Judgment : R. Mahadevan, J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned Judge, dated 28.02.2014, passed in W.P(MD)No.8771 of 2010. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred according to their litigative status in the writ petition. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are set out thus: 3.1. The writ petitioner sought for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pass appropriate orders on his application, dated 17.03.2010, to issue transport permit to him for removing the limestone already quarried by him, which is lying from 2009 onwards and also to issue transport permit continuously till the expiry of lease period. 3.2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he is the sole proprietor of D.V.Minerals, at Door No.5/278, Junction Main Road, Salem. In 2001, the writ petitioner was granted the mining lease for 20 years from 2001 to mine limestones in the land comprised in Survey Nos.27/4 part and survey Nos.130, 131/2, 132/1, 132/2 and 133/1 in Palayam Village, Vedasanthur Taluk on 02.03.2001 and 16.07.2001 respectively. The mining lease was granted for the lands owned by his father, Venkataraman and in respect of the said lands, the writ petitioner got surface right based on the consent given by his father. In pursuance of the mining lease granted on 02.03.2001 in respect of S.No.27/4 part and 16.07.2001 in respect of S.Nos.130, 131/2, 131/2, 132/1 132/2 & 133/1 of Palayam village, the lessee entered into a registered lease deed through his power of attorney with the first respondent therein, District Collector. 3.3. During the subsistence of the license and lease, the father of the writ petitioner sold the land in survey No.27/4 to the fourth respondent therein, consequent to which, he filed a suit for permanent injunction against the writ petitioner and his father to restrain them from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit S.Nos.27/4, 26/2, 26/7, 26/8, 132/1, 130, 131/1, 131/2, 132/1, 131/2, 132/2 and for smooth running of his business. In I.A.No.456 of 2008, interim injunction was granted in respect of lands in S.Nos.27/4, 26/6, 26/7 and 26/8 and an order of status quo was granted insofar as the 3rd item i.e., the lands in S.Nos.130, 131/1, 131/2, 132/1, 132/2 and 133, based on which, the writ petitioner and the 4th respondent made separate representations to the authority concerned. In I.A.No.456 of 2008, interim injunction was granted in respect of lands in S.Nos.27/4, 26/6, 26/7 and 26/8 and an order of status quo was granted insofar as the 3rd item i.e., the lands in S.Nos.130, 131/1, 131/2, 132/1, 132/2 and 133, based on which, the writ petitioner and the 4th respondent made separate representations to the authority concerned. Also, the writ petitioner informed the authorities concerned about the cancellation of the Power Attorney. On 20.04.2009, the said representations were disposed of, by recording such cancellation, wherein, it is stated that the license cannot be issued to any other person except the writ petitioner in respect of the lease, which was also communicated to the fourth respondent therein. 3.4. While so, the fourth respondent therein filed W.P.No.9811 of 2008 seeking a writ of Mandamus to forbear the Director of Geology and Mining and the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, from issuing transport permit to the third respondent therein i.e., A.Venkataraman or any other person other than the writ petitioner for transporting limestone from the lease hold lands in the survey numbers which are subject matter of mining lease. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to approach the respondents 1 and 2 therein in this regard. He also filed another writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.2940 of 2009, for directing the respondents 1 and 2 therein, to effect change in the retirement of the respondent No.3 i.e., Mr.V.Prabhu Raj from partnership in quarrying license. The same was dismissed by this Court by directing the petitioner therein, to move the appropriate authority for appropriate remedy. Thereafter, the same 4th respondent filed W.P.(MD)No.4127 of 2009 to issue transfer permit to him to remove limestone quarrying, lying in the patta lands in S.Nos.130, 131/1, 131/2, 132/1, 132 & 133. Pending civil suit, this Court was not inclined to go into the same, however, directed the petitioner and the third respondent therein, to substantiate their claim before the civil forum. 3.5. Before that, the father of the writ petitioner executed the sale deeds in favour of fourth respondent in respect of the lands in survey Nos.130, 131/1, 131/2, 132/1, 132 & 133. However, it is the specific case of the writ petitioner that the sale deeds are pending registration and the documents are referred for enquiry under Section 47-A. 3.6. 3.5. Before that, the father of the writ petitioner executed the sale deeds in favour of fourth respondent in respect of the lands in survey Nos.130, 131/1, 131/2, 132/1, 132 & 133. However, it is the specific case of the writ petitioner that the sale deeds are pending registration and the documents are referred for enquiry under Section 47-A. 3.6. Further, the executant of the sale deed, namely, A.Venkataraman, the father of the writ petitioner, filed a civil suit in O.S.No.63 of 2009 to cancel the sale deeds, pending registration of the documents. Pending the civil suit in respect of the lands in the above survey numbers, the fourth respondent therein filed W.P(MD)No.10761/2009, seeking transport permit to remove the limestone lying in the patta lands in S.No.27/4 (part), which is purchased by him from the writ petitioner and his father. The said writ petition was disposed of on the basis of the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner being the sole proprietor of D.V.Minerals having office at 5/278-D, Junction Road, Salem, reported that he surrendered his limestone license in respect of S.No.27/4 and expressed no objection for issuing new license in the name of the petitioner therein, to carry out the mineral operation in Survey No.27/4. The writ petition was disposed of, by giving liberty to the petitioner therein to work out his remedy for obtaining mining lease in respect of Survey No.27/4. The order of the learned Judge was also confirmed in W.A.(MD)No.549 of 2010 by a Division Bench of this Court. 3.7. In pursuance of the order passed in the civil suit as well as in the writ petitions, as above referred to, the petitioner had been carrying on quarrying operation on the strength of the license issued to M/s.D.V. Minerals, having him as sole proprietor and he applied for transfer permit for removing the materials already stored in the quarrying centre. 3.8. It is seen that the writ petitioner was issued transport permit for the month of March and May 2009. When he made due application to the authority concerned for similar transport permit for removing the limestone already quarried by him in S.Nos.130 part, 130/1, 131/1, 132/1, 132/2 and 133/1, over an extent 4:01:0 hectares, the authority concerned refused to issue necessary transport permit, which necessitated the writ petitioner to move before this Court by filing the writ petition. 3.9. When he made due application to the authority concerned for similar transport permit for removing the limestone already quarried by him in S.Nos.130 part, 130/1, 131/1, 132/1, 132/2 and 133/1, over an extent 4:01:0 hectares, the authority concerned refused to issue necessary transport permit, which necessitated the writ petitioner to move before this Court by filing the writ petition. 3.9. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, the learned Judge of this Court, directed the third respondent therein to pass appropriate orders on the writ petitioner's application, dated 17.03.2010, by issuing due transport permit to him for removal of limestone already quarried by him which is lying inside the quarry centre and also to issue transport permit continuously as and when applied for, till the expiry of the lease period. Challenging the same, the fourth respondent therein, has come forward with the present writ appeal. 4. Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the learned Judge ought to have considered that the issue arisen between the appellant and the first respondent herein is civil in nature and in that event, it is for the civil forum to decide the matter and not by way of invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which, is untenable in the eye of law. He further argued that when there is a civil suit pending between the parties in O.S.No.63 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul, seeking to declare the sale deed as null and void, the order of the learned Judge in giving such a positive direction, warrants interference at the hands of this Court. 5. Also, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the first respondent herein had already relinquished his rights in the property in question and more so, he had retired from the partnership firm concerned and even thereafter, the first respondent cannot claim any right as against the appellant herein. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ appeal, by setting aside the order of the learned Judge of this Court. 6. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ appeal, by setting aside the order of the learned Judge of this Court. 6. Per contra, Mr.C.Dhanaseelan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that the first respondent had been issued with the quarrying licence for 20 years from 2001 and though the first respondent surrendered his license issued on 02.03.2001 in respect of S.No.27/4 (part), no specific direction had been given by the learned Judge of this Court, in respect of those lands in favour of the appellant and the civil Court, in I.A.No.456 of 2008 in O.S.No.295 of 2008 had permitted the quarrying operation by ordering status quo to be maintained and the first respondent had been carrying on the quarrying operation in the other survey numbers, except S.No.27/4 (part) and therefore, he cannot be denied the transport permit to remove the limestone already quarried and the conduct on the part of the appellant in refusing to give due transport permit is nothing but arbitrary. It is the main contention put forth by the first respondent that the first respondent had got the license to carry on the quarrying operation and therefore, the right to get the transport permit cannot be denied at any score. Accordingly, he sought for the dismissal of the writ appeal. 7. Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4, submitted that since there is a civil dispute pending between the parties concerned, they should be relegated to the civil Court for appropriate relief. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side and scrutinised the materials made available before us, including the order of the learned Judge of this Court. 9. The only issue that arose for consideration, in this writ appeal is, whether the first respondent is entitled to claim transport permit for removal of limestone already quarried by him, during the subsistence of the order of suspension of mining operations? 10. The learned Judge of this Court found that D.V.Praburaj -the first respondent, Proprietor of M/s.D.V.Minerals, had been granted mining license to carry on mining operation of the limestones in the lands in S.Nos.27/4 (part) and S.Nos.130, etc. of Palayam Village, Vedasanthur Taluk, Dindigul District. The license in respect of S.No.27/4 and other survey numbers were issued on 02.03.2001 and 16.07.2001 respectively. of Palayam Village, Vedasanthur Taluk, Dindigul District. The license in respect of S.No.27/4 and other survey numbers were issued on 02.03.2001 and 16.07.2001 respectively. The lands in S.No.27/4 had already been sold by the father of the first respondent, in favour of the appellant and the sale deed executed in respect of other survey numbers, is under challenge in O.S.No.63 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul. 11. Further, the learned Judge held that pending registration of the sale deed in respect of S.Nos.130, etc., executed in favour of the appellant, he cannot claim title over the same and since the father of the first respondent had lost his right, in S.No.27/4, the first respondent had also lost his right of quarrying operation in respect of the same and therefore, he surrendered the license granted in respect of S.No.27/4. 12. Though the learned Judge of this Court found that insofar as the lands in S.Nos.130, etc. are concerned, the mining license as well as the registered contract are still in force, we find that the there is a suspension order, suspending the mining operation for non-compliance of Rules 45(5) and 45(7) of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988, which was not at all challenged by way of appropriate proceedings till date. 13. It is contended before the learned Judge of this Court that the first respondent herein, had been carrying the quarrying operation in the said lands without any disturbance after getting due permits during March and May 2009 and at the time, when he sought for grant of transport permit, the fourth respondent herein refused to issue the same. The learned Judge, on consideration of the issue, has come to the conclusion that it is not proper to deny such right to the first respondent herein to grant similar transport permit for removing the limestone already quarried from S.Nos.130, etc. 14. It is also held by the learned Judge that there was no order either from the civil Court or from the High Court for preventing the first respondent herein from carrying on quarrying operation and the appellant herein had failed in all his attempts to obtain such order in respect of S.Nos.130, etc. Taking into account all these facts and circumstances, the learned Judge had allowed the prayer sought for by the first respondent herein, which is under challenge before us. 15. Taking into account all these facts and circumstances, the learned Judge had allowed the prayer sought for by the first respondent herein, which is under challenge before us. 15. It is seen that the total extent of mining operation is 4.01.0 hectares in S.F.Nos.130/Pt, 131/2, etc. and the second respondent, by his proceedings dated 16.07.2001, has granted the mining lease for limestones for a period of twenty years in favour of the first respondent. It is useful to refer to the following conditions imposed on the first respondent under the said mining lease: "12. The lessee shall be bound by such rules as may be issued from time to time, by the Government of India under Section 18 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, (Act 67 of 1957) and shall not carry on mining or other operations under the said lease in any way other than as prescribed under these rules. 17.(1) The lessee shall not, without the previous consent in writing, of the State Government, (a) assign, sublet, mortgage or in any other manner, transfer the mining lease or any right, title or interest therein or (b) enter into or make any arrangement, contract or understanding whereby the lessee will or may be directly undertaking mining operations. 17(3). The State Government, by order in writing, determine the lease at any time if the lessee has in the opinion of State Government committed a breach of any of the above provisions or has transferred the lease or any right, title or interest therein otherwise than in otherwise than in accordance with clause (2). 16. Admittedly, the father of the first respondent sold the lands in S.No.27/4 in favour of the appellant and hence, the first respondent cannot maintain any claim in respect of the said lands. However, the sale deed executed in respect of other survey numbers, is under challenge in O.S.No.63 of 2009. Therefore, the appellant is not correct to say that he is entitled to the said lands in other survey numbers, until the civil Court decides. 17. A perusal of the status report in ROC.No.59/2013 (M), dated 09.07.2014, filed by the fourth respondent would show that there were certain violations committed regarding the mining lease. Therefore, the appellant is not correct to say that he is entitled to the said lands in other survey numbers, until the civil Court decides. 17. A perusal of the status report in ROC.No.59/2013 (M), dated 09.07.2014, filed by the fourth respondent would show that there were certain violations committed regarding the mining lease. The relevant portion of the said report, is extracted hereunder: "On verification of mining lease area and office records with the acts and rules, the following violations are observed. i) The lease period is from 31.8.2001 to 30.8.2021. The lessee has not submitted the approved scheme of mining plan for the subsequent 5 year period as per rules and act. ii) Further vide Govt. of India, Ministry of Mines, IBM,/TN/TAN/LST/MDS/Lr dated 1-02-2012 has suspended the mining operation for violation of rules 45(5) MCDR 1988. Till date, the suspension order was not revoked by the IBM. iii) On verification of the revenue records, it came to know that during the currency of lease period, the mining lease area was sold to Thiru.R.Palanisamy, S/o.Ramasamy Gounder vide patta no 789 of Palayam Village, Vedasandur TK, Dindigul District as per Tk8A/258/1418 dated 13-01-2009 without concurrence of the Govt as per Rule 37 and 62 of Mineral Concession Rules 1960. iv) IBM registration copy and no monthly returns have been submitted. v) Only quarried waste material is available in the mining lease area. vi) Since the lessee has not operated the mines for more than two years, it attracts deemed lapse Rule 28(1) of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and Sec. 4A(4) of Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act 1957." (emphasis added.) 18. It is very clear from the order of suspension of mining operations dated 01.02.2012, under Rule 45(7) of Mineral Conservation and Development (Amendment) Rules, 1988, that all the mining operations undertaken by the first respondent came to be suspended for certain violations committed by him. 19. In such circumstances, without even challenging the order of suspension dated 01.02.2012, the first respondent has not made out a case for issuance of transport permits in his favour for continuing the quarrying operations and though the learned Judge had drawn attention regarding such order of suspension, it was not dealt accordingly. Moreover, there is not even a whisper about the suspension order in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent. 20. Moreover, there is not even a whisper about the suspension order in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent. 20. In the earlier round of litigations before this Court, the appellant filed W.P(MD)No.4127 of 2009 seeking transport permits for removal of limestones lying in S.Nos.130, 131/1, 131/2, 132/1, 132, 133 situated at Palayam Village, Vedachandur Taluk, Dindigul District, wherein this Court by order dated 11.12.2009, directed the appellant and the first respondent to substantiate their claims before the civil forum in the pending suits. We, therefore, hold that neither the appellant nor the first respondent is entitled to claim any transport permit for quarrying the limestones in the above said survey numbers, pending suspension order dated 01.02.2012. 21. Accordingly, we find that the order of the learned Judge for grant of transport permit to the first respondent during the subsistence of suspension of such mining operation, is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be interfered with by this Court. In effect, the order of the learned Judge is liable to be set aside. 22. In fine, this writ appeal stands allowed as above and the order of the learned Judge is set aside and the writ petition filed by the first respondent is dismissed. However, liberty is given to both the appellant as well as the first respondent to seek redressal of their grievance related to the properties in accordance with law before the civil Courts, wherein the suits are pending. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.