JUDGMENT Heard Mr. M.Muthappan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner calls in question the Government Order in G.O.(2D).No.22, Industries (MMC2) Department, dated 16.5.2012, seeking to quash the same and to direct the respondents to refund the balance amount of seigniorage fee and security deposit together with interest. 3. The facts in a nut-shell are as follows: (a) The petitioner was granted permit to quarry 5000 lorry loads of "Savudu" in PWD lake, comprised in S.No.1091 of Pattarai Perumpudur B.Madura Manjakuppam Village, Tiruvallur Taluk and District for a period of 55 days (18.1.2011 to 13.3.2011) under Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules (for short, 'the Rules'), as per the third respondent-District Collector's proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1076/2010/Mines-2, dated 18.1.2011. (b) Pursuant to the said permission, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.5,65,000/-(Rs.4,00,000/- + Rs.1,65,000/-) towards seigniorage fee, Rs.56,500/- (Rs.40,000/-+ Rs.16,500/-) towards security deposit, Rs.8,000/- towards income tax and Rs.500/-towards area assessment. The petitioner was granted bulk transport permit for 5000 lorry loads on 18.1.2011. But unfortunately, due to water spring in the lake, the petitioner was able to quarry only 5 lorry loads of Savudu and surrendered the balance despatch slips in respect of 4995 lorry loads. (c) Thereafter, the petitioner requested the District Collector to permit him to quarry remaining lorry loads, pursuant to which, the District Collector called for a report from the Executive Engineer, PWD about the ground level of the area for which quarry permission was granted. The PWD Engineer sent his report, dated 31.3.2011 stating that the petitioner quarried only five lorry loads of Savudu and he recommended to grant permission to quarry the remaining 4995 lorry loads, on the basis of which, the District Collector granted permission in his proceedings, dated 1.6.2011 to quarry 4995 lorry loads of Savudu for a period of 50 days from 1.6.2011 to 20.7.2011. (d) On receipt of the bulk transport permit, the petitioner was able to quarry only 130 lorry loads. Again, similar problem arose in the lake, viz., water spring and hence, the petitioner could not continue the quarrying operation. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to the District Collector about his inability to continue the quarrying operation and also requested to refund the balance seigniorage fee. Again, similar problem arose in the lake, viz., water spring and hence, the petitioner could not continue the quarrying operation. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to the District Collector about his inability to continue the quarrying operation and also requested to refund the balance seigniorage fee. (e) Pursuant to the petitioner's request, the District Collector called for a report from the PWD Engineer about the status of the lake and the quantity of the quarried mineral made by him. The PWD Engineer sent his report, dated 26.7.2011 stating that the petitioner quarried only 130 lorry loads as per the Mining Rules. On such report, the District Collector sent a report, dated 9.8.2011 to the Government recommending refund of the balance amount of seigniorage fee and other charges. Based on the same, the Government passed the impugned G.O., dated 16.5.2012, rejecting the request of the petitioner. by quoting the Rules. 4. Challenging the said G.O., dated 16.5.2012, the petitioner is before this Court on the ground that the same is contrary to law and passed in violation of principles of natural justice and the request of the petitioner was rejected by the first respondent by passing the impugned G.O., quoting wrong provisions of the Rules, which according to the petitioner is highly illegal and arbitrary. 5. The first and third respondents have filed counter affidavits on similar lines, inter-alia stating as follows: (a) The petitioner was granted permission to quarry 5000 lorry loads of Savudu in S.No.1091 of Pattarai Perumpudur Madhura Manjankuppam Village, Tiruvallur Taluk and District for a period of 55 days from 18.1.2011 to 13.3.2011 under Rule 12 of the Rules, vide District Collector's Proceedings Rc.No.1076/2010/G&M-2, dated 18.1.2011. The petitioner remitted necessary seigniorage fee of Rs.5,65,000/-, Rs.56,500/-towards security deposit and Rs.500/- towards area assessment. (b) The petitioner was issued with bulk permit and despatch slips for 5000 lorry loads of Savudu, vide bulk permit No.39614, dated 18.1.2011 and allowed to remove Savudu from the permitted area. Subsequently, the petitioner represented in his petition, dated 25.2.2011 that since the date of commencement of quarrying, he could remove only five lorry loads by issuing despatch slips and balance 4995 lorry loads could not be removed due to water spring in the lake. Subsequently, the petitioner represented in his petition, dated 25.2.2011 that since the date of commencement of quarrying, he could remove only five lorry loads by issuing despatch slips and balance 4995 lorry loads could not be removed due to water spring in the lake. Hence, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Kusasthaliayar Basin Division, Tiruvallur was addressed by the respondents, by their office letter, dated 16.3.2011, to offer his technical opinion regarding the quantity of Savudu removed by the petitioner. (c) The Executive Engineer, PWD, Kusasthalaiyar Basin Division, Tiruvallur, in his technical report, dated 31.3.2011, recommended for removal of balance quantity of 4995 lorry loads. Based on his report, the petitioner was permitted to remove the balance quantity of 4995 lorry loads for a period of 50 days from 1.6.2011 to 20.7.2011, vide District Collector's proceedings Rc.No.1076/2010/G&M-2, dated 1.6.2011. In the meantime, the petitioner, in his letter dated 20.6.2011, stated that only 130 lorry loads of Savudu had been quarried and the balance quantity of 4865 lorry loads had not been removed due to rain and hence, requested to refund the seigniorage fee. Therefore, a detailed report was submitted to the Government, vide the letter of the respondents in their office letter Rc.No.1076/2010/G&M-2, dated 9.8.2011. (d) The second respondent examined the abovesaid report of the District Collector and submitted his report to the Government, wherein, he has stated that as the quarry lease was not cancelled by the District Collector as premature termination, it does not attract Rule 36-E of the Rules, and hence, the amount remitted by the petitioner cannot be refunded under Rule 36-E of the Rules. (e) Based on the said report of the second respondent, the Government issued the impugned order, rejecting the request of the petitioner for refund of seigniorage fee amount, as it is not attracted by Rule 36-E of the Rules, because, no pre-termination order had been issued. Further, as per the District Collector's proceedings, dated 18.1.2011 in Rc.No.1076/2010/G&M-2, under Condition No.11 of the quarry permit, the seigniorage fee shall not be refunded under any circumstances. After accepting the said condition, the petitioner's claim for refund of seigniorage fee is not acceptable. Further, as per the District Collector's proceedings, dated 18.1.2011 in Rc.No.1076/2010/G&M-2, under Condition No.11 of the quarry permit, the seigniorage fee shall not be refunded under any circumstances. After accepting the said condition, the petitioner's claim for refund of seigniorage fee is not acceptable. (f) The petitioner was given enough time to avail of the opportunity to quarry the quantity of mineral in the area permitted more than once and he failed to utilise the permission by quarrying the mineral within the time allowed and the burden lies only on the petitioner and the Government cannot be held for any lapse or omission and commission on the part of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner has no merit consideration and therefore, the respondents 1 and 3 prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 6. To the above counter affidavits, the petitioner has filed a rejoinder, stating that due to natural calamity, he could not quarry the entire quantity of mineral, and hence, on equity, the District Collector may refund the seigniorage fee for unquarried minerals. But the District Collector referred the matter to the Government under wrong provisions of Rule 36-E of the Rules, which deals with the refund of lease amount, etc., where the State Government made premature termination of a quarrying lease or permit under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 4-A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (for short, 'the Act'). It is further stated by the petitioner that his case will not come under the said category. Since he could not quarry the Savudu due to water spring in the lake, the District Collector himself could refund the seigniorage fee for unquarried mineral. As the District Collector has got powers to collect the seigniorage fee for the actual quantity of mineral sought to be removed, equally, he has also got powers to refund such amount for unquarried minerals. The Rule does not prohibit for refund of the seigniorage fee, which is payable only for the actual quantity of mineral removed or consumed. In the absence of any removal or consumption of mineral, the granting authority may refund such amount. The petitioner further alleges that he has quarried only 135 lorry loads of Savudu out of 5000 lorry loads granted by the Collector. In the absence of any removal or consumption of mineral, the granting authority may refund such amount. The petitioner further alleges that he has quarried only 135 lorry loads of Savudu out of 5000 lorry loads granted by the Collector. The District Collector has not rejected the petitioner's claim on the basis of the conditions imposed in the original grant. The District Collector admitted the petitioner's inability to quarry Savudu due to water spring in the lake and the same was also confirmed by the PWD Executive Engineer in his report. As per the Rules, the seigniorage fee is payable only for the actual mineral quarried or consumed by the lessee. The District Collect or the granting authority may not impose any condition beyond the statutory Rules and the petitioner prayed for allowing the Writ Petition. 7. On the above background of pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material documents available on record. 8. The main focus of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the claim of the petitioner is not attracted by Rule 36-E of the Rules, the respondents may refund the seigniorage fee, as the permit-holder, namely the petitioner, has not quarried the Savudu material only due to water spring in the lake and also due to rain, and hence, the report of the District Collector recommending to the Government for refund of the balance amount of seigniorage fee, has to be accepted. The Government's decision in the impugned order, is contrary to the recommendations of the District Collector and the same is not sustainable. 9. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner has accepted the terms and conditions of the quarry-permit and the period in question ended in two terms, but the petitioner has not quarried the mineral Savudu in its entirety, and therefore, it is not the case of premature termination and only where there is premature termination, the refund of seigniorage fee will be considered in respect of the remaining period of non-quarrying operations. Hence, the Government's decision in rejecting the request of the petitioner is in accordance with law and the relevant Rules, and the same cannot be found fault with. 10. Hence, the Government's decision in rejecting the request of the petitioner is in accordance with law and the relevant Rules, and the same cannot be found fault with. 10. The facts pleaded are not in dispute to the extent that the petitioner was granted permission to quarry Savudu mineral for a period of 55 days initially, from 18.1.2011 to 13.3.2011 under Rule 12 of the Rules, pursuant to which, the petitioner deposited various amounts as stated above, and on such remittance, the respondents granted bulk transport permit for 5000 lorry loads on 18.1.2011. The petitioner was able to quarry only five lorry loads of Savudu and surrendered the balance despatch slips in respect of 4995 loads. Thereafter, he requested the District Collector to permit him to quarry the remaining lorry loads, pursuant to which, the District Collector called for a report from the Executive Engineer of PWD about the ground level of the area in respect of which quarry permission was given. The PWD Engineer sent his report stating that the petitioner quarried only five lorry loads of Savudu and he recommended to grant permission to quarry the remaining 4995 lorry loads, on the basis of which, the District Collector granted permission to quarry the remaining 4995 lorry loads of Savudu for the subsequent period from 1.6.2011 to 20.7.2011. This time the petitioner was able to quarry only 130 lorry loads. Again, similar problem of water spring arose in the lake and hence, he was unable to continue the quarrying operations. 11. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that due to natural calamity, he was not able to quarry the entire quantity of mineral and hence, he claims the relief on equity. It is seen that the petitioner represented to the District Collector for refund of the seigniorage fee in respect of the non-quarried portion, in response to which, the District Collector called for a report from the PWD Engineer with regard to the status of the lake and the quantity of the mineral quarried by the petitioner. It is seen that the petitioner represented to the District Collector for refund of the seigniorage fee in respect of the non-quarried portion, in response to which, the District Collector called for a report from the PWD Engineer with regard to the status of the lake and the quantity of the mineral quarried by the petitioner. The PWD Engineer sent a report stating that the petitioner quarried only 130 lorry loads as per the Rules, on the basis of which, the District Collector sent a report to the Government, recommending refund of the balance amount of seigniorage fee and other charges, and the Government ultimately turned down the request of the petitioner by passing the impugned G.O. on the ground that under Rule 36-E of the Rules, the refund is permissible only in respect of the premature termination of quarrying lease or permit under the provisions of Section 4-A(2) of the Act. 12. In the above context, it is worthwhile to quote Rule 36-E of the Rules and Section 4-A(2) of the Act, as follows: "Rule 36-E: Refund of lease amount, etc., in certain cases:-Where the State Government have made premature termination of a quarrying lease or permit under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 4-A of the Act, the District collector or the District Forest Officer, as the case may be, shall fix the amount of proportionate lease amount or seigniorage fee, etc., that may be refunded to the quarrying lessee or permit holder for the un-expired portion of the lease or permit period with the approval of the State Government and make the refund to that person concerned within a reasonable period after the premature termination of the quarrying lease or permit." "Section 4-A:Termination of prospecting licences or mining leases:- (2) Where the State Government is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of regulation of mines and mineral development, preservation of natural environment, control of floods, prevention of pollution, or to avoid danger to public health or communications or to ensure safety of buildings, monuments or other structures or for such other purposes, as the State Government may deem fit, it may, by an order, in respect of any minor mineral, make premature termination of a prospecting licence or mining lease with respect to the area or any part thereof covered by such licence or lease." 13. A reading of the above provisions makes it crystal clear that under Rule 36-E of the Rules, if the Government is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of the regulation of mines and mineral development, preservation of natural environment, control of floods, prevention of pollution, or to avoid danger to public health or communications or to ensure safety of buildings, monuments or other structures or for such other purposes, as the State Government may deem fit, it may, by an order in respect of any minor mineral, make premature termination of a prospecting licence or mining lease with respect to the area or any part thereof covered by such licence or lease, and if such premature termination of a quarrying lease or permit is made by the Government under Section 4-A(2) of the Act, the District collector or the District Forest Officer, as the case may be, shall fix the amount of proportionate lease amount or seigniorage fee, etc., that may be refunded to the quarrying lessee or permit-holder for the un-expired portion of the lease or permit period with the approval of the State Government and make the refund to that person concerned within a reasonable period after the premature termination of the quarrying lease or permit. 14. In the instant case, initially, the period in question in respect of 55 days, for which the petitioner was granted permit and the subsequent extension of the period on the request of the petitioner for another 50 days, were over, and therefore, there is no question of premature termination of permit as contemplated under Section 4-A(2) of the Act. Only in such cases of premature termination of the lease/permit, the refund is permissible as per Rule 36-E of the Rules, which contemplates refund of proportionate lease amount or seigniorage fee, etc., to the quarrying lessee or the permit-holder in respect of the un-expired portion of the lease/permit period, with the prior approval of the State Government. Since the entire period of quarry permit in respect of both the terms, was over, the question of refund will not arise. 15. However, it is the claim of the petitioner that the quarrying operations could not be completed due to water spring in the lake and also due to rain. Since the entire period of quarry permit in respect of both the terms, was over, the question of refund will not arise. 15. However, it is the claim of the petitioner that the quarrying operations could not be completed due to water spring in the lake and also due to rain. If that is so, the petitioner could have moved the concerned authority at the appropriate time for the said claim within the period of quarry in question and claimed necessary refund in accordance with law. 16. One more aspect to be noticed in this case is Condition No.11 of the quarry-permit issued to the petitioner, issued vide proceedings of the third respondent, dated 18.1.2011, which reads as follows: “Tamil” 17. Thus, it is clear from the above condition that if the lessee is not able to quarry for the period, the seigniorage fee will not be refunded under any circumstance. This also clarifies the position that the petitioner having accepted the terms and conditions of the quarry permit and having remitted the necessary amounts as per law and also having satisfied with the requirements of the quarry-permit, cannot, for the reasons best known to him, make a claim for refund of seigniorage fee, that too, after the expiry of the relevant periods of quarry. 18. In the light of the above stated position, as the refund of seigniorage fee is permissible only in the case of premature termination of quarry permit for un-expired period of quarry, and as in the instant case, the periods of quarry were over, the petitioner is not entitled for refund of seigniorage fee. 19. For the foregoing reasons and discussion made, considering the legal position as well as the circumstances under which the petitioner has claimed the relief, the Writ Petition deserves no merit consideration, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 20. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a consistent plea that the respondents may consider the genuine reasons for non-quarrying the mineral (Savudu) during the periods in question, namely the water spring in the lake and rain, and therefore, he requested that the petitioner may be permitted to explain this position to the respondents by giving representation. 21. 21. Considering the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to give representation to the authority concerned, stating the reasons of water spring in the lake and the rain in respect of the unquarried Savudu, and in such event, it is for the authority concerned to consider the said representation in accordance with law. 22. With regard to the claim of the petitioner for refund of security deposit is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the security deposit is automatically refundable by the respondents on completion of the quarry periods, and in this case, the petitioner has completed both the quarry periods in question. This submission is recorded, with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents and claim refund of the security deposit. 23. With the above liberty and the observations made, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.