Judgment This Writ Petition has been filed directing the respondents to receive the balance tender amount of Rs.6,80,000/- and grant lease of quarrying in S.No.52/2(2) measuring an extent of 2 Hectares, situated at Palamedu Village, Vadipatty Taluk, Madurai District. 2. The petitioner was a successful bidder for quarrying lease in the property in S.No.52/2(2), measuring an extent of 2 Hectares, situated at Palamedu Village, Vadipatty Taluk, Madurai District. On 23.10.2010, the second respondent has called for tenders from the public under Notification in Na.Ka.No.237/2010/Mines, dated 23.10.2010. The petitioner participated in the auction held on 24.11.2010. He was the successful bidder in the said auction and his bid amount was Rs.8,10,000/-. The petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- including the bond amount of Rs.25,000/- on 24.11.2010. The second respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.650/2010/Mines, dated 24.11.2010, has confirmed the said auction and granted seven days time to pay the remaining auction amount of Rs.6,80,000/-. 3. While so, one R.Rajeswari, who is the existing lessee in the said quarry, filed W.P.Nos.13660 and 13799 of 2010 before this Court for extension of lease period. This Court dismissed both the writ petitions by order dated 23.11.2010. The petitioner approached the second respondent on 29.11.2010 and submitted a Challan for payment of remaining auction amount. But, the second respondent declined to receive the Challan by quoting the pendency of appeal filed by the said Rajeswari. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the relief stated supra. 4. The second respondent filed counter affidavit denying various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was directed to pay 90% of balance amount i.e., Rs.6,80,000/-, deducting the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.25,000/- within seven days from the date of Tender-cum-auction, vide Memo R.C.No.656/2010/Mines, dated 24.11.2010, as per Rule 8(5)(b)(vii) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The petitioner was earlier directed to remit the Area Assessment of Rs.1,000/- and the income tax of Rs.16,200/-. The petitioner was also informed that if he fails to remit the balance 90% amount within seven days from the date of Tender-cum-Auction conducted, 10% amount remitted by him will be forfeited to the Government. The petitioner did not pay the amount within seven days from the date of Tender-cum-auction i.e., from 24.11.2010. The petitioner was also informed that if he fails to remit the balance 90% amount within seven days from the date of Tender-cum-Auction conducted, 10% amount remitted by him will be forfeited to the Government. The petitioner did not pay the amount within seven days from the date of Tender-cum-auction i.e., from 24.11.2010. Only after remitting 90% of the amount, confirmation order will be issued, in which the details of appeal filed by the previous lease-holder viz., R.Rajeswari, will be duly incorporated informing that the quarry lease will be granted to the petitioner subject to the outcome of the appeal filed by the previous lease-holder. The petitioner did not pay the balance 90% of the lease amount within stipulated time. The second respondent by proceedings No.656/2010/Mines, dated 16.12.2010, ordered to forfeit 10% of the lease amount and earnest money deposit and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. I have perused the materials on record and the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Pending writ petition, the petitioner has filed M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011, for amendment of prayer to quash the order of the second respondent, dated 16.12.2010. No order has been passed in the said application from the year 2011. Further, the lease for the quarry in question has been granted to one N.Aathimuthan in the year 2010 itself. According to the petitioner, the subsequent auction was not conducted as per the procedure and he did not know about the auction and the lease granted to the said N.Aathimuthan. The petitioner has also filed M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014, for impleading the said N.Aathimuthan as third respondent in the writ petition. No order has been passed in the said application. 8. The claim of the petitioner that he met the second respondent on 29.11.2010 and submitted the Challan for payment of 90% balance amount was denied by the second respondent. The petitioner did not send any letter to the second respondent stating that the Challan submitted by him for payment of 90% of tender amount was not received by the second respondent. On the other hand, the second respondent by order, dated 16.12.2010, forfeited 10% of the amount paid by the petitioner. Subsequently, the public auction was conducted and the quarry lease was granted to one N.Aathimuthan for the period of five years from 2010 to 2015. On the other hand, the second respondent by order, dated 16.12.2010, forfeited 10% of the amount paid by the petitioner. Subsequently, the public auction was conducted and the quarry lease was granted to one N.Aathimuthan for the period of five years from 2010 to 2015. Even though, the petitioner has filed a petition for amendment of the prayer and for impleading the subsequent successful lessee, he has not taken steps diligently to get the lease in his favour. Further, no proof has been produced before this Court to show that the petitioner submitted the Challan on 29.11.2010 to the second respondent to pay 90% of the balance amount. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.