Judgment 1. Material on record discloses that earlier, the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus in W.P.No.30570 of 2012 directing the respondents 1 to 3 therein, to consider the representation dated 14.09.2012 and not to grant lease to Mr.T.Subramani, the 4th respondent therein, for conducting quarrying operation in S.F.No.172/13 and 172/14 in Thuyampurnthurai Village Erode District. The writ petition has been disposed of on 16.11.2012, directing the District Collector, Erode District, Erode to consider the representation of the petitioners, as well as to provide an opportunity to the 4th respondent therein, to avoid allegations of violation of principles of natural justice and to dispose the same, on merits and in accordance with law, expeditiously. 2. Pursuant to the directions, stated supra, after considering the statements of 13 petitioners and Mr.T.Subramani, the 4th respondent, reports of the authorities and documents, vide order in R.C.No.37611/2013/X-1 dated 31.10.2013, the District Collector, Erode, has rejected the objections of the petitioners to grant of lease. The District Collector, Erode has given various reasons for arriving at his conclusion that the objections and request made by the petitioners in their representation dated 14.09.2012, are not acceptable. Though, while rejecting the representation dated 14.09.2012, the District Collector, Erode District in his order has also made it clear that an alternative appeal remedy is available under rule 36-C(2) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, and an appeal can be made, to the Commissioner, Geology and Mining Department, Chennai, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, the present writ petition has been filed assailing the order on various grounds, without filing an appeal. 3. When the matter came up for admission, by inviting the attention of this Court to Rule 36-C of Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and the operative portion of the order dated 31.10.2013 of the District Collector, Erode, a question was posed to Mr.V.Bharathidasan, learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the appeal, as contemplated under the rules was not preferred, when the statute has prescribed a procedure. 4. 4. In response to the same, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal remedy, provided for, under Rule 36-C, is only with reference to the penalty to be imposed against any person under Rule 36 and that in the abovesaid circumstances, the petitioners are constrained to prefer this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court, deems it fit to extract the relevant portion of the supporting affidavit to this petition. “10..... we respectfully submit that against the order passed by the 1st respondent rejecting our representation, no appeal lies to the Director of Geology and Mining. As per Rules 36-C(2) only the order passed by the District Collector in exercise of posers conferred on him by the Rules alone is appealable. " 5. The objections of the petitioners are that, they are agriculturists, having lands adjacent to the stone quarry. The earlier license granted to the 4th respondent, was likely to expire and for the reasons stated in the representation dated 14.09.2012, lease need not be renewed. 6. Rule 8 empowers the District Collector for leasing of lands for quarrying minor minerals other than the minerals covered under Rule 8-A and 8-C of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Therefore, the District Collector, has to consider the applications for grant of lease under Rule 8 and while doing so, he has to consider the reports of the competent authorities. There is no restriction in the rule in considering the objections also. 7. As stated supra, the petitioners have submitted a representation dated 14.09.2012, objecting to grant of lease. As the said objections remained unanswered, W.P.No.30570 of 2012, has been filed by them, for a mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 therein to consider the representation of the petitioners therein dated 14.09.2012 and not to grant lease to Mr.T.Subramani, the 4th respondent herein, for conducting quarry operations in Survey No.172/13 and 14, in Thuyampoonthurai Village, Erode Taluk and District. After considering the representation the District Collector, has passed the order. After considering the representation the District Collector, has passed the order. Rule 36-C of the abovesaid Rules states as follows: "36-C. Appeal and second Appeal:- (1) 1[Any person aggrieved by any order of the Joint Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director (Geology and Mining) or any authority subordinate to him in the District office of the Department of Geology and Mining or Revenue Divisional Officer or Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar in the Revenue Department or Commissioner of Municipalities and Corporations, Executive Officers of Town panchayats and Townships and presidents of village panchayats made in exercise of the powers conferred on him by these rules or in exercise of any of the powers delegated to him under the provisions of these rules may within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, prefer appeal to the District Collector concerned against such order. In case the aggrieved person is not satisfied with the decision of the District Collector he may prefer a second appeal to the Director of Geology and Mining within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order of the District Collector.]1 (2) Any person aggrieved by any order made by the District Collector in exercise of the powers conferred on him by these rules, except on appeals under sub-rule (1) may, within 30 days from the date of communication of the order to him, appeal to the Director of Geology and Mining against such order. In case, the aggrieved person is not satisfied with the decision of the Director of Geology and Mining, he may prefer a second appeal to the State Government within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order of the Director of Geology and Mining. (3) Any person aggrieved by any order made by the Director of Geology and Mining in exercise of the powers conferred on him by these rules, may, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, appeal to the State Government." 8. Reading of the Rule 36-C, in entirety makes it clear that any person aggrieved by any order of the abovesaid authorities, has a right of appeal to the hierarchical authority, authorized to be the appellate authority. The impugned order passed by the District Collector, Erode District, Erode, need not be an order granting lease to the 4th respondent or imposing penalty. The impugned order passed by the District Collector, Erode District, Erode, need not be an order granting lease to the 4th respondent or imposing penalty. In the humble opinion of this Court, it is certainly an order passed in exercise of the powers under Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and as per Rule 36-C of the said rules, any person aggrieved by any order of the District Collector, under the Rules, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, may prefer an appeal to the Director, Geology and Mining Department, against the said order. 9. The words 'any person aggrieved', 'any order' passed under 'these rules', do not restrict the power of the appellate authority to entertain any appeal, if made under the Rule 36-C, in cases other than penalty or grant of lease. The above words have a wide connotation. 10. Who is an aggrieved person came up for consideration in J.M.Desai v. Roshan Kumar reported in AIR 1976 SC 578 , wherein, at Paragraphs 12 and 13, Their Lordships have held that it depends upon the nature and extent of prejudice and injury suffered by him. Paragraphs 12 and 33 are extracted hereunder: “12. According to most English decisions, in order to have the locus standi to invoke certiorari jurisdiction, the petitioner should be an "aggrieved person" and in a case of defect of jurisdiction, such a petitioner will be entitled to a writ of certiorari as a matter of course, but if he does not fulfil that character, and is a "Stranger", the Court will, in its discretion, deny him this extraordinary remedy, save in very special circumstances. This takes us to the further question: Who is an "aggrieved person"? And what are the qualification requisite for such a status? The expression "aggrieved person" denotes an elastic, and, to an extent, an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. At best, its features can be described in a broad tentative manner. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest, and the nature and extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by him. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest, and the nature and extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by him. English Courts have sometimes put a restricted and sometimes a wide construction on the expression "aggrieved person". However, some general tests have been devised to ascertain whether an applicant is eligible for this category so as to have the necessary locus standi or 'standing' to invoke certiorari jurisdiction. 13. W will first take up that line of cases in which an "aggrieved person" has been held to be one who has a more particular are peculiar interest o his own beyond that of the general public, in seeing that the law is properly administered. The leading case in this line is (1870) 5 QB 466 Queen v. Justices of Surrey decided as far back as 1870. There, on the application by the highway board the Justices made certificates that certain portions of three roads were unnecessary. As a result, it was ordered that the roads should cease to be repaired by the parishes." 11. If any order passed, adversely affects any person, certainly he would be entitled to prefer an appeal provided under the statute, subject to the condition that he should establish prejudice or injury suffered on account of such order. The criteria, as to whether, the petitioners are really affected over the proposal to grant lease to the 4th respondent and their agricultural lands are likely to be affected, is a matter to be decided by a fact finding authority and in the case on hand, a decision has been taken by the District Collector, the original authority under the Rules. 12. Whether the materials on record and objections have been properly considered or not, can always be raised before the appellate authority. The word “any” has the following meaning. Some; one of many; an indefinite number. One indiscriminately of whatever kind or quantity. Word “any” has a diversity of meaning and may be employed to indicate “all” or “every” as well as some or “one” and its meaning in a given statute depends upon the context and the subject matter of the statute. It is often synonymous with “either”, “every”, or all. One indiscriminately of whatever kind or quantity. Word “any” has a diversity of meaning and may be employed to indicate “all” or “every” as well as some or “one” and its meaning in a given statute depends upon the context and the subject matter of the statute. It is often synonymous with “either”, “every”, or all. Its generally may be restricted by the context. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edn.] 13. “Any person aggrieved" in Rule 36-C cannot mean anybody and everybody in the whole world. The words are referable to the context of the subject matter and the scheme of the Act. As stated supra, the objections of the land owners is with reference to the likelihood of damage to their agricultural lands, if the mining lease is extended. Therefore, the objectors would certainly fall under the definition, “any person”. If the meaning of the expression has to be cut down to mean only those who suffer an order of penalty for contravention of the statutory provisions, then the petitioners have to satisfy this Court, under which provision of law, they have a right to make a representation. Therefore, the words, “aggrieved person” have to be identified in the context of the statute. The words, “any order” have to be given the meaning “any decision”, prejudicially or adversely affecting the person. A “person aggrieved” must be a man, who has suffered a legal grievance, i.e., a man who has been wrongfully deprived of something or to whom something has been refused wrongfully. Reference can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in P.Lal v. Union of India and others reported in 2003 (3) SCC 393 . The Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, do not contemplate objections by invitations, but considering the scheme of the Act, the location of the quarry, restrictions imposed under Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, any person who is likely to be prejudicially and adversely affected by grant of lease, may make an objection and if any decision is taken and orders are passed by the competent authorities, such an order can be challenged by way of an appeal. The expression, “any person aggrieved” for the purpose of entitlement of filing an appeal, is wider than the expression “any party aggrieved”, evenso, the person who claims the right to appeal must have suffered some decision. The expression, “any person aggrieved” for the purpose of entitlement of filing an appeal, is wider than the expression “any party aggrieved”, evenso, the person who claims the right to appeal must have suffered some decision. Reference can be made to the decision in Roop Chand v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1963 SC 1503 followed in Behari Kunj Sahkari Awas Samiti v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1997 SC 3123 = 1997 (7) SCC 37 . 14. The powers of the District Collector to consider the objections is incidental to grant of lease under Rule 8 of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Therefore, it cannot be contended that only when a lease is granted or refused, under rule 8 of the said rules, or when a penalty is imposed, a person aggrieved can prefer an appeal and not when an order is passed on the representation made by a person objecting to the grant of lease. If the argument of the petitioners has to be accepted, then it should be construed that under rule 8 of the Miner Concession Rules, they have no right to even make an objection. Though provision does not contemplate inviting objections from public, still objections have to be taken note of by the District Collector, in view of the restrictions imposed in rule 36 of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. 15. Therefore, if the aggrieved person is not satisfied with the order or decision made by the District Collector or any other competent authority, specified under Rule 36-C of the rules, an appeal remedy is provided to the next hierarchical authority. 16. The intention of the legislature, in incorporating the words, 'any person aggrieved by any order or decision under these rules' in Section 36-C, is clear and unambiguous that any person aggrieved by an order of the District Collector in exercise of the powers conferred under the entire Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, can prefer an appeal. 17. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to subscribe to the contentions of the petitioners that no appeal under the rules is available. If such an argument is accepted, it would restrict the scope and ambit of Section 36-C of the Tamilnadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959. 18. 17. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to subscribe to the contentions of the petitioners that no appeal under the rules is available. If such an argument is accepted, it would restrict the scope and ambit of Section 36-C of the Tamilnadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959. 18. Thus without adverting to the merits of the case and by holding that the petitioners have not availed the alternative remedy provided under the Rule 36-C(2) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, the writ petition is dismissed. 19. After the dismissal of the writ petition, on the abovesaid issue, Mr.V.Bharathidasan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the impugned order is dated 31.10.2013, the same has been received by the petitioner, somewhere in the 2nd week of November 2013, and the present writ petition has been filed on 11.12.2013, may be, after one or two days after the expiry of the period of 30 days provided under Rule 36-C, for filing an appeal to the Director / Commissioner of Geology and Mining. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the light of the decision now rendered by this Court, the petitioner may be given liberty to file an appeal under rule 36-C to the Director of Geology and Mining Department, Chennai and that a direction may be issued to entertain the appeal, not withstanding the delay. 20. Considering the said plea, liberty is granted to the petitioners to prefer an appeal to the Director of Geology and Mining Department, Chennai, within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such appeal is filed, the said authority is directed to entertain the same not withstanding the delay caused due to the present litigation. The Director of Geology and Mining, Chennai is directed to pass orders on the appeal, if any, within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the appeal, on merits and in accordance with law. 21. The District Collector, Erode District, who has passed the impugned order in R.C.No.37611/2013/X-1 dated 31.10.2013, is directed to transmit the entire records alongwith his remarks, if any, on the appeal, to the appellate authority, within 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the communication from the Director of Geology and Mining. 21. The District Collector, Erode District, who has passed the impugned order in R.C.No.37611/2013/X-1 dated 31.10.2013, is directed to transmit the entire records alongwith his remarks, if any, on the appeal, to the appellate authority, within 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the communication from the Director of Geology and Mining. Registry is directed to return the original impugned order in R.C.No.37611/2013/X-1 dated 31.10.2013 to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after getting an attested copy of the same. 22. The writ petition is dismissed with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.