ORDER : K.K. SASIDHARAN, J. The petitioner filed this Writ Petition in pro bono publico to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take immediate action to discontinue the mining operations undertaken by the fifth respondent after the expiry of the lease period. 2. The petitioner is stated to be a social activist and is a resident of Karur District. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent obtained the mining lease as per the order in G.O.Ms.No.25, Industries (M2) Department, dated 10 January, 1989. The fifth respondent has been taking limestone at Thevarmalai Village and Melapaguthi Village. The lease was in respect of an area of 411.51 Acres. The lease was granted for a period of 20 years. Though the mining lease expired in the year 2009, the fifth respondent continued to quarry limestone. The petitioner submitted series of representations requesting the respondents 1 to 4 to take immediate action to close down the limestone quarry. 3. The petitioner, in his representation to the District Collector, contended that the fifth respondent indulged in large scale mining and heavy vehicles were used for transportation of the minerals. The illegal act of the fifth respondent adversely affected the local ecological condition. There was a dip in the water level in the village consequent to the illegal mining using high power explosives. There was no response to the representation submitted by the petitioner, resulting in filing this Writ Petition. 4. The District Collector, in his counter-affidavit dated 12 December, 2018, explained the factual position. According to the District Collector, the lease was initially granted for a period of 20 years. The lease period expired on 02 February, 2009. The fifth respondent one year prior to the expiry of the original mining lease submitted an application for renewal. There was a statutory renewal under Rule 24A(6) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, in case the application was made within the time stipulated in Rule 24A(1) and there was no disposal of the application by the State Government before the expiry of the period. According to the District Collector, the lease was statutorily renewed for a further period and it would expire only on 31 March, 2030. 5. According to the District Collector, the lease was statutorily renewed for a further period and it would expire only on 31 March, 2030. 5. The District Collector further submitted that the fifth respondent dumped the mining rejects and the waste in a non-leasehold area in violation of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and appropriate action is contemplated. 6. The fifth respondent in the counter-affidavit explained the rule position and the statutory renewal of the lease. According to the fifth respondent, the company has been undertaking mining operations on the strength of valid lease. There was no pollution caused by the company. According to the fifth respondent, the Writ Petition is nothing but paise interested petition filed with ulterior motives. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for the fifth respondent. 8. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether there is a valid lease agreement permitting the fifth respondent to undertake quarrying operations. 9. There is no dispute that the fifth respondent was given lease for mining limestone in S.F. Nos. 6, 7, 13, 14 and 155, etc. of Thevarmalai and Melapaguthi Villages, Kadavur Taluk in the district of Karur. The lease was granted for a period of 20 years as per the proceedings dated 10 January, 1989. The fifth respondent mined the limestone pursuant to the lease agreement. 10. The counter-affidavit filed by the District Collector indicates that one year prior to the expiry of the original term, the fifth respondent submitted application for renewal and there was, therefore, a statutory renewal of the lease for a further period, in view of Section 8A(5) of the amended Act, 2015. The lease period would expire only on 31 March, 2030. 11. There is no challenge to the lease granted to the fifth respondent including the statutory renewal upto 31 March, 2030. Since there is a valid lease, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that the fifth respondent indulged in illegal quarrying. 12. The counter-affidavit filed by the District Collector shows that the fifth respondent obtained environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, as per order dated 12 September, 2007. Since there is a valid lease, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that the fifth respondent indulged in illegal quarrying. 12. The counter-affidavit filed by the District Collector shows that the fifth respondent obtained environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, as per order dated 12 September, 2007. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board appears to have granted consent to the fifth respondent to operate under the provisions of the Water and Air Act. The consent is stated to be valid upto 31 March, 2019. 13. The Collector, in the counter-affidavit, submitted that action is contemplated against the fifth respondent under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, in view of the act of dumping the mining rejects and overburdening the waste in the non-leasehold area. The District Collector has already taken up the issue with the Regional Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, Chennai vide proceedings dated 26 April, 2018 and assured that appropriate action would be taken against the fifth respondent on receipt of report from the Regional Controller of Mines. 14. The Writ Petition is filed primarily on the ground that there is no valid lease in favour of the fifth respondent. The said contention appears to be incorrect, in view of the counter-affidavit filed by the fifth respondent. The other issues raised by the petitioner would be considered by the District Collector on its own merits. In case the fifth respondent indulged in acts prejudicial to the interest of the environment, appropriate action would be taken by the authorities. 15. The District Collector, Karur must address the issues raised by the petitioner relating to pollution. The fifth respondent must ensure that the mining operation is undertaken without disturbing the ecological condition and damaging the village roads. The Collector must also ensure that activities prejudicial to the environment are not undertaken by the fifth respondent. 16. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.