JUDGMENT (Prayer: Review Application filed Under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 and Section 114 of CPC to review the judgment and decree of this Court dated 05.12.2019 in W.A.Nos.757, 758 and 1326 of 2011.) Subramonium Prasad, J. 1. The respondent No.1 in WA.Nos.757,758 and 1326 of 2011 has filed the instant review petition against the judgment dated 05.12.2019. The Writ Appeal was filed by the District Collector, Erode District, challenging the common order dated 05.11.2010, made in WP.Nos.15949 of 2010 and 18193 of 2010. 2. The review petitioner is the lessee. The review petitioner was granted a granite quarry lease in respect of patta lands comprised in S.F.Nos.1075/1B, 1076/1A and 1079/3A, measuring to an extent of 5.07.35 Hectares situated in Barugur village, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District. The lease agreement was entered into for a period of ten years from 15.06.1998 to 14.06.2008. Admittedly, the review petitioner entered into an agreement with one R.Panneer Selvam. The petitioner applied for renewal of the lease. Pending renewal, the review petitioner filed WP.No.23319 of 2008, for restraining the Collector, Erode from interfering with the quarry operations conducted by the Review petitioner till the fate of the petitioner's renewal application is decided. By an order dated 25.09.2008, this Court granted an ex-parte stay restraining the respondents from interfering with the mining operations and permitted the review petitioner to continue with the quarry. Pending writ petition, a show-cause notice was issued to the review petitioner as to why the lease granted should not cancelled and penalty be imposed for breach of the lease conditions. By an order dated 11.07.2010, the quarry lease was cancelled and penalty was imposed on the review petitioner under Rule 36A(5) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Against the order imposing penalty, WP.No.18193 of 2010 was filed. 4. The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 15.11.2010 allowed the writ petition stating that the exercise undertaken by the Government to cancel the quarry lease by an order dated 11.07.2010 was not in accordance with Rule 36(5)(h) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The learned Single Judge was of the view that since the period of the lease had expired, there was no question of termination and there was no question of imposing any penalty. The learned Single Judge was of the view that since the period of the lease had expired, there was no question of termination and there was no question of imposing any penalty. The learned Single Judge therefore held that the cancellation of lease and the proceeding imposing a penalty had been commenced long after expiry period of the lease and therefore, the action taken against the lessee and sub-lessee is not in accordance with law. 5. The State Government challenged the order of the learned Single Judge by filing writ appeals. It is contended by the State Government that the writ petitioner had been permitted to continue to operate under orders of the Court. It is also contended that by the Collector was well within the right in cancel the lease under section 36(h) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. It is also contended that the terms of the lease had been clearly violated by the review petitioner herein, by sub-leasing the same to one R.Panneer Selvam and that the order levying penalty was perfectly in accordance with law. This Court by an order dated 05.12.2019, allowed the writ appeal holding as under:- “11. Having gone through the pleadings and having considered the submissions raised, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not extend any lease which has expired, but the admitted fact is that the lease stood extended by virtue of the orders of the High Court for a period of two years even after its expiry on 14.06.2008. It is during this extended period that the entire enquiry was held and the orders were passed on 11.07.2010. In the background of the facts of the present case, the respondent/lessee stood benefited by the extension of lease by the order of High Court itself and consequently, any violation as alleged was clearly relatable to the terms and conditions of the lease which will be deemed to be continuing as he had been undisputedly permitted by the High Court to continue to quarry mining lease. The respondent/lessee, therefore, cannot be heard to say that he will only enjoy the benefits and would not be responsible for any liabilities under the terms of the lease. 12. The respondent/lessee, therefore, cannot be heard to say that he will only enjoy the benefits and would not be responsible for any liabilities under the terms of the lease. 12. Consequently, in view of what has been stated above, we find that the learned Single Judge fell in error in treating the lease to have expired and orders to have been passed after the expiry of the period of lease. The action taken by the appellants, in our opinion, was clearly saved by Rule 36(5)(h) of the 1959 Rules. 13. Coming to the issue of joint and several liability as narrated in the order dated 11.07.2010, a perusal of the provisions quoted hereinabove leaves no room for doubt that it is not only the lease holder, but rather any transferee, assignee or any person involved in mining including one who is in unlawful occupation, who can be held liable jointly along with the original lessee. We find no such error in the conclusion drawn by the authority in the order dated 11.07.2010, which, in our opinion, ought not to have been interfered with by the learned Single Judge.” 6. Assailing this order, the writ petitioner has filed the instant review petition stating that the review petitioner had engaged the same who represented them in the court proceeding, but the counsel was disengaged and another counsel had been appointed. Unfortunately he became a Government Advocate. A change of vakalat was given, but the name of the counsel to whom the vakalat was given did not appear in the cause list and therefore, the petitioner was not represented in the hearing. It is stated that no sub lease given to the said R.Panneer Selvam, rather the review petitioner had entered into an agreement called as raising-cum-sale agreement, which is a well known practice in the field of mining and which is permitted even in terms of the lease agreement. He would state that the Government was having knowledge of raising-cum-sale agreement entered into between the petitioner and R.Panneer Selvam in 2003 itself and no action has been taken by the Government and therefore, the Government could not have terminated the agreement in the same in 2020. 7. It is contended that the agreement itself recognize a right of the lessee to appoint agents and perform function and extraction of minerals by agents on behalf of the principal. 7. It is contended that the agreement itself recognize a right of the lessee to appoint agents and perform function and extraction of minerals by agents on behalf of the principal. It has been contended that the relationship between the review petitioner and R.Panner Selvam was that of the principal agent which is legally permissible under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and the lease agreement. 8. Heard the counsel for the parties. 9. A perusal of the review petition would show that no grounds had been made out for review of the judgment in as much as there is no error apparent on face of record and no new facts has been placed which would warrant review. 10. However, in the interest of justice, since the counsel for the review petitioner was not present in the Court, since his name did not appear in the case, but we became revisited our judgment. 11. The material on record shows that the lease to quarry granite was given to the review petitioner for a period of ten years from 15.06.1998 to 14.06.2008. The lease holder applied for extension of lease and pending the application, lease holder approached this Court and got an interim order to continue with the operation, despite the fact that the lease period was over. The fact that the area has been subleased had not been informed to this Court. There were allegations from the persons in the area that the review petitioner had violated the terms of the lease agreement in as much as the Review petitioner had subleased the premises to R.Panneer Selvam. 12. The writ petitioner did not appear during the enquiry and only R.Panneer Selvam had appeared for the enquiry. The order terminating the lease and levying penalty shows that R.Panneer Selvam categorically stated that he was engaged as a sub-lessee by the review petitioner. Though the agreement is titled raising-cum-sale of granite, the reading of the same, in fact would show that it havs all the characteristics of a sub-lessee which is not permitted. 13. The order terminating the lease and levying penalty shows that R.Panneer Selvam categorically stated that he was engaged as a sub-lessee by the review petitioner. Though the agreement is titled raising-cum-sale of granite, the reading of the same, in fact would show that it havs all the characteristics of a sub-lessee which is not permitted. 13. Rule 36(5)(h) states that in case of breach by the quarrying permit-holder or quarrying lease holder or his transferee or assignee of any of these rules or of the conditions of the lease, the Director of Geology and Mining or the Chief Conservator of Forests, as the case may be, or the District Collector or the District Forest Officer as the case may be without prejudice to any other penalty which may be imposed in respect of such breach, may cancel the lease after granting an opportunity of hearing to the said person. R.Panneer Selvam was carrying on the quarry operation under the order of Court. The Court was under the impression that quarry was being done by the review petitioner, since there was a violation in the terms of the lease that Collector was well within his rights to terminate the lease. 14. The conclusion of learned Single Judge that termination can be done only during the life of the lease agreement and there cannot be cancellation on a non-existent lease is unsustainable. A perusal of the Rule 36-A states that whenever any person contravenes any provisions, is liable to be punished and a fine can be imposed, which has been done in this case. In view of the above, though no ground has been raised which would warrant review of the judgment sought for in as much as there is no error apparent on face of record, but because the fact that the review petitioner was not represented during hearing, we once again went through the material and record and we are unable to persuade reasons to change the view we have taken in the judgment dated 05.12.2019. 15. In view of the above, we have not find any infirmity in our judgment and the review petition is consequently dismissed. No Costs.