AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. A. Swami, CJ.
At the stage of admission, the respondents have put in appearance. As the matter lies in a narrow compass, the appeal is heard for final
disposal.
The grievance made by the appellants in this appeal is that the finding recorded by the learned single Judge that the solvency certificate of a
Director of the petitioner, company is sufficient compliance with the requirement of the Rules is not valid. The Rules prescribed that in order to
prove the financial resources of the applicant, he has to enclose a solvency certificate. The company cannot be equated to a Director of the
company; therefore, the solvency of a Director of the company cannot be taken as a proof of the solvency of the company, which is the applicant
for grant of a mining lease. It is also further submitted that the learned single Judge ought not to have issued a direction to grant permission, when
the State Government, under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, is entitled to consider the application and to decide as to
whether the permission should be granted or not.
On the contrary, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that this is a case in which the State Government has purposely refused to
grant the permission, even though it has granted permission to another person under similar circumstances. In addition to this, State Government
has granted permission of lease to several other persons who have not complied with the requirement of the Rules with a clause that the
requirement may be complied with at the time of execution of the lease deeds. In support of this, G.O. Ms. No. 3(D) No. 42, Industries (MMD.
II) Department dated 29-6-1993 has been produced before us.
For the purpose of deciding the writ appeal, we need not go into the question as to whether the State Government has been exercising the
power under the Rules arbitrarily or according to its subjective satisfaction. It is sufficient for our purpose to confine to the facts of the present
case. The relevant portion of the form prescribed under Rule 19 of the Rules reads thus:
APPENDIX VII.
(See Rules 8-C and 19-A)
APPLICATION FOR GRANT/
RENEWAL OF QUARRYING
LEASE/PERMISSION.
(To be submitted in triplicate)
Dated ..... day of.....
To
Through the District Collector.
Sir,
I. I/We request that a quarrying lease or permission/renewal of lease or permission under Rule 8-C/ 19-A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral
concession Rules, 1959 may be granted to me/us.
II. A sum of Rs, 500/- (Rupees five hundred only), being the application fee and a sum of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) being the deposit
for meeting the preliminary expenses have been remitted under the following head of account:--
0853 -- Non-ferrous Mining and Metallurgical Industries -- 102. Mineral Concession Fees, Rent and Royalties -- A. Quarries and Minerals D.P.
Code 853.00 102 AA 0007"" and ""8443 -- Civil deposits -- 101. Revenue deposits respectively D.P. Code 8443 and AAAA 0007.
III. The required particulars are given below:--1 to 12.-- omitted x x x x x x x x x x
Financial resources of the applicant (enclose a copy of Solvency Certificate).
to 17.-- omitted x x x x x x x x x x x
I/We do hereby declare that the particulars furnished above are correct and am/are ready to furnish any other details and security deposit as may
be required by the Government.
Thus there is no doubt that it is solvency certificate of the applicant alone has to be enclosed along with the application and not that of the Director
of the company, in a case where the company happens to be the applicant. In the instant case, the company is the applicant. It is the solvency
certificate of the applicant and the applicant alone that satisfies the requirement of the Rules and no solvency certificate of any other person can be
taken as satisfying the Rules.
There is no other objection raised before us in the appeal, It is also seen from the order of the learned single Judge that under similar
circumstances, permission has been granted to one S.R. Raja Ravikumar by the Government Order (3D) No. 42 dated 29-6-1993, on the
following conditions
In exercise of powers conferred under Rule 19A of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby
grants permission to Thiru S. R. Raja Ravikumar to quarry Leptynite over an extent of 1.32 acres (O. 53.0 hectares) in S. No. 226/2 in Keelaiyur
village, Melur Taluk, Modurai District for a period of 10 years subject to the condition that (1) No quarrying should be done within 50 metres from
the Melapatti Village, nearby house, Odai and channel. The village, houses, odai and Channel should not be disturbed. (2) Since houses are nearby
no blasting operation, should be under taken. (3) The applicant and pattadar should execute agreement as per Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 1959, and also subject to conditions specified in the annexure to this order. This permission is subject to such further
modifications, additions and alterations that may be included in the agreement to be executed.
Therefore, following the same, learned Judge has held that the petitioner also ought to have been granted the permit.
Whenever a writ of mandamus is sought, directing a statutory authority to grant a licence, lease or permission, normally, it is just and appropriate
that a direction be issued to that authority to consider the application subject to the observations made in the order and in accordance with law. It
is the power of that authority to grant the licence. Of course, that authority cannot go beyond the findings recorded in the order of this Court and it
has to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with the findings recorded and the directions issued and the law governing the subject. Therefore, it
would be sufficient if a direction is issued to consider the application in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the order.
We may also point out here that apart from the aforesaid grievance or defect in the application, no other grievance or defect is pointed out. In
similar cases, the Government has also allowed certain conditions to be satisfied at the time of execution of the lease deeds. Therefore, we hold
that if the respondent/applicant furnishes the solvency certificate of the company, it would comply with all the requirements of the Rules to enable it
to have the permission granted. Accordingly, this writ appeal is disposed of in the following terms:
The order passed by the learned single Judge dated 25-4-1994 in W.P. No. 20852 of 1993 is modified. The writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions:
i) The respondent shall furnish the solvency certificate within two weeks from today before the State Government.
ii) On furnishing of the solvency certificate; State Government shall consider and decide the application within three weeks from the date of
production of the solvency certificate, in the light of the observations made in this order and in accordance with law.
iii) There will be no order as to costs.
Order accordingly.