1. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the impugned proceedings of the First Respondent/District Collector, Madurai District in Na.Ka. No. 345/2016 mineral, dated 01.08.2016 (published in Madurai District Gazette on 02.08.2016), is an illegal one, besides the same being arbitrary and in breach of violation of fundamental right to livelihood.

2. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the First Respondent/District Collector, Madurai District should have seen that the Petitioner had not enjoyed his entire period of Lease, because of the natural calamities and in fact, there are about 200 loads of stones lying in the quarrying site cut by the Petitioner and the same has to be removed.

3. The stand of the Petitioner is that the impugned proceedings of the First Respondent, dated 01.08.2016 suffers from non application of mind. Also, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeking 'Extension of his Lease period' is pending before this Court. Besides this, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner projects an argument that the Petitioner was not provided with an opportunity before passing of the impugned order, dated 01.08.2016 by the First Respondent/District Collector, Madurai District.

4. The prime plea taken on behalf of the Petitioner before this Court is that he gave a representation before the Respondents on 31.08.2015 to consider his request for extension of lease period viz., for a further period of six months, for which, he had given an undertaking to pay the lease amount fixed by the Respondents and further that the same was not considered by the Respondents. As such, he had filed W.P. (MD) No. 18704 of 2015 before this Court and the same was dismissed as an infructuous one and liberty was given to the Petitioner to challenge the rejection order in the manner known to Law.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner refers to the decision of this Court in District Collector, Namakkal District v. K. Anbarasi, reported in 2001 (4) MLJ 643, at special page 644, wherein it is observed as under:-

“Despite the settle legal position that period of lease for quarrying cannot be extended as there is no rule providing for such extension, the benefit of extension can be provided to the lessee for the un-utilized period of lease on account of an order of suspension of lease.”

6. Also, in the aforesaid decision, he refers to the pages at 649 to 652, at paragraph Nos.19 to 22, it is observed as under:-

“19. In the case of Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2003 (1) SCC 726, the Petitioner applied for sand mining lease in accordance with the policy decision contained in the relevant GO. The Collector granted the said lease to the Petitioner. The lease was executed for a period of one year w.e.f. 3.6.1998. Before the expiry of the term of the lease, the Petitioner sought for a renewal for another period of two years. The Collector granted such extension vide order dated 20.12.2000; the principal consideration for granting such renewal being that the lease, as originally executed, should have been for a minimum period of three years which having not been done and erroneously the lease having been executed for a period of one year, the Petitioner was entitled to such extension for two years. Around the time when the Petitioner was allowed the extension of two years, the Government had taken a decision to hold an auction of the sand mining lease. Respondent 3, a competitor aspirant of the Petitioner, preferred a revision before the State Government against the order of the Collector dated 20.12.2000. The revision was filed after expiry of one year and four months from the date of the order of extension. The State Government condoned the delay in filing the revision on the ground that the revision was filed within the period of limitation calculated from the date of the knowledge of Respondent 3. The issue as to locus standi was also decided in