Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 1537
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
M. Azhagaiya & Another
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to the Department of Industries & Others
W.P.No.29185 of 2008 & M.P.No.1 of 2008 & W.P.No.551 of 2009 & M.P.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2009
Decided on: 30-04-2009
For the Petitioners:V.T. Gopalan, Senior Counsel, R. Ramanlaal, Aruna, P.V.S. Giridhar Advocates.
For the Respondents:P.S. Raman, Addl. Advocate General Assisted by, D. Geetha, Addl. Government Pleader.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of estoppel in upholding the original tender conditions and the importance of honoring the terms of the lease agreement.
Headnote:
Estoppel - Quarry Lease - Rule 8(8) of The Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 - The judgment discusses the interpretation and application of Rule 8(8) in the context of a disputed claim regarding the virginity of a quarry. The court emphasizes the importance of the tender conditions and the principle of estoppel in upholding the original terms of the lease, dismissing the petitioner's claim for extension of the lease period.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for a quarry lease based on a notification describing the quarry as an old quarry. After obtaining the lease, the petitioner sought an extension of the lease period, claiming the quarry was a virgin quarry and therefore entitled to a 10-year lease.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim raised a disputed question of fact regarding the virginity of the quarry at the time of lease. The court held that the petitioner was estopped from challenging the original tender condition and dismissed the claim for extension of the lease period.
Issues: The main issue was whether the quarry was a virgin quarry at the time of lease, and whether the petitioner was entitled to an extension of the lease period based on Rule 8(8) of The Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's claim raised a disputed question of fact and that the petitioner was estopped from challenging the original tender condition. The court emphasized the importance of upholding the original terms of the lease and dismissed the claim for extension of the lease period.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the claim for extension of the lease period was rejected. The court also directed the District Collector to proceed with the process of notifying the quarry for the purpose of grant of lease.
Common Order
1. By a notification published in the District Gazette, dated 112. 2002, the District Collector, Kancheepuram, invited applications for the grant of lease to quarry stones, through tender/auction in the lands comprised in various Survey Numbers in several villages of Kancheepuram District. The notification contained three schedules, with (i) Schedule-A comprising of quarries in four different villages in Tambaram and Chinglepet Taluk, which were described to be old stone quarries, (ii) Schedule-B comprising of quarries in nine villages in Chinglepet, Uthiramerur, Maduranthakam and Cheyyur Taluks, which were described to be new stone quarries and (iii) Schedule-C comprising of quarries in Chinglepet, Maduranthakam and Sriperumbudur Taluks, described as Gravel Quarries.
2. One Mr. K. Kathir Kamaraj, the petitioner in W.P.No.551 of 2009 applied for the quarry at Serial No.4 under Schedule-A to the notification, in respect of Quarry No.4 in Survey No.25/2B, Tirusoolam Village, of the extent of 32. 0 hectares, described as Hill Poromboke. In the tender-cum-auction held on 1. 2003, his offer was found to be the highest and accepted. Therefore he paid the security deposit of Rs.5 lakhs and also paid the lease amounts in terms of Rule 8(6)(c) of The Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.
3. A deed of lease in the prescribed format (Appendix-I) was executed by the District Collector in favour of the said K. Kathir Kamaraj on 19. 2003, granting lease of quarrying rights in respect of the aforesaid quarry for a period of 5 years and the lease deed was also registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Tambaram. The period of lease was to expire on 19. 2008.
4. Towards the end of the period of lease, the Lessee K. Kathir Kamaraj, made a request to the District Collector on 15. 2008, seeking extension of the lease for a further period of 5 years on the ground that the quarry granted to him on lease was a virgin quarry and that therefore by virtue of Rule 8(8) of The Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, the lease ought to have been for a period of 10 years in the case of virgin quarries. After more than two months of making the said representation, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.22068 of 2008, claiming that the application for renewal is pending and seeking a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondent from interfering with his right to continue quarrying operations till the expiry of another 5 years from the date of expiry of the original lease. Pending disposal of the writ petition, an interim order of injunction was granted in favour of K. Kathir Kamaraj, in M.P.No.1 of 2008 on 9. 2008.
5. But by the time the interim order was granted in the said writ petition, the District Collector had already passed an order dated 9. 2008, rejecting the request for extension of the period of lease on the ground that the quarry in question was not a virgin quarry. Therefore, challenging the order of rejection dated 9. 2008, the Lessee K. Kathir Kamaraj has come up with the writ petition W.P.No.551 of 2009, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order of rejection dated 9. 2008 and to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to continue the quarrying operations for a further period of 5 years in terms of Rule 8(8) of The Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.
6. In view of the order of rejection dated 9. 2008, the first writ petition filed by the petitioner W.P.No.22068 of 2008 was dismissed and the interim order granted therein also perished along with the said order. Therefore the Lessee K. Kathir Kamaraj filed along with the main writ petition W.P.No.551 of 2009, two miscellaneous petitions in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009, seeking (i) an interim stay of the order of rejection and (ii) an interim injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with his rights to continue to quarry.
7. On 11. 2009, when W.P.No.551 of 2009 came up for admission along with the two mis
