1. Heard Mr. M. Venkatachalapathy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manishankar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 to 5.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the following relief,

To issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 3rd respondent dated 21.05.2012 made in Roc.148/2012/Mines-2 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from in any way interfering with the quarrying operation in respect of ryothwari land situated at Attakurikki Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, measuring to an extent of 1.01.0 Hectare in Survey No.172/1A(p).

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

The petitioner is a proprietary concern involved in the business of mining black granite for several years. The petitioner taken a lease of land comprised in Survey No.172/1A(Part), which is classified as Ryothwari land situated at Attakurikki Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, measuring to an extent of 1.01.0 Hectare, for the purpose of mining black granite. The Government passed G.O. (3D) No.90, Ind. (MME.2) Department, dated 27.12.2007, for grant of lease of the said land in favour of the petitioner. In pursuance thereof, a lease deed was also executed for a period of 20 years commencing from 04.02.2008 to 03.02.2028 through a registered Document No.529 of 2008, on the file of the Office of the Sub Registrar, Shoolangiri. Number of conditions have been laid on in respect of the lease agreement and field map was enclosed along with the lease deed, indicating the area to be subjected for mining operation.

4. According to the petitioner, he had made huge investments while taking the mining lease for the purpose of establishing Office, purchase of machineries and also recruitment of nearly 100 employees for carrying on the quarrying operation. According to the petitioner, the usual procedure followed for removal of quarried stone tablet was that for every granite stone tablets which were quarried, at the request of the purchaser, the authority had to take the measurements of those tablets and make entries thereof in a register called Measurement Register. Thereafter, the petitioner was required to pay the charges for removal of those quarried granite stone tablets. After obtaining necessary transport permit for moving the stone tablet from the quarried site and sold to the prospective purchasers. The fifth respondent is the authority to carryout the inspection and grant permit for removal of the granite stone tablets.

5. While so, on 24.06.2011, the fifth respondent appeared to have made inspection in the quarrying site and took measurement of quarried stone tablet and according to the petitioner, the fifth respondent had taken a wrong measurement deliberately in order to create reasons for cancellation of the lease permit. This action of the fifth respondent was questioned by the petitioner. However, the petitioner was warned that any complaint in that regard would entail cancellation of the lease. However, a complaint was forwarded to respondent Nos. 1 to 3, by the letter of the petitioner on 07.01.2012. When an inspection took place on 24.06.2011, the petitioner was also verbally informed by the authority concerned, not to quarry any further.

6. In the above said circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.2409 of 2012, seeking direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to appoint a competent Officer to conduct spot inspection of the mining operation and take measurement of the granite stone tablets and also make necessary entries in the register. A counter affidavit also filed in the said writ proceedings on behalf of the respondents. After hearing the submissions of the parties, this Court disposed of the writ petition on 28.02.2012, by giving the following directions.

"4. In paragraph 10 of the said counter affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner had not applied for the issuance of transport permi