JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has applied for permission to quarry 5000 lorry loads of Savudu in PWD Tank comprised in S.No.187 of Kumara Sirulupakkam village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District under Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 1959. Based on the application, the first respondent has issued proceedings dated 19.7.2012 granting permission to quarry 4731 lorry loads of Savudu for the period of 50 days from 19.7.2012 to 16.9.2012 on payment of charges. 2. According to the petitioner, he made a representation, dated 01.08.2012 that due to heavy rain, he could not do quarrying operations and he did not even use the despatch slip issued for transportation of 2500 lorry loads. According to him, he returned the despatch slips on 1.8.2012 and requested to issue despatch slips for unquarried minerals and to give permission to remove the remaining 2231 lorry loads of Savudu in March and April, 2013. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation, dated 1.4.2013 based on his earlier representation, dated 1.8.2012 to the first respondent and has sought permission to remove remaining lorry loads of Savudu. 4. Now, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to dispose of his representation, dated 1.4.2013. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has repeated the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The District Collector has issued an order, dated 19.7.2012 permitting the writ petitioner to remove 4731 lorry loads of Savudu between 19.7.2012 and 16.9.2012. Initially, despatch slips for removing 2500 lorry loads were given. It is stated that thereafter despatch slips to remove 2231 lorry loads would be issued. The petitioner was given permission to remove Savudu during the period between 19.7.2012 and 16.9.2012. If he failed to remove the same, he could not ask permission as a matter of right thereafter to remove Savudu. Further more, it is not even stated in his letter dated 1.8.2012 as to when there was rain. Since the period from 19.7.2012 to 16.9.2012 falls in summer, it is not believable that there was such heavy rain that prevented him from removing Savudu. Further, there is no evidence produced for having given the letter dated 1.8.2012. Likewise, there is no evidence that he gave the representation, dated 1.4.2013. Since the period from 19.7.2012 to 16.9.2012 falls in summer, it is not believable that there was such heavy rain that prevented him from removing Savudu. Further, there is no evidence produced for having given the letter dated 1.8.2012. Likewise, there is no evidence that he gave the representation, dated 1.4.2013. At the most, he can claim any damages by approaching the competent civil court, that too subject to law of limitation. The petitioner has no legal right to seek for a direction to the first respondent to give permission to remove Savudu after the expiry of days mentioned in the order, dated 19.7.2012 of the first respondent. Hence, I am not inclined to issue any direction to the first respondent to pass orders on the representation. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.