Action of Government in refusing transport permit upheld.

K.A. Swami, C.J.

These three writ appeals are preferred against a common order dated 112. 1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.14451, 15451 and 10608 of 1993 respectively. Learned single Judge has dismissed W.P.No.10608 of 1993 whereas allowed the other two writ petitions. The directions issued by the learned single Judge are as follows:

“(i) The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to issue transport permit to the petitioner to remove and transport the quarried materials pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 22. 1990:

(ii) The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to re-survey and demarcate the lands of the petitioner bearing S.Nos.22/7 22/8, 22/9A, 22/ 9B, 22/10 and 23/1 situated at Karaichithupudur village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District, covered by the lease deeds in question, if need be after notice to parties.” Writ Petition No.10608 of 1993 was filed by one Sri P.Kanagalingam. He has no interest either in the mining leases granted by the State Government in favour of the petitioner in the other two writ petitions (W.P.Nos.14451 and 15451 of 1993) nor does he claim any interest in the lands in respect of which the mining leases are granted. The only ground put forth by him is that the mining leases were granted without due regard to the provisions contained in the Mines and Minerals Development Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It may be pointed out that mining leases in question relate to patta lands and not the Government lands. Learned single Judge has nevertheless held that the petitioner in W.P.No.10608 of 1993 is entitled to maintain the writ petition as public interest litigation. We are of the view that the petitioner in W.P.No.10608 of 1993 is not entitled to maintain the writ petition under the garb of public interest litigation. As already pointed out the mining leases relate to private lands and not Government land. It is the matter between the grantee of the mining lease and the State Government. There is no question of any public interest as such involved in the mining lease granted to the petitioner in the other two writ petitions. The petitioner in W.P.No.10608 of 93 appears to have been set up on account of business rivalary. That a private interest cannot at all be pursued under the garb of public interest litigation by person who has not in any way concerned with the proceedings or the subject-matter of the proceeding is well settled. (See: S.P.Gupta and others v. President of India and others, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 149 at 227, K.Ramamurthy, M.P.v. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board etc., and others, 1994 Writ L.R. 268 paras 20 and 21, Civil Liberties Council represented by its Convener, R.R.Dalavai and others v. Government of Tamil Nadu and two others, (1994)2 L.W. 636 (F.B.). However, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant tried to contend that the petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition and placed reliance on the decision in M.Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 1993 Writ L.R. 604, para. 19 and Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 892, paras. 87, 88 and 107. It is not possible to read those paragraphs in the aforesaid decisions in the manner contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellant and hold that it is permissible for the petitioner to seek the relief under the garb of public interest litigation. Having regard to the facts, as pointed above, no public interest is involved in the mining lease in question. Therefore, we are of the view that W.P.No.10608 of 1993 is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is liable to be dismissed.

.2. Writ Petition Nos.14451 and 15451 of 1993 are filed by the grantee of the mining leases in question. In W.P.No.14451 of 1993, he has sought for issue of a direction to the Collector of Tirunelveli Kattabomman District, Tirunelveli to forbear from refusing to issue transport permit to the petitioner and transport the quarried materials to the place of his choice from the lands in question pursuant