Smt. Sindhunathi vs The District Collector Salem District, Salem, The Director of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennaiand and The State of Tamilnadu

P.K. Misra, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Though the matter was listed for considering the Writ Miscellaneous Petition,

since the question involved in the Writ Miscellaneous Petition and in the main Writ Petition is the same, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final

disposal on consent of the counsel appearing for the parties.

2.The facts giving rice to the present Writ Petition are as follows:- The lease in respect of the disputed sand quarry was granted in favour of the

petitioner for the year 1987 to 1992. Subsequently, on 9.2.1995 tenders were called for, for the grant of the lease for the period from 1.4.1995 till

31.3.2000. The offer submitted by the petitioner was rejected on 19.3.1995. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal before the second

respondent. By order dated 18.1.1997 the second respondent allowed the appeal and directed the first respondent to accept the tender of the

petitioner and execute the lease deed for the unexpired period that is to say for the period till 31.3.2000. The appellate authority also directed that

the condition incorporated in G.O. Ms. No.235 dated 19.12.1996 is to be considered while executing the lease. Since in spite of the aforesaid

direction, the lease deed was not executed, the petitioner made a representation on 31.1.1997 to the Collector, the first respondent. The aforesaid

representation remained undisposed of and the petitioner was forced to make a further representation to the second respondent on 26.11.1998.

While the matter stood thus, on 25.1.1999 the Collector has sought for a clarification from the appellate authority viz., the second respondent,

regarding the necessity to comply with the G.O. Ms. No.235 dated 19.12.1996. The petitioner again filed a further representation dated

22.3.2000 to the Collector. As the matter remained as such, without lease being executed, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition on 3.4.2000 for a

direction to the respondents to grant quarry lease by executing the necessary lease agreement in favour of the petitioner in respect of the disputed

quarry for a period of three years, two months and four days, that is to say, the period which was available from the date of the order of the

appellate authority and the original period dated 31.3.2000.

3.A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been indicated that stamp papers had not been produced by the

petitioner and the petitioner was not willing to pay the seigniorage fee or dead rent whichever was higher in accordance with the amendments

issued in G.O. Ms. No.235 dated 19.12.1996. It is also indicated in the counter affidavit that since the period for which the initial tender had been

called for, has expired since 31.3.2000, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

4.In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that first respondent should have complied with the direction of the appellate authority within the

reasonable period but the matter had remained pending before the first respondent and even before the second respondent subsequently on some

pretext or the other. However, the objection raised in the counter to the effect that the period of lease, having expired, no relief can be granted

appears to be justified. It is evident that the tender was for the period till 31.3.2000. Moreover even the appellate authority had also specifically

indicated that the lease agreement should be executed for the remaining period till 31.3.2000 and as such, it would not be proper to give a

direction for executing the lease agreement for the unexpired period of about three years.

5.However, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellate authority has come to the conclusion and it reads as follows:

Though the District Collector''s statement that an amount of Rs. 6000/- quoted by the appellant for a stone quarry over an extent of 3.00.0

hectares is not reasonable as such cannot be brushed aside, the crux of this appeal lies equally on an important technical aspect also viz., the

availability of the approach road to the subject matter quarry. This important aspect should not be lost sight of while disposing of this appeal. The

appellant has put forth a case that the area is not accessible through any other means except through the patta lands belonging to appellant''s

husband and her son and has also produced documents in support of the same. While offering his remarks in letter No.753/95/Mines-B dated

8.12.1995, the District Collector, Salem also has accepted the statement of the appellant by stating that the area is accessible only through the

existing cart track belonging to the petitioner''s husband and her son and that it is not possible to approach the subject matter quarry through other

ways. The same quarry was held under lease by the appellant for the year 1987 to 1992 and there was no auction after the same.

In view of this conclusion, it is for the appropriate authority to consider the question of granting quarry lease in favour of the petitioner on the

basis of amicable negotiation and settlement for the purpose of exploitation of the minerals. For the aforesaid purpose, it would be open to the

petitioner to file appropriate representation before the respondents 1 and 3, and such representation may be considered by the respondents 1 and

3 in the appropriate manner and in accordance with law, keeping in view of the relevant facts and circumstances. Subject to the aforesaid

observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.9213 of 2000 is closed.