The court emphasized the importance of following technical requirements for granting mining leases and held that challenges to leases after several years may not be sustainable.

P. Jyothimani, J.

1. The unsuccessful writ petitioners before the learned Judge on Writ side has filed this appeal. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the 5th respondent, Thiru S. Nandagopal, has applied for grant of lease for mining the mineral silica sand from survey No.46/1A and other survey numbers at Elavur village, Gummidipoondi taluk, Tiruvallur District to an extent of 16. 0 hectares for a period of 20 years.

2. The case of the writ petitioners is that the said land belonged to their forefathers and they have inherited the same after the demise of the original owners. The 5th respondent while filing the application for grant of lease, appears to have sent all the necessary particulars and fulfilled the formalities required including the production of lease deed dated 30.6.2000 stated to have been entered into between the 5th respondent and the petitioners agreeing to lease the land in favour of the 5th respondent. The District Collector, Tiruvallur is stated to have forwarded the said application and all other materials to the Director of Geology and Mining for his remarks. It appears that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri and the Tahsildar, Gummidipoondi were asked to give their report about the agreement of lease stated to have been entered by the 5th respondent with the petitioners. Further, it appears that the Tahsildar after conducting enquiry and calling for objections for the grant of lease in favour of 5th respondent, has recommended in his report dated 27. 2000 and 28. 2000, for the grant of permission for mining silica sand in favour of the 5th respondent. It is also seen that the District Collector in the enquiry, called for objections from the public and there was no objection received in respect of grant of mining lease and it was also reported that there was no permanent structure, but there is an existing Odai on the western side adjacent to survey numbers 46 and 47 of the area applied for mining lease. The District Collector has recommended for the grant of mining lease for the said land cautioning that the safety distance of 10 metres should be left on the western side of the area applied for.

3. A reading of the order of the learned Judge against which the present writ appeal is filed makes it clear that the learned Judge has called for the entire records and gone through the minute details of the records and the technical report submitted by the Assistant Director, Mines, Tiruvallur, wherein it is stated that the area applied for mining lease is not compact but contiguous and therefore, it partly satisfies section 6(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the length of the area applied for mining lease is not exceeding four times the width of the area applied for and therefore, it satisfies Rule 35 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. In the report it is also stated that the silica sand available in the area applied for is estimated to be above 1,29,150 metric tonnes, after deleting the safety distance area of Odai. There was also a caution given to the effect that adjacent to the Odai, 10 metres should be left out. With the said report, the Assistant Director of Department of Geology and Mining sent recommendations to the Director of Geology and Mining for the grant of lease in favour of the 5th respondent for a period of 20 years subject to the condition that 10 metres distance should be left out adjacent to Odai.

4. There was even a revised technical report dated 16. 2001, wherein the third respondent had stated that the silica sand is formed due to wind action and silica sand is dull coloured and that it is found to occur below a thin layer of top soil, the thickness of which ranges from = to 1 metre. It is further stated that the thickness of silica sand is above 3 metres and it occurs as loose and compact material. The entire area which can be reserved for the same was arrived at 93. 0 hectares leaving a safety area of 0.23.0 hectares fo