Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider and to grant the necessary permit to the petitioner, to quarry stones from the land bearing S.No.113(Part), admeasuring 2.00.0 Hectares, in Udayapatti Village, Salem Taluk, Salem District, for a period of 10 years from the date of execution of the lease deed, as notified in the Salem District Gazette Extra Ordinary (Issue No.22), dated 15.6.2006, as per Rule 8(8) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Rules, 1959. 2. The petitioner has stated that the District Collector, Salem District, had issued a notification in the Salem District Gazette Extra Ordinary (Issue No.22), dated 15.6.2006, notifying the poramboke land bearing S.No.113(Part) admeasuring 2.00.0 Hectares, in Udayapatti Village, Salem Taluk, Salem District, for the quarrying of stones, for a period of 10 years, to the successful tenderer/bidder, through a tender-cum-auction, and had called for sealed tenders to be submitted on 6.7.2006. The open auction had been fixed to be held on 7.7.2006. The said notification came to be issued under Rule 8 of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The land in question being a virgin land, the period of lease was fixed as 10 years. Accordingly, the public auction had been called for the granting of the lease relating to the said land, for the purpose of quarrying stones, for a period of 10 years. 3. The petitioner has further stated that he had submitted the tender application and had offered a sum of Rs.8,05,000/-, as an one time lease amount, for the quarrying of stones in the land in question. The petitioner had participated in the public auction conducted on 7.7.2006. He had offered an amount of Rs.4,97,000/- as the bid amount. Since, the amount of Rs.8,05,000/-, offered in the tender application, was the highest among the tenderers/bidders the petitioner had been declared as the successful tenderer, eligible to get the lease for a period of 10 years. The petitioner had submitted a demand draft for 10% of the tender amount. Thereafter, the petitioner had also remitted the balance 90% of the tender amount, on 12.7.2006, within the stipulated time. The petitioner had submitted a demand draft for 10% of the tender amount. Thereafter, the petitioner had also remitted the balance 90% of the tender amount, on 12.7.2006, within the stipulated time. By the proceedings, dated 20.7.2006, the respondent had granted the lease to the petitioner to quarry stones in the land in question, for a period of 5 years from the date of the execution of the lease deed. Thus, the leased period was from 12.1.2007 to 11.1.2012. 4. The petitioner has further stated that the offer of Rs.8,05,000/-, made by the petitioner in the tender application was for a period of 10 years. The petitioner had never accepted the lease period of 5 years, as alleged in the proceedings of the respondent, by which the lease had been granted. On enquiry the petitioner had been informed that the lease amount of Rs.8,05,000/-was below the upset price fixed by the Government and therefore, the amount offered by the petitioner would be only for a period of 5 years. The petitioner had also been informed that the lease deed had to be executed for the granting of lease for a period of 5 years, without any objections. 5. The petitioner has further stated that, immediately after the execution of the lease deed, he had submitted a representation to the District Collector, Salem, the respondent herein, through the Assistant Director (Geology and Mining), Salem, on 7.3.2007, requesting for the grant of lease, for a period of 10 years, as per the notification issued by the respondent. However, the said representation had not been considered by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner had submitted a further representation, dated 10.10.2011, to the respondent, requesting him to grant the lease in favour of the petitioner for a further period of 5 years. The respondent had not considered the same. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the lease granted in favour of the petitioner for the quarrying of stones in the land in question ought to have been granted for a period of 10 years, as per the notification issued by the respondent in the Salem District Gazette Extra Ordinary (Issue No.22), dated 15.6.2006. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the lease granted in favour of the petitioner for the quarrying of stones in the land in question ought to have been granted for a period of 10 years, as per the notification issued by the respondent in the Salem District Gazette Extra Ordinary (Issue No.22), dated 15.6.2006. The petitioner had participated in the tender-cum-auction only on the understanding that the lease period would be granted for a period of 10 years, as per the said notification. The petitioner had participated in the auction held on 7.7.2006 and the amount of Rs.8,05,000/- was offered as the bid amount keeping in mind that the period of lease would be granted for 10 years, as the tender-cum-auction was in respect of a virgin land. 7. The learned counsel had further submitted that, as per the amended Rule 8(8) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, the respondent ought to have granted the lease only for a period of 10 years, in respect of a virgin quarry. However the respondent had restricted the lease period to 5 years, without the authority of law. Even though the petitioner had executed the lease deed for a period of 5 years, it cannot be said that the petitioner had accepted the decision of the respondent to grant the lease only for a period of 5 years. The respondent had acted in an arbitrary and illegal manner in restricting the lease period to 5 years, instead of granting it for a period of 10 years, as per the notification, dated 15.6.2006. 8. The learned counsel had further submitted that the lease period of 5 years, fixed by the District Collector, is contrary to law and therefore, it cannot be held to be valid. He had further submitted that the decision of the larger Bench of this Court, dated 19.8.2011, made in W.A.(MD) Nos.553 and 709 of 2010 etc. (batch), would not apply to the present case. He had submitted that all the writ appeals and the writ petitions in the batch of cases, dealt with by the larger bench of this Court, were cases, wherein the notification issued by the District Collector concerned had specified the lease period as 5 years. (batch), would not apply to the present case. He had submitted that all the writ appeals and the writ petitions in the batch of cases, dealt with by the larger bench of this Court, were cases, wherein the notification issued by the District Collector concerned had specified the lease period as 5 years. However, in the present case the lease period had been stated to be 10 years, in the notification issued by the respondent, in the Salem District Gazette Extra Ordinary (Issue No.22), dated 15.6.2006, in respect of the land in question. 9. It had been further stated that two types of cases had been dealt with by the larger bench. The first type of cases were relating to the leases granted in respect of virgin quarries, for a period of 5 years, before the amendment of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, came into existence. The second type of cases were granted for a period of 5 years, by way of notifications, after the amendment had come into existence. However, the said decision of this Court, dated 19.8.2011, does not cover the case, as that of the petitioner, wherein, the District Collector concerned had issued a notification for the grant of lease for quarrying stones stating that the lease would be granted for a period of 10 years and thereafter, the lease period had been mentioned as 5 years in the lease agreement. 10. Further, the petitioner had made the highest bid of Rs.8,05,000/- under the impression that the lease would be granted for a period of 10 years, as notified by the District Collector concerned. If the petitioner had known that the lease would be restricted to 5 years, he would not have made the bid, as he would not be in a position to make sufficient profits during the lease period of 5 years. As such, the impugned order of the respondent is contrary to the principles of Legitimate Expectation and Promissory Estoppel. In such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to demand the grant of extension of lease for a further period of 5 years, in respect of the virgin quarry in question, as per the amended Rule 8(8) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner had placed before this Court the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, reported in C.Muthukrishnan Vs. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner had placed before this Court the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, reported in C.Muthukrishnan Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District ( 2011(5) CTC 577 ), wherein, it had been held that even though the amended Rule 8(8) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, confers a right on the lessee, in respect of a virgin quarry, for a period of 10 years, when parties to the lease deed had agreed for a lesser period, the lessee cannot claim extension of lease under the said amended rule. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner had pointed out that the case of the petitioner would fall under a different category, wherein, the notification issued by the District Collector concerned, in respect of the period of lease, for quarrying of stones, was for a period of 10 years and the said period had been reduced to 5 years, in the lease deed executed between the petitioner and the respondent. 12. The learned counsel had also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, reported in Union Territory, Chandigarh, Admn. Vs. Managing Society Goswami, GO SDC (1996 (7) SCC 665), wherein, it had been held that a contract in violation of the mandatory provisions of law can only be read and enforced in terms of the law and in no other way. Therefore, the lease deed entered into between the petitioner and the respondent, for quarrying of stones in the land in question, should be interpreted in terms of the amended Rule 8(8) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. As such, the petitioner would be entitled for the extension of lease for a further period of 5 years from the date of the expiry of the originallease, which had been granted in his favour. 13. Per contra the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted, on instructions, that the claim of the petitioner, for extension of lease for a further period of 5 years cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He had further submitted that the upset price fixed for the grant of lease in respect of the land in question, for a period of 10 years was Rs.12,30,000/-. It was fixed at Rs.6,15,000/- for the reduced period of 5 years. The bid amount of the petitioner was only Rs.8,05,000/-. He had further submitted that the upset price fixed for the grant of lease in respect of the land in question, for a period of 10 years was Rs.12,30,000/-. It was fixed at Rs.6,15,000/- for the reduced period of 5 years. The bid amount of the petitioner was only Rs.8,05,000/-. The fact that the lease would be granted only for a period of 5 years had been intimated to all the bidders, on 4.7.2006 itself. Thereafter, the auction had been held on 7.7.2006. 14. It had been further stated that the petitioner had accepted the lease granted in his favour knowing full well that the period of lease was only for a period of 5 years. In fact, the petitioner had executed the lease deed, dated 12.1.2007, wherein, it has been clearly stated that the period of lease is 5 years and not 10 years, as notified earlier. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to state that he had made the bid under the impression that the lease would be granted in his favour for a period of 10 years. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that no representation had been made by the petitioner, as claimed by him, immediately, after the execution of the lease deed. It was made clear that the lease period would only be for a period of 5 years even before he had taken part in the auction. He had further submitted that the decision of the larger Bench of this Court, dated 19.8.2011, made in W.A.(MD) Nos.553 and 709 of 2010 etc. (batch) would be squarely applicable to the present case of the petitioner and therefore, the claim made by the petitioner, for extension of the lease, for a further period of 5 years, cannot be granted. 16. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, and on a perusal of the records available, and in view of the decisions cited before this Court, it is clear that the petitioner had executed the lease deed knowing full well that the lease period is 5 years and not 10 years, as claimed by the petitioner. Even though Rule 8(8) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, states that the lease granted, in respect of the virgin quarries, would be for a period of 10 years, it would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner, as he had agreed for the restriction of the lease period in the lease deed, for 5 years. 17. Eventhough, the notification issued by the respondent, in the Salem District Gazette Extra Ordinary (Issue No.22), dated 15.6.2006, states that the period of lease would be for 10 years, there is no legal bar prohibiting the parties from agreeing to settle for a lesser period. It cannot be said that such an agreement, between the parties concerned, would be illegal, being contrary to Rule 8(8) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. 18. It is also clear that the decision of the larger Bench of this Court, dated 19.8.2011, made in W.A.(MD) Nos.553 and 709 of 2010 etc. (batch), would also be applicable to the present case in hand, as it recognises the right of the parties to the lease deed, to agree for a lesser period of lease, notwithstanding the fact that Rule 8(8) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, states that the lease granted in respect of virgin quarries would be for a period of 10 years. As such, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.