ORDER :

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent relating to G.O. (D) No. 452, Industries (MMC-1) Department, dated 8.12.2009 confirming the order of the second respondent in Rc. No. 8857/MM5/2007 dated 2.6.2008 and the order of the 3rd respondent in Roc. M3/94816/03 dated 20.07.2004, quash the same and direct the 3rd respondent to refund the proportionate lease amount for the unexpired period of lease i.e. one year and two months (from 1.10.2003 to 26.11.2004) with interest from 1.10.2003, and return the Security deposit furnished in the form of KVP in respect of the leasehold area of the petitioner in S.F. No. 115 (Part-II) of Kansapuram Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

1. The petitioner is deceased as on date and is represented by his legal heirs who have been impleaded pending writ petition. The petitioner is a successful applicant to the tender application for grant of lease for quarrying of land. He had been allocated land admeasuring 10.00.0 hectares in S.F. Nos. 115 (Part-II) in Kansapuram Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District for a period of three years. The period of licence is 27.11.2001 to 26.11.2004.

2. During the tenure of lease, Rule 38A came to be inserted as part of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (in short ‘1959 Rules’). This Rule, recognizing the damage caused to the environment by virtue of unbridled, unfettered and uncontrolled quarrying of sand, directed that the permission/lease granted in ryotwari land for quarrying of sand shall cease to be effective on and from the date of coming into force of the Rule. To be noted, the effective date was 3.10.2003. The Rule further stipulates that the proportionate lease amount for unexpired period of lease and unadjusted seigniorage fee, if any, shall be refunded to the lease holder.

3. The Rule was subject-matter of challenge before a learned Single Judge, who had granted an interim direction in favour of the lease holders. As against the interim direction, the State of Tamil Nadu filed Writ Appeals, at which juncture, the First Bench of this Court called to its file the writ petitions that were pending on this score as well.

4. A consolidated order was passed in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and Another vs. P. Krishnamoorthy and Others, 2004 (3) LW 738 upholding the constitutionality of the Rule. Since the lis in this case relates to the prayer of refunding the licence fee for the unexpired period of lease, the relevant observations of the Division Bench on this count are extracted below:

“3. The respective District Collectors shall issue notices to the petitioners with regard to the mining leases where there is an allegation of infraction of environmental laws and if there is a contest, then hold an enquiry by affording opportunity to them and then pass orders basing on the material on record. The above exercise shall be made by the District Collector within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and until then, the status quo with regard to mining operations as obtained on this day, shall be maintained.”

5. To be noted that, the State had filed further appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and Another vs. P. Krishnamurthy and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 517, the decision of the Division Bench was modified marginally. Paragraphs 36 and 37 of the judgment of the Supreme relevant and extracted below:

“36. In regard to mining leases subsisting as on 2.10.2003, we have read down Rule 38-A as terminating such leases in terms of the contract (lease deeds) by six months, without assigning cause and without any liability to pay compensation. Such of those writ petitioners (the respondents herein) whose leases were subsisting on 2.10.2003 (and whose activities were stopped with effect from that day) will be entitled to carry on the quarry