The central legal point established is that lease renewal for quarry operations is not automatic and must be pursued through a formal application process as per Rule 19-A, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with the statutory provisions.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

( 2 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the first respondent, dated 30. 07. 2009 by which the permission sought for by the petitioner to grant renewal of lease for black granite granted in patta land in S. F. No. 7/1 over an extent of 0. 30. 0 hectares in Kunnam Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District for the period from 25. 03. 1995 to 11. 05. 2005 to continue quarry operations for a further period of 10 years namely up to 2015 came to be rejected by returning the papers. The writ petition is also filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to grant renewal in respect of the patta land belonging to the petitioner comprised in Survey no. 138/1, R. S. No. 7/1, Kunnam Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District having an extent of 0. 74 acres.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Meena Granite Industries originally, belonged to late A. M. Krishnamurthy who was granted quarry lease in the name of the petitioner in G. O. (3d) No. 57, Industries (MMB1) Department, dated 25. 03. 1995 to quarry black granite in the above extent of land under a registered lease deed, dated 12. 05. 1995 valid for a period of 10 years. It is the case of the petitioner that after the death of the father of the petitioner, he has taken over as it as proprietor. It is the further case of the petitioner that as per the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 which are the Central Rules, the minimum period of quarry lease for granite is 20 years and maximum period is 30 years and the Government of Tamil Nadu has amended Rule 19-A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') in the year 2001 under G. O. Ms. No. 86, Industries Department, dated 27. 02. 2001 granting minimum period for grant of quarry lease as 10 years and providing for right of renewal of the existing leasehold right. It is during the currency of the lease granted in favour of the father of the petitioner, the amendment came into force and according to the petitioner, the amended rule applies. According to the petitioner, by virtue of the amendment, the lease executed in favour of his father which has expired in 2005 is automatically renewed for another 10 years since under the amendment minimum 20 years period has been granted.

( 4 ) IT is the further case of the petitioner that the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 will prevail over the State Rules. The petitioner's father died on 12. 01. 2006. Since at that time the petitioner was not in India, he was not aware of the amendment and immediately after in February 2009, when he came to India, he has applied renewal of lease on 18. 07. 2009 to the first respondent. The said application came to be returned by the first respondent for various reasons.

( 5 ) IT is challenging the said order of re-turn, the writ petition is filed on various grounds that under Rule 19-A, the minimum period of lease is not less than 20 years and maximum 30 years and it is during the pendency of the original lease for 10 years the amendment came into force and therefore, the petitioner was automatically entitled for another 10 years; that the respondents while passing the impugned order have not given reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the order has been passed without proper application of mind; that the land is a private patta land and the Government is only going to get a revenue by seigniorage fees for the mineral blocks to be transported and therefore, by virtue of non renewal of the lease, revenue is affected.

( 6 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the lease granted to the petitioner's father was for quarrying black granite for a period from 12. 05. 1995 to 11. 05. 2005 and after the expiry of the period, the father of the petitioner, A. M. Krishnamoorthy has not applied for rene