T. Semban vs The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Industries Department, The Director of Geology and Mining, The District Collector and The Assistant Director, Geology and Mines

S. Manikumar, J.—The petitioner has sought a Writ of Ceriorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the third respondent, dated

20.04.2004 made in Na.Ka. No. 14675/03-X.2 and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to conduct quarrying operation for a period of

11 months in S.F. No. 200/1, Patlur Village, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District and for further orders.

Brief facts leading to the Writ Petition are as follows:

The petitioner was granted lease in respect of stone quarry in the above said lands for a period of five years from 24.06.1999 to 24.06.2004 and a

lease agreement was executed by the District Collector, Erode, on 01.04.1999. The petitioner has paid the tender amount of Rs. 60,000/- and Rs.

6,000/- towards security deposit. According to the petitioner, the work order was issued on 24.06.1999 and since then, he was quarrying stones

adhering to the Rules. During the year 2001, one Mrs. Thangammal has given a false representation to the then Revenue Divisional Officer,

Goplchettipalayam, alleging that the petitioner had violated the Rules and Regulations of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.

On the basis of the said allegation, the Assistant Director of Geology and Mines, Erode, the fourth respondent, abruptly stopped issuing transport

permits from 05.02.2001, without passing any orders to that effect. The petitioner has offered proper explanation to the queries raised in the

complaint. Despite petitioner''s repeated request, the fourth respondent has not issued any transport permit for a period of 11 months from

05.02.2001 to 05.12.2001. Since the respondents 3 and 4 have prevented the petitioner from quarrying stones for 11 months, the petitioner has

made an application on 23.02.2004, setting out his grievance and sought for an extention of lease for a period of 11 months. The District

Collector, Erode, the third respondent, by order dated 20.04.2004, without considering the genuine request of the petitioner, rejected the

application for extension of time, stating that there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, to extend the lease

period. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition.

Mr. D. Selvaraju, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent has failed to consider that the non-issuance of transport

permits without passing any administrative orders on the complaint preferred by Mrs. Thangammal and abruptly stopping the issue of transport

permits has resulted in deprivation of the petitioner''s right to quarry stones for a period of 11 months. He further submitted that non-issuance of

transport permits for the above said period is purely the fault of the respondents 3 and 4 and in the absence of any rebuttal to the averments made

in the Writ Petition in the form of counter affidavit, this Court should grant the relief and direct the respondents to extend the period of lease for 11

months.

Referring to Clause 6(G)(ii) of the Lease Agreement, dated 24.06.1999, Mr. A. Arumugam, learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted

that the permit holder or the lessee shall be permitted to transport ordinary rough stone/Jelly, only after obtaining bulk transport permits and

facsimiled despatch slips in the prescribed format. He further submitted that in the absence of any specific complaint or representation regarding

non-issuance of transport permits, during relevant period from 05.02.2001 to 05.12.2001, the Writ Petition is totally misconceived. He further

submitted that no details have been furnished in the affidavit as to when the petitioner had applied for transport permits to the competent authority

and the reasons for rejection, if any. He further submitted that there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 for

extension of lease period and therefore, the petitioner has no statutory right to seek for extension.

Heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

In Paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has averred that one Mrs. Thangammal had given a false

representation to the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Gopichettipalayam, alleging that he had violated the Rules and Regulations of the Tamil Nadu

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and on the basis of such representation, the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Erode, had

abruptly stopped issuing transport permits, without passing any orders on the petition. In the typed set of papers, the petitioner has enclosed only

the copy of the Lease Agreement, dated 24.06.1999 and the Impugned Order. Contents of the affidavit does not disclose as to when Mrs.

Thangammal has made the petition/representation against the petitioner to the fourth respondent, for the alleged violations. There are no details as

to when the petitioner had applied for transport permits. Though the petitioner has contended that he has made repeated representations and

offered proper explanation to the queries raised on the alleged complaint, neither the copy of the complaint nor the notice issued by the authorities

calling upon him to submit his explanation is appended, in the typed set of papers to support his contentions. Therefore, the allegation that the

fourth respondent has abruptly stopped Issuing transport permits on the basis of the petitioner submitted by Mrs. Thangammal is not supported by

any valid materials and the said contention is rejected.

Reading of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, does not indicate any provision for extension of lease for the conduct of

omission on the part of the petitioner and therefore, the reasons stated by the petitioner in rejecting the application is in accordance with the Rules.

As regards the next contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition has to be accepted

on the face of it, in the absence of any rebuttal, this Court is of the opinion that while dealing with a Writ of Certiorari, the Court can call for the

records and set aside, modify, or pass appropriate orders. Counter affidavit is required only in a case where there is a factual dispute. As the

dispute in this case, has not been substantiated by any valid materials, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be

countenanced.

For all the reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.