Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 1828
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
J.NISHA BANU, J.
K.Rajendran - Petitioner
Vs.
The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai - Respondent
W.P(MD)No.22408 of 2016
Decided On : 05-10-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr.V.Nagendran
For the Respondent:Mr.Muthukannan Government Advocate
In cases of genuine and uncontrollable inability to execute a lease, the court can interfere with lease cancellation and order a refund.
Headnote:
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Quarry Lease - TNMMCR, 1959 - Rule 8(7)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner won a quarry lease bid but was unable to execute the lease due to serious illness and sought a refund. The respondent cancelled the lease and forfeited the amount. The petitioner approached the court seeking relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner's illness to be genuine and beyond his control, warranting writ interference. It held that the petitioner's inability to execute the lease due to health reasons was bona fide and ordered the refund of the lease amount.
Issues: Validity of lease cancellation, forfeiture of lease amount, petitioner's genuine inability to execute the lease, availability of alternate remedy
Ratio Decidendi: In empathetic cases, delay can be condoned, and justice served better. The court can interfere with the lease cancellation and order a refund if the petitioner's inability to execute the lease is genuine and beyond his control.
Final Decision: The impugned order of lease cancellation and forfeiture was set aside, and the respondent was directed to refund the lease amount paid by the petitioner after deducting the earnest deposit money for the tender within a period of 4 weeks.
This writ petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in R.C.No.657/2010-Mines dated 04.05.2013 passed by the respondent quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to refund of the lease amount of Rs.45,00,000/- paid by the petitioner in respect of the rough stone and jelly quarry lease in government land in S.F.No.352(2)(part- I) of Sokkampatti Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.
2. The petitioner submits that as per the extra ordinary District Gazette Notification No.40 dated 25.10.2010 issued by the respondent, he had applied for stone quarries in Madurai District under Tender cum Auction in terms of Rule 8(1) of TNMMCR, 1959. That he was the successful bidder for the quarry site in S.F.No.352(2) (Part-1) of Sokkampatti Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District for a bid amount of Rs.45,00,000/-
3. The petitioner submits that he had remitted the bid amount of Rs.45.00.000/- and quarry permission was granted for a period of 5 years vide the respondents Proceedings in Roc.No.657/2010-Mines dated 16.12.2010. In the meantime, the petitioner was diagnosed with kidney problems and had to undergo biweekly dialysis on the advice of the doctors. The petitioner submits that the bid amount of Rs.45,00,000/- was not his own funds and was borrowed from friends and relatives.
4. The petitioner submits that he received a letter dated 02.02.2011 from the respondent requesting him to execute the lease deed within a week’s time. The fact of his indisposition and the dialysis treatment at Madurai Meenakshi Hospital and his inability to execute the lease deed was represented to the respondent vide his letters dated 02.02.2011, 04.04.2011, 26.09.2011, 30.04.2012 and 17.12.2012 with a request to return the lease amount.
5. The petitioner submits that the respondents without considering his representation, vide an order dated 04.05.2013, cancelled the lease and forfeited the lease amount of Rs.45,00,000/- to the State Government in terms of TNMMCR, 1959. The petitioner submits that he is put to great hardship and irreparable loss by the above decision of the respondent. He submits that the health problem was unforeseen and that the respondent failed to take note of his inability to execute the lease owing to his precarious circumstances.
6. The petitioner submits that he has three girl children in the age group of 16 and 24 and he could not follow up or participate in the proceedings owing to his indisposition and he is seeking remedy before this Hon’ble court after the original order of cancellation was made available to him in the first week of November, 2016.
7. The petitioner submits that the respondent erred in not considering the representations regarding his health and family conditions. It was contended that even if forfeiture is provided under the statutes, it should be made only in respect of the earnest money only and not the entire lease amount and that the principles of natural justice suffered in his case. It was also mentioned that the inability of the petitioner to execute the lease was communicated to the respondent at the earliest point of time and sought relief.
8. The respondent avers that the impugned order of cancellation and forfeiture was passed under proper authority of law and in terms of para 10 of the tender Notification and prayed to dismiss the petition on the grounds of latches and availability of alternate remedy. It was averred that the respondent had no discretion to consider the representations of the petitioner. It was contended that the act of the delayed request of refund by the petitioner cause huge revenue loss to the exchequer. It was further averred that the principles of natural justice was duly followed and resisted the grounds of the petitioner made on account of health and family situations. It was averred that the proceedings was done strictly in accordance with Rule 8(7) of the TNMMCR, 1959
