JUDGMENT :

(K. Kumaresh Babu, J.)

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order dated 11th day of February 2013 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.14195 of 2002.)

1. The unsuccessful petitioner has approached this Court by an intra Court appeal challenging the order made in W.P.No.14195 of 2002 dated 11.02.2013, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition wherein a declaration was sought to declare the notification inviting offers for grant of granite quarrying lease in respect lands in S.Nos.1/3 and 784/2 of Vadakunadu and Therkunadu Villages of Chinnakalrayan, Attur Taluk, Salem District as issued without the authority of law, non-est and void ab initio and consequently, refund the amount paid towards deposit together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and duly the petitioner on the monetary loss caused to it.

2. The brief facts is that the third respondent by way of notification invited offers for grant of lease to granite quarrying at various places. The appellant herein had submitted its offer in respect lands in S.No.1/3 and 784/2 of Vadakunadu and Therkunadu Villages of Chinnakalrayan, Attur Taluk, Salem District. The appellant was successful and had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,20,000/- towards the lease amount for quarrying black granite. The appellant was also expected to establish a granite polishing factory within the two years from the date of grant of the lease. As the appellant did not establish the factory dispute arose between the parties and the writ petitions were filed before this Court on various aspects. It is relevant to note that the area in question was notified under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882.

3. Heard Mr.Thriyambar J.Kannan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

4. The counsel for the appellant had submitted that the notification itself is illegal, void ab initio as the lands for which the lease has been granted in favour of the appellant has been notified under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 by Notifications dated 25.05.1983 and 17.08.1983. It is his contention that once land had been proposed to be a reserved forest, no activities could be carried out in the land without the permission of the Central Government under Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. No approval has been obtained from the Central Government and hence the State of Tamil Nadu or its Authorities cannot use the said lands for any other non forest purposes. He further contended that the Notification issued by the third respondent Collector is without authority whatsoever. He also relied upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10294 of 2013 dated 21.07.2022 to contend that once a land has been notified under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, then as per provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, particularly, in view of Section 2 of the Act which prohibits any activity, to be carried on without the prior approval of the Central Government. The explanation in respect of non-forest purpose which was permitted that too with such prior approval does not provide for any mining activity. In that scenario, no mining activity pursuant to the lease can be carried out and hence, the first respondent ought to refund the lease amount paid by the appellant and the same cannot be forfeited by them. Hence, he prayed that this court may be pleased to grant the reliefs claimed by it.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the writ petition itself is an afterthought and the appellant cannot be granted with any relief whatsoever. The appellant had participated in the process of tender and was successful. It was the appellant who did not set up the polishing unit within the prescribed time period. For which reason, it had challenged the same and pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court, the ap