Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
G. Parameswari - Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai & Another - Respondent
WP No. 23248 of 2016 & WMP No. 19941 of 2016
Decided On : 03-01-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ of Declaration, declaring that proportionate lease amount and proportionate enhanced lease amount as illegal - Petitioner states that it was a virgin quarry leased out in favour of petitioner and therefore, after expiry of lease period of five years, an extension must be granted to petitioner - Respondents approached this Court for vacating interim order and said order was modified stating that petitioner has to pay 50% in addition to that of lease amount for purpose of continuing quarry - By virtue of interim order, petitioner continued quarrying operations in subject location - While modifying interim order, Division Bench of this Court made it very clear that District Collector will receive amount from petitioner without prejudice to rights of State and their submission, that petitioners have no right for running quarrying activity - State was all along fighting on ground that petitioners are not entitled for renewal of lease and such renewal was not granted and by virtue of an interim order, petitioner was continuing quarry operation for about two years and two months – Held, State may also raise a ground that if at all no interim order was granted, then State would have earned much more revenue than that of 50% additional amount granted by High Court by way of an interim order - Such a ground is also certainly possible and is to be considered and either of parties may say so - Fact remains that petitioner continued quarrying operations only by virtue of an interim order and by paying 50% additional amount over and above original lease amount - A balancing approach is required - Petitioner has paid 50% additional amount over and above original lease amount and equally in event of conducting an auction, State would have gained much more revenue than that of 50% additional amount deposited by petitioner - High Court cannot go into an adjudication of such nature of disputes, in absence of any specific terms and conditions in this regard - When there is no agreed terms and conditions for refund of additional amount, Government need not refund amount and refund of amount can be made only if there is a clause in terms and conditions of agreement but not otherwise - Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the proportionate lease amount and the proportionate enhanced lease amount totalling to Rs.1,13,05,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirteen Lakhs and Five Thousand only), withheld by the first respondent, representing the non operated period of two years and ten months pertaining to the stone quarry measuring 5.00.0 Hectares, comprised in S.No.99, Quarry No.12, situated in Keerapakkam Village, (Malai Poromboke), Chengalpat Taluk, Kancheepuram District, as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to refund the said sum of Rs.1,13,05,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirteen Lakhs and Five Thousand only), together with interest of Rs.2,10,99,210/- (Rupees Two Crores Ten Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Ten only), calculated at 24% per annum calculated from the respective dates of payment till 30.06.2016, totalling to Rs.3,24,10,210 /- (Three Crores Twenty Four Lakhs Ten Thousand Two Hundred and Ten only) and to pay further interest @ 24% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,13,05,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirteen Lakhs and Five Thousand only), from 01.07.2016 to till the date of re-payment.
The writ of declaration is filed to declare that the proportionate lease amount and the proportionate enhanced lease amount totalling to Rs.1,13,05,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirteen Lakhs and Five Thousand only), withheld by the first respondent, representing the non-operated period of two years and ten months pertaining to the stone quarry measuring 5.00.0 Hectares, comprised in Survey No.99, Quarry No.12, situated in Keerapakkam Village, (Malai Poromboke), Chengalpat Taluk, Kancheepuram District, as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to refund the said amount with interest.
2. The petitioner states that she was the successful bidder in respect of stone quarry measuring 5.00.0 hectares, comprised in Survey No.99, Quarry No.12, situated in Keerapakkam Village, Chenglepet Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The bid amount for the said quarry for a period of five years was Rs.1,33,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Three Lakhs only).
3. The lease agreement was executed on 19.02.2003 and was duly registered. Admittedly, the period of lease was for five years commencing from 20.02.2003 to 19.02.2008.
4. The petitioner further states that it was a virgin quarry leased out in favour of the petitioner and therefore, after expiry of the lease period of five years, an extension must be granted to the petitioner.
5. In view of the fact that the respondents declined to extend the lease period, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP No.3557 of 2008 and an interim order of injunction was granted on condition to deposit 20% in addition over and above the original lease amount determined and the petitioner was permitted to continue the quarry after the expiry of five years of lease period.
6. The respondents have approached this Court for vacating the interim order and the said order was modified stating that the petitioner has to pay 50% in addition to that of the lease amount for the purpose of continuing the quarry. By virtue of the interim order, the petitioner continued the quarrying operations in the subject location.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner has paid for the another period of five years from the date of expiry of the original lease i.e., on 19.02.2008. When the petitioner has paid the lease amount for five years, she was not permitted to continue her quarrying operations for a period of two years and ten months. Thus, the amount deposited must be proportionately refunded with reference to the non-operational period as the deposit was made for five years quarry.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the refund was not the subject matter in the earlier writ petition. The issue adjudicated in the earlier writ petition was
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
