The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to obtain prior permission from the Central Government for quarrying operations in a forest area entitles the petitioner to a refund of the lease amount.

(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of writ of declaration declaring that the lease amount and the security deposit totalling to Rs.44,55,000/- retained by the first respondent paid for the quarry lands measuring 6.54.0 hectares comprised in survey No.1/2 of Thokkiam village, Thirupathur Taluk, Vellore District (formerly North Arcot District) and the demand for dead rent and area assessment in respect of the said land is illegal and consequently direct the respondents to refund the said sum together with interest @ 24% per annum.)

The writ petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition seeking for the relief for issuance of writ of declaration or any other writ to declare that the lease amount and the security deposit totaling Rs.44,55,000/-, retained by the first respondent paid for the quarry lands measuring 6.54.0 hectares comprised in survey No.1/2 of Thokkiam village, Thirupathur Taluk, Vellore District (formerly North Arcot District) and the demand for dead rent and area assessment in respect of the said land is illegal and consequently direct the respondents to refund the said sum together with interest @ 24% per annum.

2. The facts giving raise to the filing of the writ petition is as follows :

The second respondent, as per the then existing Rule 8A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, invited tenders in respect of several granite quarries situated in the Government poromboke lands. As the petitioner is having an existing industry, which is a pre requisite requirement for having a granite quarry lease, it submitted a tender application in respect of the quarry over an extent of 6.54.0 hectares in survey No.1/2 in Thokkiam village and has become the highest bidder. The bid was confirmed in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner deposited the entire bid amount of Rs.44,55,000/-, which included 10% of the bid amount, paid at the time of submitting the tender. Necessary lease agreement has been executed on 29.05.1992 for a period of ten years from 29.05.1992 to 28.05.2002. Immediately after execution of the lease deed, the petitioner requested the second respondent to hand-over possession of the lease area so as to enable it to carry on the quarrying operation. But the petitioner came to know that the said area is a forest area and belongs to the forest department and the process of declaring the said area as reserve forest area was also going on.

3. According to the petitioner, the respondents invited tender and granted lease to the petitioner without obtaining necessary permission from the forest department which is a statutory requirement. Inspite of several requests made by the petitioner, the second respondent has not handed over possession of the said quarry land for a considerable period of time. Hence, the petitioner, having realised the difficulty of the respondent in handing over of the leased land for the purpose of quarrying granite, requested the respondents to refund atleast the amount paid by it, pursuant to the tender. Having received the letter of the petitioner, the second respondent made a demand for a dead rent and area assessment on the premise that the petitioner has not carried on the quarrying operations in the said land. The respondents neither handed over possession of the said quarry land nor refunded the tender amount. Apart from the above said amount of Rs.44,55,000/- the petitioner has also spent a sum of Rs.3,17,000/- towards stamp charges and a sum of Rs.40,500/- towards registration charges for getting the lease deed registered.

4. It is the basic requirement that before-ever quarry lands are offered for tender for quarrying granite, to have the lands surveyed and find as to whether quarry is viable and the quarry land is a government poromboke land, as there was no provision for prospective mining in the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, and the respondents are the authority who