The entitlement to claim transport permit for removal of limestone during the subsistence of suspension of mining operation under the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 and Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988.

R. Mahadevan, J.

1. This writ appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned Judge, dated 28.02.2014, passed in W.P(MD)No.8771 of 2010.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred according to their litigative status in the writ petition.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are set out thus:

3.1. The writ petitioner sought for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pass appropriate orders on his application, dated 17.03.2010, to issue transport permit to him for removing the limestone already quarried by him, which is lying from 2009 onwards and also to issue transport permit continuously till the expiry of lease period.

3.2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he is the sole proprietor of D.V.Minerals, at Door No.5/278, Junction Main Road, Salem. In 2001, the writ petitioner was granted the mining lease for 20 years from 2001 to mine limestones in the land comprised in Survey Nos.27/4 part and survey Nos.130, 131/2, 132/1, 132/2 and 133/1 in Palayam Village, Vedasanthur Taluk on 02.03.2001 and 16.07.2001 respectively. The mining lease was granted for the lands owned by his father, Venkataraman and in respect of the said lands, the writ petitioner got surface right based on the consent given by his father. In pursuance of the mining lease granted on 02.03.2001 in respect of S.No.27/4 part and 16.07.2001 in respect of S.Nos.130, 131/2, 131/2, 132/1 132/2 & 133/1 of Palayam village, the lessee entered into a registered lease deed through his power of attorney with the first respondent therein, District Collector.

3.3. During the subsistence of the license and lease, the father of the writ petitioner sold the land in survey No.27/4 to the fourth respondent therein, consequent to which, he filed a suit for permanent injunction against the writ petitioner and his father to restrain them from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit S.Nos.27/4, 26/2, 26/7, 26/8, 132/1, 130, 131/1, 131/2, 132/1, 131/2, 132/2 and for smooth running of his business. In I.A.No.456 of 2008, interim injunction was granted in respect of lands in S.Nos.27/4, 26/6, 26/7 and 26/8 and an order of status quo was granted insofar as the 3rd item i.e., the lands in S.Nos.130, 131/1, 131/2, 132/1, 132/2 and 133, based on which, the writ petitioner and the 4th respondent made separate representations to the authority concerned. Also, the writ petitioner informed the authorities concerned about the cancellation of the Power Attorney. On 20.04.2009, the said representations were disposed of, by recording such cancellation, wherein, it is stated that the license cannot be issued to any other person except the writ petitioner in respect of the lease, which was also communicated to the fourth respondent therein.

3.4. While so, the fourth respondent therein filed W.P.No.9811 of 2008 seeking a writ of Mandamus to forbear the Director of Geology and Mining and the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, from issuing transport permit to the third respondent therein i.e., A.Venkataraman or any other person other than the writ petitioner for transporting limestone from the lease hold lands in the survey numbers which are subject matter of mining lease. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to approach the respondents 1 and 2 therein in this regard. He also filed another writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.2940 of 2009, for directing the respondents 1 and 2 therein, to effect change in the retirement of the respondent No.3 i.e., Mr.V.Prabhu Raj from partnership in quarrying license. The same was dismissed by this Court by directing the petitioner therein, to move the appropriate authority for appropriate remedy. Thereafter, the same 4th respondent filed W.P.(MD)No.4127 of 2009 to issue transfer permit to him to remove limestone quarrying, lying in the patta lands in S.Nos.130, 131/1, 131/2, 132/1, 132 & 133. Pending civil suit, this Court was not inclined to go into the same, how