The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court may allow an extension of the lease period for unutilized periods due to the suspension of quarrying operations, especially when the suspension was not due to the fault of the lessees.

(THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE & T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)

1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the appeal and the writ petition, they have been heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. W.A.Nos.1018 & 1019 of 2010 arises out of a common order passed in W.P.Nos. 15846 & 15847 of 2008, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondent-appellant to extend the lease of quarry in respect of the land in question.

3. W.P.No.15846 of 2008 was filed seeking a direction upon the respondent-appellant to extend the lease of quarry in S.F.No.1 (Bit 1) admeasuring 4.90.0 hectare in Kondamanaikenpatti Village, Namakkal Taluk for a period of 283 days from 18.9.2008, which is the date of expiry of the existing lease executed in favour of the writ petitioner.

4. A similar relief was claimed in W.P.No.15847 of 2008 seeking a direction for extension of lease of quarry in S.F.No.II (Bit 2) admeasuring 1.25.0 hectares in Kondamanaickenpatti Village, Namakkal Taluk for a period of 283 days from 18.9.2008.

5. It appears that pursuant to the tender notice issued by the appellant under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, the petitioner beings the successful bidders were granted quarry lease for a period of five years from 19.9.2003 to 18.09.2008. By proceeding dated 11.7.2005, the respondent-appellant issued the order of suspension to quarry until the leasehold lands are surveyed and demarcated. The petitioners challenged the said order by filing writ petition being W.P.No.23972 of 2005 and W.P.No.23971 of 2005. The said writ petitions were disposed of on 8.8.2005 directing the respondent-appellant to measure and handover the property, which has been leased out to them, within a period of three weeks. It was, further, observed that the extension of such period has to be considered on account of suspension of the lease period. After the aforesaid direction, the lands were measured on 24.8.2005 and the report was submitted by the respondent-appellant. The respondent -appellant then issued a show cause notice on 2.9.2005 pointing out certain defects. The petitioners replied to the said notice and thereafter, an enquiry was conducted, but no order was issued. The writ petitioners thereafter again filed writ petitions being W.P.Nos.34567 and 34568 of 2005 for a mandamus directing the respondent to pass final orders on the show cause notice. The said writ petitions were disposed of on 26.10.2005 directing the respondents to pass final orders within two weeks. In spite of the aforesaid direction, no orders were passed and again the petitioners moved this Court by filing W.P. Nos. 1207 and 1208 of 2006 for quashing the order dated 11.7.2005. It was only thereafter the petitioners were allowed to carry on mining operation on 20.04.2006.

6. On these facts, the petitioners moved this Court by filing the aforementioned writ petitions being W.P. Nos. 15846 & 15847 of 2008 seeking for a direction to the respondent-appellant to extend the period of 283 days, since the petitioners could not carry on the mining operations from 11.7.2005 to 20.04.2006. The contention of the petitioners was that the lease have been granted for a period of five years from 19.9.2003 to 18.9.2008, but by virtue of the order of suspension dated 11.7.2005, the petitioners could not carry on the mining operation, and finally after filing several writ petitions, they have been permitted to quarry only on 20.4.2006. Thus, according to the petitioners, from 11.7.2005 to 20.04.2006 i.e., for 283 days, the petitioners could not quarry on the said land, because of the order of suspension. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to extension of lease for the period of 283 days.

7. The only issue therefore in the writ petition was as to whether the petitioners-lessees could be granted quarrying operation for 283 days, which could not be utilized by them in view of the order of suspension passed by the respondent-app