Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is common, they are disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard Mr. AR.L.Sundararesan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.Muthukumarasamy, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:-

The petitioner is carrying trade in beach mineral mining for the past 25 years and recognising the petitioner's trade, the Government of Tamil Nadu and Government of India awarded many awards. The petitioner is also having 100% export oriented unit as well as special economic zone units. The petitioner has established number of factories in Tirunelveli, Kanyakumari and Tuticorin Districts wherein all the quarried minerals are used in the factories as raw material and the finished products were exported to overseas countries and the petitioner is also earning much needed foreign exchange to the nation. It is further stated that earlier the petitioner submitted mining lease applications before the District Collector many villages in and around, Tirunelveli and Kanyakumari District for mining Garnet, ilmenite, rutile etc., on various dates as follows:-

Sl.No	Name of the Mineral applied	Village S.F.No. Extent applied	Date of application of mining lease
1	Garnet, Ilmenite, Rutile	24/5A etc., Udankudi 2.67.0 hects	01.11.2004
2	Garnet, Ilmenite, Rutile	33/3 etc., Tiruchendur T.K & Village 7.03.0 hects	01.11.2004
3	Garnet, Ilmenite, Rutile	1020/3 etc., Vaippar -1 village, Vilathikulam TK. 4.06.0 hects	22.03.2001
4	Garnet, Ilmenite, Rutile	271/1 etc., Kandasamy Village, Tiruchendur TK & Village 2.93.0 hects	01.11.2004
5	Garnet, Ilmenite, Rutile	973/2 etc., Vaippar 1, Village Vilathikulam Village 3.06.5 hects	28.01.2002
6	Garnet, Ilmenite, Rutile	974/1 etc., Vaippar 1, Village Vilathikulam Village 2.79.5 hects	28.01.2002

4. It is further stated that after receipt of the applications, the District Collector, called for report from the Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officers and also obtained technical report from the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, recommended the proposal for mining lease to the Commissioner of Geology and Mining who is the competent authority in respect of patta lands. The first respondent Commissioner Geology and Mining, after perusing the recommendation of the District Collector, forwarded the proposal submitted by the petitioner to the Government of India for prior approval under Section 5 (1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter called as the 'MMDR Act') through the Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. Since the mineral for which the petitioner sought for permission is listed under Part B of the First schedule of the MMDR Act, the Government of India, after receipt of the applications, returned the application citiing frivolous reasons. Hence, the petitioner has filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P(MD)Nos.6678 to 6685 of 2008. This Court, by an order dated 19.12.2009, directed the Ministry of Mines to consider the proposal for giving approval for grant of mining lease within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Based on that, the State Government resubmitted the proposal. Even thereafter, no order has been passed by the Central Government. Hence, the petitioner filed contempt petitions in Cont. P (MD)Nos.225 to 231 for the non compliance of the orders passed by this Court in the above said writ petitions. Thereafter, the Central Government granted approval to the State Government for grant of mining lease under Section 5(1) of the MMDR Act. Thereafter, the Contempt Petitions were closed recording the approval granted by the Central Government. Based on the approval granted by the Min