rules, as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.103, Industries Department, dated 13.7.1996, by way of a writ petition filed before this Court, in W.P.No.10593 of 1998, on the ground that the said amendments were ultra vires the Parent Act and the Constitution of India. An order of interim injunction had been granted by this Court, restraining the respondents therein from interfering with the petitioner’s right to transport the quarried materials to a place of its choice. An order of interim injunction had been granted by this Court, restraining the respondents therein from interfering with the petitioner’s right to transport the quarried materials to a place of its choice. Further, this Court had also granted an order of interim injunction, in M.P.No.16194 of 1998, restraining the respondents from demanding or collecting Seigniorage Fee or Dead Rent, in respect of the quarries operated by the petitioner. However, the said order of interim injunction had been vacated by an order passed by this Court, on 15.11.1999. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed a writ appeal, in W.A.No.716 of 2000. A Division Bench of this Court had granted an interim order in favour of the petitioner. Similarly, a number of other cases had been filed challenging the amendments made in the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Thereafter, by an order, dated 16.8.2010, the Division Bench had held that sub-Clause 9(c) of the Rules was valid and that the respondent Department could collect the Seigniorage Fee and the Dead Rent. However, the petitioner had started making the payments, under protest, from the year, 2007. 6. It has been further stated that the petitioner had paid the entire Seigniorage Fee of Rs.1,16,58,264/-, on 7.1.2011, without any demand having been made by the respondents. The said amount, paid by the petitioner, as Seigniorage Fee, had been accepted by the respondent Department, without any further demand being made with regard to the payment of interest. While so, the petitioner had received a notice, dated 28.5.2012, from the second respondent, asking the petitioner to pay the interest at the rate of 25% on the alleged belated payment of the Seigniorage Fee. As per Rule 36-B of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, and by referring to the order of this Court, made in the Writ Appeal No.716 of 2000, the petitioner had been asked to remit the interest of Rs.1,76,26,138/-, for the belated payment of the Seigniorage Fee, upto 7.1.2011, within a period of seven days. In the said notice it had been clearly admitted that the petitioner had remitted the entire Seigniorage Fee of Rs.1,16,58,264/-, for the period, from 2001-2002 to 2006-2007, on 7.1.2011. In the said notice it had been clearly admitted that the petitioner had remitted the entire Seigniorage Fee of Rs.1,16,58,264/-, for the period, from 2001-2002 to 2006-2007, on 7.1.2011. Hence, it is clear that, on the date of the said notice, there was no amount due and payable by the petitioner and therefore, there was no necessity for invoking Rule 36-B of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. 7. It has been further stated that, for invoking Rule 36-B of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, there should be a certain amount of dues payable and a demand ought to have been made with regard to the said amount. As the petitioner had paid the entire Seigniorage Fee of Rs.1,16,58,264/- there was no further amount payable by the petitioner, as claimed by the second respondent in the notice, dated 28.5.2012. In such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 19.7.2012, is arbitrary and illegal. 8. It has been further stated that the impugned order passéd by the second respondent, dated 19.7.2012,rejecting the request of the petitioner for the issuance of transport permit, in respect of the black granite quarry lease, situated in the poramboke land in SF.Nos.75/11 and 75/12 of Pazhavalam Village, Gingee Taluk, for the reason that a sum of Rs.1,76,26,138/- is due from the petitioner towards the interest for the belated payment of the Seigniorage Fee cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In such circumstances the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it has been stated that the petitioner is bound by the terms and conditions of the lease deed and the provisions of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. When a certain amount is due from the lessee, the petitioner herein, it has to be remitted, without any delay. The failure on the part of the petitioner to remit the same, within a period of sixty days, will attract interest at the rate of 24% per annum. As such, a sum of Rs.1,76,26,138/-, is payable, by the petitioner, as interest on the belated payment of the Seigniorage Fee. Therefore, the second respondent is empowered to deny the issuance of transport permits, to the petitioner, as per the relevant provisions of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. As such, a sum of Rs.1,76,26,138/-, is payable, by the petitioner, as interest on the belated payment of the Seigniorage Fee. Therefore, the second respondent is empowered to deny the issuance of transport permits, to the petitioner, as per the relevant provisions of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. 10. It has been further stated that the second proviso to Rule 36(5)(bb) states that the transport permits and the dispatch slips for the transportation of the minor minerals shall be subject to the conditions stipulated in the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, and the instructions of the State Government, the Director of Geology and Mining, the District Collector and the District Forest Officer concerned, issued from time to time. Even though the petitioner had the benefit of the interim orders passed by this Court, with regard to the payment of the Seigniorage Fee, it had become due after the said orders had been vacated. Therefore, the petitioner was liable to pay the interest on the belated payment of the Seigniorage Fee, as per Rule 36-B of the said Rules. In such circumstances, the second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 19.7.2012, rejecting the request of the petitioner for the issuance of transport permit, in respect of the black granite quarry lease. 11. Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent, dated 19.7.2012, is without jurisdiction. He had further stated that neither the rules, nor the terms and conditions of the lease, or the tender conditions empower or authorize the second respondent to reject the application submitted by the petitioner, for the issuance of transport permits, in respect of a valid and subsisting lease. In fact, the denial of the issuance of transport permits, to the petitioner, would only result in the loss of the Seigniorage Fee, payable by the petitioner, in respect of the granite quarry in question. Further, there would be a loss in the earning of foreign exchange, as the granite stones are meant for export. 12. He had further submitted that, in terms of Rule 8-A, 9(c) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, the lessee is liable to pay the Seigniorage Fee to obtain the transport permits. On payment of the Seigniorage Fee the second respondent department is bound to issue the transport permits. 12. He had further submitted that, in terms of Rule 8-A, 9(c) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, the lessee is liable to pay the Seigniorage Fee to obtain the transport permits. On payment of the Seigniorage Fee the second respondent department is bound to issue the transport permits. Therefore, the rejection of the application of the petitioner for the issuance of the transport permits, by the second respondent, by way of the impugned proceedings, is arbitrary and illegal. 13. It has been further submitted that, as per the statutory contract, dated 12.10.1998, the petitioner is entitled to transport the granite blocks from the quarry in question, on payment of the Seigniorage Fee. Therefore, it is not open to the second respondent to reject the application of the petitioner for the issuance of the transport permits. 14. It has been further submitted that, with regard to the payment of the interest on the belated payment of the Seigniorage Fee, the petitioner has preferred an appeal, under Rule 36-C(2) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, and it is pending on the file of the Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Chennai. While so, it is not open to the second respondent to reject the request of the petitioner for the grant of transport permits. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the decision of this Court, reported in M/s.Gem Granites Vs. The State of Tamilnadu, 2011 (1) MLJ 84 , in support of his contentions. 15. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the second respondent is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner, for the grant of transport permits, in view of the fact that a sum of Rs.1,76,26,138/-is due from the petitioner towards the interest on the belated payment of the Seigniorage Fee. He had further submitted that when the original lease had been granted to the petitioner, vide G.O.(3D) No.40, Industries (MMB1) Department, dated 20.4.1998, it had been made clear that the lessee should remit the Seigniorage Fee for the granite blocks quarried and transported from the quarry in question, apart form the one time payment of the tender amount. He had further submitted that when the original lease had been granted to the petitioner, vide G.O.(3D) No.40, Industries (MMB1) Department, dated 20.4.1998, it had been made clear that the lessee should remit the Seigniorage Fee for the granite blocks quarried and transported from the quarry in question, apart form the one time payment of the tender amount. Since, the petitioner had not paid the Seigniorage Fee, as per the relevant terms and the conditions of the lease agreement and the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, for a long period of time, by obtaining the interim orders from this Court, the petitioner is liable to pay the interest on the belated payment of the Seigniorage Fee. As an amount of 1,76,36,138/-is due from the petitioner, as interest, on the belated payment of the Seigniorage Fee, the second respondent had rightly rejected the request of the petitioner, for the issuance of transport permits, as per Rule 36(5)(bb) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. 16. The learned counsel had further submitted that the petitioner ought to have exhausted the alternative remedy available to it against the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, by way of an appeal, before the Director of Geology and Mining, Chennai. Instead, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 19.7.2012. As such the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 17. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: (1) M/s.Gem Granites Vs. the State of Tamilnadu (W.A.No.2427 of 2011, dated 19.3.2012) (2) M/s.Gem Granites Vs. The State of Tamilnadu (W.P.No.21191 of 2011, dated 15.9.2011) (3) P.Mariadoss Vs. The District Collector (W.P.Nos.1015 of 2011 (batch), dated 26.3.2012) (4) D.Ravi Vs. The District Collector (W.P.Nos.3905 and 3812 of 2011, dated 20.3.2012. 18. 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 and on considering the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 19.7.2012, is liable to be set aside. 18. 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 and on considering the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 19.7.2012, is liable to be set aside. The second respondent has issued the impugned proceedings, dated 19.7.2012, rejecting the request of the petitioner for the issuance of transport permits, for the transportation of the granite blocks, from the quarry in question, mainly on the ground that a sum of Rs.1,76,26,138/- is due from the petitioner towards interest on the belated payment of the Seigniorage Fee. The issue relating to the payment of the said amount, by the petitioner, as interest on the belated payment of the Seigniorage Fee is to be decided in the appeal filed by the petitioner, before the Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Chennai. While so, it is not open to the second respondent to reject the request of the petitioner for the transport permits stating that the said amount is due and payable by the petitioner, as per Rule 36(5)(bb) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. 19. Even otherwise, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not been in a position to show, by way of the relevant records, that the petitioner is liable to pay the interest on the belated payment of the Seigniorage Fee, in view of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement or the relevant rules applicable to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the lease, in respect of the quarry in question, had been granted in favour of the petitioner, for a period of 20 years, from 12.10.1998 to 11.10.2018. Further, the petitioner has been carrying on the quarrying activities pursuant to the lease granted in its favour and the granite blocks quarried by the petitioner had been transported on the payment of the applicable Seigniorage Fee, without any hindrance. However, by way of the impugned proceedings, dated 19.7.2012, the second respondent had rejected the request of the petitioner, for the grant of transport permits, without having valid reasons to do so. However, by way of the impugned proceedings, dated 19.7.2012, the second respondent had rejected the request of the petitioner, for the grant of transport permits, without having valid reasons to do so. There is no clear rule or regulation or any condition imposed on the petitioner, in terms of the lease agreement, with regard to the payment of interest on the belated payment of the Seigniorage Fee. In fact the said issue is to be decided by the Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Chennai, in the appeal pending before him, on merits and in accordance with law. Further, the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that an alternative appellate remedy is available to the petitioner, before the Commissioner/Director of Geology and Mining, Chennai, cannot be accepted, as the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 19.7.2012, has been passed by the second respondent without having the jurisdiction or the authority to pass such an order. Therefore, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 19.7.2012, is set aside. The second and the third respondents are directed to issue the transport permits, based on the request of the petitioner, dated 28.6.2012, relating to the quarry in question, situated in SF.Nos.75/11 and 75/12, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on the payment of the applicable Seigniorage Fee and the other charges, if any, by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.