Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1724 (MAD)

A. Latha v. Director of Geology & Mining, Chennai

2013-04-22

S.TAMILVANAN

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking an order in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 31.03.2006 made in Roc. No.410/2005 (Mines-1) by the second respondent and quash the same. 2. The petitioner has stated in the affidavit that the petitioner was the applicant before the second respondent on 20.03.2006 seeking for approval of mining plan and that was forwarded to the first respondent and he returned the same stating that the plan should have been submitted on or before 28.02.2004, as per Granite Conservation Development Rules, 1999. According to the petitioner, as the application had been submitted belatedly, after the due date, the same could not be considered. The petitioner had sought permission for quarrying the land in Krishnagiri District, on the ground that the lease agreement was executed in his favour on 06.05.1996 for a period of 10 years and the same was expired on 06.05.2006. It was further contended by the petitioner that the lease deed was reckoned from 09.05.1995 i.e. the date of passing of the G.O. 3(D) No.102/IND (E2) dated 02.05.1995, which expired only on 08.05.1995. 3. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not filed any writ petition against the rejection of renewal of lease agreement by the respondents. 4. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had submitted renewal application belatedly, after expiry of the cut off date, hence, the same was rightly rejected. As the petitioner has not filed this writ petition challenging the rejection of the application for renewal of lease agreement, the petitioner is not entitled to raise any plea against the said rejection. 5. The point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned order dated 31.03.2006 made in Roc. No.410/2005 (Mines-1) on the file of the second respondent as prayed for in the writ petition. 6. Learned Additional Government Pleader drew the attention of this Court to the counter, wherein the respondents have stated that the petitioner had submitted the mining plan for the area relating to subject matter on 01.03.2006 for approval. No.410/2005 (Mines-1) on the file of the second respondent as prayed for in the writ petition. 6. Learned Additional Government Pleader drew the attention of this Court to the counter, wherein the respondents have stated that the petitioner had submitted the mining plan for the area relating to subject matter on 01.03.2006 for approval. As the mining plan was submitted belatedly by the petitioner, after expiry of the due date, though the same was forwarded to the Director of Geology and Mining for taking appropriate action, the same was rejected vide RC. No.410/05 (Mines-1) dated 03.03.2006, as per the rule 17 of Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 for the existing leases, the approved mining plan had to be submitted on or before 28.02.2004. The petitioner belatedly submitted the mining plan in the year 2006, hence, it was returned by the office of the Director of Geology and Mining in Rc No.2502/MM5/2006 dated 20.03.2006 and in turn the same was sent to the petitioner vide Roc. No.410/05 (Mines-1) dated 31.03.2006 by the second respondent herein. 7. Mr. V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had applied for renewal of the quarry lease agreement on 21.04.2005 and the same was forwarded to the Government through Director of Geology and Mining. 8. In this regard, the learned Additional Government Pleader produced a copy of the registered form of lease for quarrying and carrying away minor minerals, dated 09.05.1995, entered into between the petitioner and the third respondent. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, it is a registered agreement, for a period of lease for ten years and therefore, the period expired on 08.05.2005, as per the agreement. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein submitted the application, seeking renewal of lease agreement belatedly, after the expiry date and that was a reason for rejecting the request of the petitioner for renewal. Admittedly, the rejection of the request of the petitioner seeking renewal was not challenged by way of any writ petition and therefore as contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, this Court has to consider only the rejection of the application for mining plan, even the same was submitted only on 01.03.2006 belatedly, after the due date. 10. Admittedly, the rejection of the request of the petitioner seeking renewal was not challenged by way of any writ petition and therefore as contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, this Court has to consider only the rejection of the application for mining plan, even the same was submitted only on 01.03.2006 belatedly, after the due date. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on an un-reported decision dated 22.02.2012, passed by this Court (B.Rajendran, J.) in W.P. No.22670 of 2007. 11. Having gone through the material papers and after hearing the arguments of both sides, I am of the view that the un-reported decision rendered by this Court, referred to above, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, since the decision cited relates to renewal of licence. In the instant case, admittedly the relief sought for is not for renewal of lease agreement but it is for fresh mining operation. However, the application relating to the writ petition was submitted belatedly after the due date, hence, the petitioner cannot blame the respondents and challenge the order that was passed according to law. The present writ petition relates to mining operation based on the fresh application, as per Rule 16 of Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 which reads as follows: "16. Mining plan as a pre-requisite to the commencement of mining operations - (1) No person shall commence mining operations for granite in any area except in accordance with a mining plan approved under these rules; (2) The State Government or any person authorised in this behalf by that Government may require the holder of a lease to make such modifications in the mining plan referred to in sub-rule (1) or impose such conditions as it considers necessary by an order in writing if such modifications or imposition of conditions are considered necessary in the light of the experience of operation of mining plan or in view of the change in the technological development. (3) A holder of a lease desirous of seeking modifications in the approved mining plan as are considered expedient, in the interest of safe and scientific mining, conservation of granite, or for the protection of environment, shall apply to the State Government or any person authorised in this behalf by that Government, setting forth the intended modifications and explaining the reasons for the same. (4) The State Government or any person authorised in this behalf by that Government may approve the modifications under sub-rule (3) or approve with such alterations as it may consider expedient." 12. Even as per rule 17 of Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999, mining plan should have been submitted within the time limit fixed by the authorities. In the instant case, it cannot be said that there was any existing lease between the petitioner and the respondents, as the earlier agreement was already expired. It is not in dispute that the order rejecting the renewal application by the respondents is not under challenge. So far as the rule 16 of the said Rules is concerned, the petitioner could have submitted his application well within the time, however, it is made clear that the application for mining plan was submitted only on 01.03.2006, though the same could have been submitted on or before 28.02.2004, as per rule 17 of Granite Conservation and Development Rules 1999. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to raise any legal plea against the impugned order passed by the second respondent. 13. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner has not even paid Rs.12,00,000/- payable to the Government, in spite of the fact that an earlier interim order was obtained by her in the other writ petition. 14. On the said facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner without challenging the order rejecting the renewal application, has filed the present writ petition, which is not legally sustainable, hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek the relief sought for, since she had submitted her application belatedly, after the due date. Hence, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected writ petitions are closed. No order as to costs.