Lease period cancelled for violation of conditions can not be extended.

P.D. DINAKARAN, J.

This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.8.2001 made in W.P.No.12489 of 2001.

1. Brief facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:

The appellant, a Sri Lankan repatriate, was granted lease for quarrying sand in an extent of 40 acres in Survey No.284 of Guruvoyal Village and S.No.72 of Arakmapattu Village of Tiruvallur Taluk and District for a period of three years by the proceedings of the second respondent dated 25. 1987 and the lease deed was executed on 16. 1987. The second respondent by proceedings dated 111. 1988 cancelled the lease granted in favour of the appellant for violations of conditions of the lease deed.

2. 2. Being aggrieved by the cancellation of lease, the appellant filed O.S.No.109 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur seeking permanent injunction not to interfere with the right of the appellant to quarry in the impugned lands for a further period of three years and for a declaration that the respondents therein are not entitled to enforce the order of the second respondent dated 111. 1988. Pending suit, the appellant filed interlocutory application in I.A.No.432 of 1993 and as the same was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge by order dated 29. 1993, the appellant filed C.R.P.No.3096 of 1993 before this Court initially under Section 115 CPC which was later converted as one filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and obtained an order of injunction dated 23. 1994 till the disposal of the suit O.S.No.109 of 1993, suppressing the fact that the lease period itself expired long back.

2. 3. On the strength of the interim injunction granted by this Court, by order dated 23. 1994 made in C.R.P.No.3096 of 1993, the appellant restarted quarrying operation from 25. 1994 and stopped the same on 22. 1997, instead of 25. 1997, as the appellant had already quarried for three months.

4. Alleging that due to torrential rains and heavy floods and collapse of the causeway across the river, she could not operate the quarry for about 206 days out of the total lease period and thereby she was subjected to heavy loss and mental agony, the appellant filed an application on 3. 1997 to the second respondent seeking permission to quarry in the impugned lands for 206 days. The second respondent, by proceedings dated 5. 1997 rejected the request of the appellant.

5. Against the order of the second respondent dated 5. 1997, the appellant preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 6. 1997 and pending the same, she preferred W.P.No.8918 of 1997 before this Court seeking a writ of Mandamus to forbear the second respondent herein from interfering with the quarrying operations for a full period of three years in the said quarry and thereby to compensate the loss of period of 206 days. The first respondent treating the matter as subjudice, dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant without going into the merits of the case. This Court, by order dated 7. 1999 dismissed W.P.No.8918 of 1997 holding that the appellant has no legal right to seek for a direction to quarry.

6. The appellant, thereafter, filed W.M.P.No.10780 of 2000 in W.P.No.8918 of 1997 to review the order dated 7. 1999 made in W.P.No.8918 of 1997 and to modify the said order. The prayer in W.P.No.8918 of 1997 was amended by order dated 30.6.2000 in W.M.P.No.14258 of 2000 and this Court, by order dated 30.6.2000 in W.P.No.8918 of 1997 directed the first respondent to restore the appeal dated 6. 1997 and to dispose of the same on merits.

7. The first respondent, by proceedings dated 26. 2001, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the second respondent dated 5. 1997. Exasperated, the appellant filed W.P.No.12489 of 2001 for issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of respondents 1 and 2 in proceedings dated 26. 2001 and 5. 1997 respectively, to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to extend the period of lea