C. Rekha vs The District Collector Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram

Honourable Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent to permit the

petitioner to remit the lease amount for remaining 5 years period and on such payment direct the respondent to execute the lease deed for the

additional period of 5 years from 11.01.2012 with respect to stone quarry comprised in S.No. 221 of Periya Venmani Village, Maduranthagam

Taluk, Kancheepuram District over an extent of 0.88.5 Hec.

The District Collector issued a notification dated 31.8.2006 inviting tender for various stone quarries situated in Kancheepuram District. The

allotments by public auction were also stipulated. The petitioner submitted her tender on 19.9.2006 for the stone quarry comprised in S.NO. 221

of Periyavenmani Village, Maduranthakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The tender cum auction was held on 20.9.2006 and the petitioner was

declared as highest bidder having offered Rs. 14,10,000/- (Rupees fourteen lakhs and ten thousand only). 10% of the tender amount was paid by

the petitioner at the time of auction, in addition to sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards E.M.D. The petitioner thereafter received notice dated 2.11.2006

directing the petitioner to pay the balance tender amount within a period of seven days after the receipt of the notice. The petitioner accordingly

paid the balance amount.

The case of the petitioner is that the subject quarry was a virgin quarry not having been subjected to quarrying so far, therefore, under Rule 8(8)

of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessional Rules, 1959, the period of lease for quarrying stone in respect of the virgin area was to be for a

minimum period of ten years.

The case of the petitioner is that a request was made to the respondent for grant of lease for a period of ten years in terms of statutory rules

called the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessional Rules, 1959.

The request of the petitioner was not considered, which forced the petitioner to file the writ petition in W.P.No. 46487 of 2006. The writ

petition was allowed by this Court on 22.3.2007. The operative part of the order passed by this Court reads as under,

Hence, the respondent is hereby directed to grant lease in favour of the petitioners for ten years as provided under Rule 8(8) instead of five years

in respect of their respective quarries. It is also open to the respondent to recover and realise from the petitioners the proportionate lease amount

for the extended period of five years.

With the above observation, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected MPs are closed.

The second writ has been filed now by the petitioner, for directing the respondent to accept the lease amount, which is totally misconceived.

This Court has already allowed the writ filed by the petitioner. The second writ of mandamus to execute the earlier order passed by this Court is

not competent.

The remedy of the petitioner lies somewhere else and not by filing repeated writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The

writ, therefore, is nothing but misuse of the process of the Court.

The writ petition is therefore dismissed being not competent. Consequently, connected MP is closed. No costs.