Award of heavy costs justified.

These two writ petitions have a chequered history. These two writ petitions can be cited as an example as to how people like the writ petitioner abuses the process of Court by obtaining orders by fraudulent means and by suppression of material and relevant facts.

2. Before adverting to the facts of the present two writ petitions, it is necessary for this Court to refer to the previous writ petitions and the writ appeal filed by the very same petitioner for the same subject matter. The first in the series is W.P.No.1835 of 1991. The prayer in the said writ petition is as follows: To issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent/ District Collector, Salem, relating to his Proceedings RocNo.515 of 1989 dated 26. 1989 and Clause 4 of the lease deed relating to the period of expiry of the lease, quash the same as illegal, and direct the 2nd respondent to grant quarry lease for complete three years from 17. 1990 to 17. 1993 in respect of carrying on quarry operation in Survey No.2 (Part) and Survey No.61/1 (part), measuring in all an extent of 6.15 acres at Ettikuttapatti Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District.

3. The averments made by the petitioner in W.P.No.1835 of 1991 are as follows:According to the petitioner, he participated in the public auction conducted by the Tahsildar of Omalur, and was declared as the highest and successful bidder in the auction held on 12. 1989 for leasing out the stone quarries situate in Survey No.2 (part) over an extent of 5.15 acres in Adaikanur village, Omalur Taluk and in Survey No.61/1 (part) over an extent of 1 acre in Ettikuttapatti Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District. He had also remitted the bid amount along with local cess and local cess surcharge into the State Bank of India and that the 2nd respondent/District Collector, Salem, in his proceedings Roc. No. 515 of 1989 (Mines-B) dated 26. 1989 confirmed the lease in favour of the petitioner for both the quarries mentioned above, for a period of three years. According to the petitioner, the lease agreement was executed on 17. 1990 and was registered as Document No.1346 dated 29. 1990 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Omalur. He was given possession of the demised area after demarcation only on 29. 1990 after the registration of the lease agreement.

4. Even though the petitioner has remitted the lease amount along with local cess and local cess surcharge for the second year in the State Bank of India by chalan dated 11. 1990, he was permitted to commence quarrying operation only on 29. 1990. The petitioner objected to the stipulation regarding expiry of the lease period as 30.6.1991. According to the petitioner, the notification granting quarry lease by public auction specifically stated that the lease would be granted for three years and on the basis of such representation, he was forced to knockdown for the highest amount. There was considerable delay in holding the public auction, confirmation of lease, execution of the lease agreement and handing over possession. Having notified that the lease would commence on 7. 1988, the 2nd respondent/District Collector, Salem, should have arranged for holding the public auction and execution of the lease agreement well in advance to the date of commencement of the lease i.e., 7. 1988, whereas the public auction was held on 12. 1989 and the confirmation order was passed on 83.1990 and the lease was executed on 17. 1990. The petitioner was permitted to quarry from the date of registration of the lease on 29. 1990 and the 2nd respondent, acted arbitrarily in incorporating a stipulation that the lease would expire on 30.6.1991, while the notification mentions that the lease would be for three complete years. Hence, the action of the 2nd respondent/District Collector, Salem, is arbitrary in stipulating that the period of lease would commence on 7. 1988 and expire on 30.6.1991. According to the petitioner, the