Judgment :- The petitioner is a women Self Help Group, viz., Kadalpura Mahalir Suya Udhavikulu. The petitioner was granted lease on 28.12.2006 to quarry an extent of 1.00.0 Hectare of poramboke land bearing S.F.No.27/1A, Block-3A, Elambalur Village, Perambalur Taluk and district for the period from 12.01.2007 to 11.01.2012. The lease was granted after the petitioner was selected among the applicants who are also Self Help Groups. 2. On 4.5.2008, at about 00.15 hours, there was an explosion at Dhanalakshmi Crusher Unit which is situated about 1= K.M. away from the petitioner's quarry. On account of the explosion, one person died on the spot and another person sustained severe injuries. 3. According to the petitioner, after the aforesaid explosion, the first and second respondents asked the petitioner to stop the quarry operation. It is their categorical case that besides directing the petitioner to stop the quarry operation, the petitioner was not granted transport permit. 4. The petitioner made various representations to the respondents to permit them to continue the quarry operation and also to issue transport permit. 5. The petitioner was issued show cause notice, dated 5.5.2008 by the first respondent alleging that the petitioner sublet the quarry to the Proprietor of Dhanalakshmi Crusher Unit and was asked to submit an explanation as to why the lease granted to the petitioner should not be cancelled. 6. The petitioner submitted a reply, dated 10.5.2008 denying the allegations. 7. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur conducted an enquiry and submitted a report, dated 21.1.2009 to the first respondent stating that the allegation that the petitioner sublet the quarry to Dhanalakshmi Crusher Unit was not established. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued transport permit on 31.12.2010 and the petitioner was permitted to operate the quarry from 31.12.2010 onwards. The petitioner operated the quarry upto 11.1.2012. 8. The grievance of the petitioner is that since the petitioner was denied permission to operate quarry by the respondents from 4.5.2008 to 31.12.2010 based on the allegation made in the memo, dated 5.5.2008, the petitioner may be permitted to operate quarry for the aforesaid period of two years and seven months. Though the petitioner has made various representations seeking permission to operate quarry for two years and seven months, no orders were passed by the respondents. Though the petitioner has made various representations seeking permission to operate quarry for two years and seven months, no orders were passed by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to quarry stone from the leasehold land bearing S.F.No.27/1A, Block-3A, Elambalur Village, Perambalur Taluk and district for a period of two years and seven months. 9. The first respondent has filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations. The first respondent admitted in his counter that no transport permit was given to the petitioner. There is no specific denial of the allegation made by the petitioner that the petitioner was asked by the respondents to stop the quarry operation after 4.5.2008 when the explosion took place at Dhanalakshmi Crusher Unit resulting in the death of one person. 10. Thereafter, additional counter affidavit has been filed stating that the submissions made by the petitioner are totally false and concocted. 11. Heard both sides. 12. (i) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the first respondent admitted in the counter that no transport permit was given, it shall be presumed that the respondents asked the petitioner to stop quarry operation. (ii) Secondly, it is submitted that the petitioner made various representations requesting the respondents to permit them to operate quarry and issue transport permit. Since no orders were passed refuting the statement made in the representation, it shall be presumed that the petitioner was asked to stop the quarry operation. (iii) Thirdly, it is submitted that the second respondent sent a letter in Na.Ka.No.PDL2/g (k)R/2008 dated 04.2010, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur, wherein he has categorically stated that the quarry operation was stopped. (iv) The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the passage from the report, dated 21.1.2009 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur in support of his submission that the respondents stopped quarry operation from 4.5.2008. 13. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that there was no written order stopping the quarry operation from 4.5.2008. He relied on Rule 8(8)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959 and has submitted that lease would expire on 11.01.2012 as per the lease deed executed by the District Collector. Hence, after the expiry of lease deed, they could not ask for operation of quarry. 14. He relied on Rule 8(8)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959 and has submitted that lease would expire on 11.01.2012 as per the lease deed executed by the District Collector. Hence, after the expiry of lease deed, they could not ask for operation of quarry. 14. I have considered the submissions made on either sides. 15. The mere non grant of transport permit could not lead to a conclusion that the petitioner was directed by the respondents to stop quarry operation. If the only grievance of the petitioner is that he was not given transport permit and therefore, it shall be presumed that he was not permitted to operate quarry, the claim of the petitioner can be rejected. But, there are other circumstances and more particularly, the letter in Na.Ka.No.PDL2/g(k)R/2008 dated 04.2010 of the second respondent makes it clear that the petitioner was directed to stop the quarry operation. The relevant passage from the aforesaid letter of the second respondent is extracted hereunder: VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED The relevant passage from the report, dated 21.1.2009 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur relied on by the petitioner is extracted hereunder: VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED 16. Therefore, if the report of Revenue Divisional Officer is read along with aforesaid letter of the second respondent, it is clear that the petitioner was directed to stop quarry operation pending enquiry on the allegation made in the show cause notice, dated 5.5.2008. Furthermore, the second respondent has not chosen to file counter affidavit. The first respondent alone has filed the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, there is no specific denial of the allegation that the petitioner was directed to stop quarry operation. When it was pointed out that there was no denial in the counter affidavit, an additional counter affidavit has been filed. I am not satisfied with the additional counter affidavit, as the same also does not come with categorical averments. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to quarry stone from the leasehold land bearing S.F.No.27/1A, Block-3A, admeasuring 1.00.0 Hectare of Elambalur Village, Perambalur Taluk and District for a period of two years and seven months. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.