Judgment :- M. Jaichandren, J. 1. The present writ appeals, in W.A.Nos.654 and 655 of 2011, have been filed against the common order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 15.12.2010, made in W.P.Nos.14479 and 14480 of 2000. 2. Both the writ petitions, in W.P.No.14479 of 2000 and W.P.No.14480 of 2000, had been filed by the respondent herein, the petitioner in the writ petitions, praying for the issuance of a writ of declaration, to declare that the retention of the lease amounts of Rs.10,08,332/-and Rs.12,58,332/- respectively, by the first respondent therein, as illegal. The said amounts represented the non- operated period of the lease and the security deposits relating to the quarry leases granted in favour of the petitioner, in S.F.No.323/A, situated in Kodihally village, and in S.F.No.824/3, situated in Ajjanahalli village, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District. The petitioner had also prayed for a direction, directing the respondents in the writ petition, in W.P.No.14479 of 2000, to refund the amount of Rs.10,08,332/-, together with interest accrued thereon, at 24% per annum and the respondents in the writ petition in W.P.No.14480 of 2000, to refund the amount of Rs.12,58,332/- together with interest thereon at 24% per annum, respectively. 3. From the admitted facts of the cases, it is noted that the respondent in the present writ appeals had entered into two lease agreements, based on which quarrying operations had been carried on, as per the terms and conditions of the said lease agreements. While so, the District Collector, Dharampuri District, vide his proceedings, in Na.Ka.No.29195/1993-C1, dated 13.4.1993, had issued an order, under Section 144 Criminal Procedure Code, in respect of Pennagaram Taluk. Based on the said order, the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Dharmapuri, had issued the proceedings, dated 21.4.1993, directing the respondent herein to stop the quarrying operation in the quarry site, which was the subject matter in W.P.No.14479 of 2000. A similar order, dated 3.4.1993, had been passed by the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Dharmapuri, in respect of the quarry site, which was the subject matter in W.P.No.14480 of 2000. Based on the said orders, the respondent had stopped the quarrying operations in the quarry sites. Similarly ban orders had also been issued in respect of certain other quarry sites in Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District. 4. Based on the said orders, the respondent had stopped the quarrying operations in the quarry sites. Similarly ban orders had also been issued in respect of certain other quarry sites in Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District. 4. It is also noted that several representations had been made by the respondent herein, to the authorities concerned, seeking the necessary permission to carry on the quarrying operations in the quarry sites in question. As there was no response from the authorities concerned, the respondent had preferred the writ petitions, in W.P.Nos.14479 and 14480 of 2000, before this Court. 5. On considering the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent, as well as the appellants, who were the parties in the said writ petitions, the learned single Judge had allowed the writ petitions stating that the respondent shall make individual representations, in respect of the leases granted in its favour, for the refund of the proportionate lease amount and the security deposit, along with the interest accrued thereon. 6. The learned single Judge had also directed that, on such representation being received, the State Government shall calculate the proportionate amount for the non-operated period and to refund the same to the respondent herein along with the interest, at 9% per annum, from the date of expiry of the leases, till the date of realisation and to pay the same, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 7. Aggrieved by the common order passed by the learned single Judge, the appellants herein had preferred the present writ appeals before this Court. 8. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the respondent had stopped the quarrying operations in the quarry sites concerned even in the year, 1999, on his own accord, for the reasons best known to it. It had also been stated that the quarrying operations had not been stopped due to the orders passed under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code or due to the orders issued by the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Dharmapuri. In fact, the respondent had stopped the quarrying operations on its own accord. Further, the respondent had not challenged the ban orders issued in respect of the quarrying operations in Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District. In fact, the respondent had stopped the quarrying operations on its own accord. Further, the respondent had not challenged the ban orders issued in respect of the quarrying operations in Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District. No representation had been made on behalf of the respondent to carry on the quarrying operations, in respect of the quarry sites in question. In such circumstances, the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 15.12.2010, in W.P.Nos.14479 and 14480 of 2000, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the appellants, as well as the respondent, and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that certain orders had been issued by the District Collector, Dharmapuri District, as well as the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Dharmapuri, banning the quarrying operations in Pennagaram taluk, Dharmpuri District. 10. It is not in dispute that the respondent had been granted quarry leases, in S.F.No.323/A, situated in Kodihally village, and in S.F.No.824/3, situated in Ajjanahalli village, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District. 11. It is also not in dispute that the ban orders had been issued, pursuant to the orders passed under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code banning quarrying operations in Pennagram taluk, Dharmapuri District. 12. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent had not been carrying on the quarrying operations in the quarry sites in question during the relevant point of time. 13. From the records available before this Court, it is seen that the ban orders had been issued by the authorities concerned, banning the quarrying operations in Pennagaram Taluk, Dharampuri District. However, during the lease period, the lease agreements made in favour of the respondent were in existence. While so, it is not open to the appellants herein to state that the claims made on behalf of the respondent are devoid of merits. In fact, the learned single Judge, in his order, dated 15.12.2010, made in W.P.Nos.14479 and 14480 of 2000, had only permitted the respondent to make the representations, in respect of the quarry leases concerned praying for the refund of the proportionate lease amounts and the security deposits made by the respondent, along with the interest accrued thereon. In fact, the learned single Judge, in his order, dated 15.12.2010, made in W.P.Nos.14479 and 14480 of 2000, had only permitted the respondent to make the representations, in respect of the quarry leases concerned praying for the refund of the proportionate lease amounts and the security deposits made by the respondent, along with the interest accrued thereon. The learned single Judge had also directed that on such representations being received, the first appellant in the present writ appeals should calculate the proportionate amounts to be refunded to the respondent, for the non quarrying period, along with the interest accrued thereon, at 9% per annum, from the date of expiry of the leases, till the date of realisation and to pay the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 14. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the cases and on a perusal of the records available, we are of the considered view that the appellants have failed to substantiate their claims. In such circumstances, we do not find any cause or reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge, dated 15.12.2010, made in W.P.Nos.14479 and 14480 of 2000. Accordingly, the writ appeals stands dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 are closed.