Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 1702
High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. TAMILVANAN, J.
A. Latha
Versus
The Director of Geology & Mining, Chennai & Others
W.P.No.18572 of 2006
Decided on: 22-04-2013
For the Petitioner:V. Raghavachari, Advocate.
For the Respondents: S. Navaneethan, AGP.
The main legal point established is that belated submission of renewal applications and mining plans can render a writ petition legally unsustainable, and the petitioner may not be entitled to the relief sought.
Headnote:
Certiorari - Mining Lease Renewal - Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 - Rule 16, Rule 17
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought renewal of a mining lease and approval of a mining plan, both of which were submitted belatedly. The court considered whether the petitioner was entitled to relief in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order rejecting the renewal and mining plan.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's applications for renewal and mining plan were submitted after the due date and were rightly rejected. The court held that the petitioner cannot challenge the rejection of the renewal application and is not entitled to seek relief through the writ petition.
Issues: The key issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to relief in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order rejecting the renewal and mining plan.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's belated submission of the renewal application and mining plan rendered the writ petition legally unsustainable, and the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and connected writ petitions were closed with no order as to costs.
1. The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking an order in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 31.03.2006 made in Roc. No.410/2005 (Mines-1) by the second respondent and quash the same.
2. The petitioner has stated in the affidavit that the petitioner was the applicant before the second respondent on 20.03.2006 seeking for approval of mining plan and that was forwarded to the first respondent and he returned the same stating that the plan should have been submitted on or before 28.02.2004, as per Granite Conservation Development Rules, 1999. According to the petitioner, as the application had been submitted belatedly, after the due date, the same could not be considered. The petitioner had sought permission for quarrying the land in Krishnagiri District, on the ground that the lease agreement was executed in his favour on 06.05.1996 for a period of 10 years and the same was expired on 06.05.2006. It was further contended by the petitioner that the lease deed was reckoned from 09.05.1995 i.e. the date of passing of the G.O. 3(D) No.102/IND (E2) dated 02.05.1995, which expired only on 08.05.1995.
3. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not filed any writ petition against the rejection of renewal of lease agreement by the respondents.
4. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had submitted renewal application belatedly, after expiry of the cut off date, hence, the same was rightly rejected. As the petitioner has not filed this writ petition challenging the rejection of the application for renewal of lease agreement, the petitioner is not entitled to raise any plea against the said rejection.
5. The point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned order dated 31.03.2006 made in Roc. No.410/2005 (Mines-1) on the file of the second respondent as prayed for in the writ petition.
6. Learned Additional Government Pleader drew the attention of this Court to the counter, wherein the respondents have stated that the petitioner had submitted the mining plan for the area relating to subject matter on 01.03.2006 for approval. As the mining plan was submitted belatedly by the petitioner, after expiry of the due date, though the same was forwarded to the Director of Geology and Mining for taking appropriate action, the same was rejected vide RC. No.410/05 (Mines-1) dated 03.03.2006, as per the rule 17 of Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 for the existing leases, the approved mining plan had to be submitted on or before 28.02.2004. The petitioner belatedly submitted the mining plan in the year 2006, hence, it was returned by the office of the Director of Geology and Mining in Rc No.2502/MM5/2006 dated 20.03.2006 and in turn the same was sent to the petitioner vide Roc. No.410/05 (Mines-1) dated 31.03.2006 by the second respondent herein.
7. Mr. V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had applied for renewal of the quarry lease agreement on 21.04.2005 and the same was forwarded to the Government through Director of Geology and Mining.
8. In this regard, the learned Additional Government Pleader produced a copy of the registered form of lease for quarrying and carrying away minor minerals, dated 09.05.1995, entered into between the petitioner and the third respondent. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, it is a registered agreement, for a period of lease for ten years and therefore, the period expired on 08.05.2005, as per the agreement.
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein submitted the application, seeking renewal of lease agreement belatedly, after the expiry date and that was a reason for rejecting the request of the petitioner for renewal. Admitte
