The main legal point established in the judgment is that any person aggrieved by an order of the District Collector under the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 has a right of appeal to the hierarchical authority, as provided in Rule 36-C.

1. Material on record discloses that earlier, the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus in W.P.No.30570 of 2012 directing the respondents 1 to 3 therein, to consider the representation dated 14.09.2012 and not to grant lease to Mr.T.Subramani, the 4th respondent therein, for conducting quarrying operation in S.F.No.172/13 and 172/14 in Thuyampurnthurai Village Erode District. The writ petition has been disposed of on 16.11.2012, directing the District Collector, Erode District, Erode to consider the representation of the petitioners, as well as to provide an opportunity to the 4th respondent therein, to avoid allegations of violation of principles of natural justice and to dispose the same, on merits and in accordance with law, expeditiously.

2. Pursuant to the directions, stated supra, after considering the statements of 13 petitioners and Mr.T.Subramani, the 4th respondent, reports of the authorities and documents, vide order in R.C.No.37611/2013/X-1 dated 31.10.2013, the District Collector, Erode, has rejected the objections of the petitioners to grant of lease. The District Collector, Erode has given various reasons for arriving at his conclusion that the objections and request made by the petitioners in their representation dated 14.09.2012, are not acceptable. Though, while rejecting the representation dated 14.09.2012, the District Collector, Erode District in his order has also made it clear that an alternative appeal remedy is available under rule 36-C(2) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, and an appeal can be made, to the Commissioner, Geology and Mining Department, Chennai, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, the present writ petition has been filed assailing the order on various grounds, without filing an appeal.

3. When the matter came up for admission, by inviting the attention of this Court to Rule 36-C of Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and the operative portion of the order dated 31.10.2013 of the District Collector, Erode, a question was posed to Mr.V.Bharathidasan, learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the appeal, as contemplated under the rules was not preferred, when the statute has prescribed a procedure.

4. In response to the same, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal remedy, provided for, under Rule 36-C, is only with reference to the penalty to be imposed against any person under Rule 36 and that in the abovesaid circumstances, the petitioners are constrained to prefer this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court, deems it fit to extract the relevant portion of the supporting affidavit to this petition.

“10..... we respectfully submit that against the order passed by the 1st respondent rejecting our representation, no appeal lies to the Director of Geology and Mining. As per Rules 36-C(2) only the order passed by the District Collector in exercise of posers conferred on him by the Rules alone is appealable. "

5. The objections of the petitioners are that, they are agriculturists, having lands adjacent to the stone quarry. The earlier license granted to the 4th respondent, was likely to expire and for the reasons stated in the representation dated 14.09.2012, lease need not be renewed.

6. Rule 8 empowers the District Collector for leasing of lands for quarrying minor minerals other than the minerals covered under Rule 8-A and 8-C of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Therefore, the District Collector, has to consider the applications for grant of lease under Rule 8 and while doing so, he has to consider the reports of the competent authorities. There is no restriction in the rule in considering the objections also.

7. As stated supra, the petitioners have submitted a representation dated 14.09.2012, objecting to grant of lease. As the said objections remained unanswered, W.P.No.30570 of 2012, has been filed by them, for a mandamus, directing the respon