The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of principles of natural justice in the proceedings, particularly the reliance on adverse reports without providing copies to the petitioner, and the applicability of Rule 38A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959, in the context of the petitioner's entitlement to refund of lease amount and security deposit.

1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 16.4.2010 giving direction to the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.63,65,700/- towards seigniorage fee, fine and value of the sand measuring 6430 lorry loads.

2. The petitioner was granted lease in respect of sand quarry in Government poromboke land in S.No.291 and 4 O.A.E measuring to an extent of 10.00.0 hectares in Kanakavallipuram, Tiruvallur Taluk and District. The lease was granted by the District Collector by order dated 10.10.2000 for a period of one year from 15.10.2000 to 14.10.2001. According to the petitioner, in spite of the grant of lease, he was not allowed to do quarrying operations from 7.4.2001, by not issuing transport permits. The petitioner filed W.P.No.10989 of 2001 and this Court by order dated 15.6.2001 directed the authorities to issue transport permit and thereafter transport permit was issued from 7.4.2001 to 23.6.2001. Petitioner's lease was suspended by order dated 16.7.2001, which was also challenged before this Court in W.P.No.13174 of 2001 and this Court granted interim stay on 17.7.2001. The petitioner was permitted to quarry from 21.8.2001 till the expiry of the lease i.e., upto 14.10.2001.

3. Petitioner having been prevented from quarrying for 111 days in toto, approached this Court by filing W.P.No.18629 of 2001 and pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 18.4.2002 petitioner was permitted to quarry for the 111 days by paying 40% over and above the lease amount. The District Collector by his proceedings dated 21.6.203 directed the petitioner to pay Rs.28,63,520/- towards 40% enhanced lease amount, which was also paid by the petitioner.

4. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.95 dated 1.10.2003 and introduced Rule 38A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959, ordering to take over all private quarries by the Government. Therefore the petitioner claims that he is entitled to get refund of the lease amount for the non-quarried period of 34 days and also the security deposit amount. According to the petitioner, Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.585 of 2008 by order dated 29.8.2008 directed the authorities to refund the proportionate lease amount for unexpired period of 34 days, if any, with simple interest at the rate of 6% from 1.10.2003 and refund the same within a period of two months.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent, by order dated 16.4.2010 stated that the petitioner has illegally removed 6,430 lorry loads of sand for which a show cause notice was issued and the petitioner submitted his objection to the show cause notice on 30.3.2010. The said objection was considered along with a report said to have been submitted by the Assistant Director, Geology and Mining, Tiruvallur, dated 9.4.2001. The petitioner is objecting the said order dated 16.4.2010 by contending, either the report of the Tahsildar dated 5.4.2001 or that the report dated 9.4.2001, which is the basis for issuing show cause notice, which were drawn by the Assistant Director (Mines) without issuing notice to the petitioner. The alleged inspections were made not in the presence of the petitioner and the said reports were not served on the petitioner before accepting the said reports as relying the same while passing the impugned order is vitiated as it has caused great prejudice to the petitioner.

6. The respondent has filed counter affidavit wherein no answer is given for the said averment made by the petitioner in the affidavit and only stated that an appeal remedy is available under Section 36-C(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959, before the District Collector, Tiruvallur, and the writ petition is not maintainable.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well are learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent.

8. Copy of the show cause notice dated 4.3.2010 is filed by the respondent in the typed set of papers. In the said show cause notice, the report of the Tahsil